UK authorities forcibly removed baby from Italian’s womb

facelift

americanwoman
reply to post by Bassago

 

Yet you can have an "abortion" up until the moment of birth.

WTF..?!


Where can you do this...? Or did you just speak out of your ass..?


OP:

Some actions illicit reactions...others demand scrutiny.

Only when the Fetus is "badly damaged" and the process of Birth
is a high Danger for the Mother!

It happen but not that often.

The whole Process is regulated and you need to see this Regulation
in your Country.

@Topic:
difficult to think about it when we have only the News-Report
but not the File from the SS.,
i doubt that they (the SS.) want to harm Mother & Child!

Have you ever become so upset you almost wanted to vomit? Yeah, that's what this post has done. Disgustingly perverse. I read somewhere that the UK has one some of the highest numbers of human trafficking. Human Trafficking Stats

From the Telegram article it says:

Staying at an airport hotel, she had something of a panic attack when she couldn’t find the passports for her two daughters, who were with her mother back in Italy. She called the police, who arrived at her room when she was on the phone to her mother. The police asked to speak to the grandmother, who explained that her daughter was probably over-excited because she suffered from a “bipolar” condition and hadn’t been taking her medication to calm her down.

So the police listened to a voice over a phone???? This whole thing is fishy!

She wasn't taking her medicine due to her pregnancy, she is obviously borderline, or she wouldn't be holding down a job and panicked over not finding the passports, NORMAL. Grew up with family and some have panic attacks, fit kiniptichins when you can't find something, family arguments. Some people are slow and steady types, but some people are high speed, high strung types, we have both in our family, and anxiety runs a bit there too. God makes all types of people, he makes people different, doing different things. The slow and steady cannot handle things fly of the moment, the way the others can, but all coins have heads and tails.

People are NOT bland robotic types, nor should they ever be, or homoginzed.

And they just stole and possibly trafficked her baby. And that crucial period in the beginning is the bonding stage, when she wins her child back it will have separation anxiety and 80% chance of psychopathy.

The most telling sign of our times, and they had better hit back strong and ask for immediate return of baby so as to mitigate the anxiety separation which is really really serious, all jeuvies have that stamped on their files, I've been told from victims assistance counselors years ago, this is very serious. Mom and Baby need to be bonding beautifully right off the batt!

This is evil beyond.

newsinfo.inquirer.net...

“I have never heard of anything like this in all my 40 years in the job,” her lawyer, Brendan Fleming, told The Sunday Telegraph.

Never heard of anything like this! That says alot.

By the way, not taking medicine with side effects while you're pregnant, which was nearly over, is the RIGHT THING TO DO, RESPONSIBLE, to not harm unborn child, and her pregnancy almost over, holding down a job.

The mental reasoning abilities of the police and the ministry worker, or whoever OK'd this is in question. They're not qualified to make decisions or keep their jobs and need to be fired from any responsible public position, something wrong their mental conditions and logic.

Bassago


I guess the answer to your question depends on the nature of the "breakdown." If she was acting psychotic and homicidal then the safety of the child was in question and the actions justified.

Since the article doesn't elaborate it makes it impossible to say. Is there any additional information on this?

That immediatly what I thought.

This although extreme could have saved both mother and baby.

If she was psychotic then the stess could have killed them both alone.

Damed if they do damed if they dont really.

reply to post by crazyewok


I will repeat, anxiety attack, no psychosis. And her lawyer, in 40 years of service had never seen anything like this. That makes assessment of this a little easier.

If the woman wasn't already "unstable", imagine how stable she must be after going through such a nightmarish event and STILL not getting her baby back!

I'm imagining.. she was quite traumatized by being held for so many weeks over something so benign as a panic attack. If someone were detaining me for THAT long, being heavily pregnant, with my other children in another country... I would probably not be the most "stable" person by that point either. Her state probably worsened as time passed.

They robbed her of her freedom by detaining her.
They robbed her of her choice in her own birth plan by forcing a cesarean on her.
They kept her from her older children.
They robbed her of crucial bonding time with her child.
And to top it off, they are putting the child up for adoption.

I can't think of any story I have heard that is as disgusting and horrible as this one. My heart breaks for this woman.

There is nothing sick about this. No one is looking into the details and not many are given.

The woman had flown into Britain in 2012 for a two-week Ryanair training course at Stansted airport north of London when she suffered a panic attack, which her family believed was due to her failure to take medicine for a bipolar condition, the newspaper said.

If you commit suicide you kill the baby. They did in fact act in the best interest of the child. She doesn't have the right to murder.

This case has been raised in Parliament by the local MP, so it does appear that there are some quarters who believe that the Social Services may have a case to answer for over-reacting or overstepping their powers.

Without knowing the full facts though, it would be premature to leap to conclusions for declare this a "Nazi" state...

Unity_99
reply to post by crazyewok

 

I will repeat, anxiety attack, no psychosis. And her lawyer, in 40 years of service had never seen anything like this. That makes assessment of this a little easier.

You might want to look up "Schizoaffective Bipolar Disorder". Her lawyer isn't a Psychologist. Bipolar Disorder and Psychosis can present with Anxiety. In the new DSM V it is being revised to only be a diagnoses when more then one period of Psychosis has taken place. Right now it's being misused when only one has taken place. Also Psychosis isn't just seeing and hearing things. It falls under being delusional or holding a delusional belief.

A lot more to this then anyone is even looking at before they state an opinion. How can anyone have an opinion when we know nothing about this woman?

Downright disgusting!! The poor woman was only in the country 2 weeks and in that time she lost her baby to Social Services, who for the life of me I cannot see how they can claim jurisdiction over an Italian citizen. Plus they wouldn't even let the baby go to the USA to live with her ex husband's sister who at least was family, nope instead they put the tot with total strangers.

In all my years as a solicitor I've never heard of such a thing happening. I've seen girls in prison treated better than that! At least there they wait until the baby is born naturally not steal it away whilst unconscious and sedated!

Pimpintology

Unity_99
reply to post by crazyewok

 

I will repeat, anxiety attack, no psychosis. And her lawyer, in 40 years of service had never seen anything like this. That makes assessment of this a little easier.

You might want to look up "Schizoaffective Bipolar Disorder". Her lawyer isn't a Psychologist. Bipolar Disorder and Psychosis can present with Anxiety. In the new DSM V it is being revised to only be a diagnoses when more then one period of Psychosis has taken place.

How do you know that it was Schizoaffective Bipolar Disorder and not another less severe type? Have a source that says so?

Everything I have seen so far only mentions that there is a bipolar condition at play, but doesn't specify which of the several types it was.

Regarding the forced ceasarian section, we need more details, or the other side of the story. Maybe the baby was seriously endangered somehow, in which case it could be justified.

But how the hell can Britain put an Italian baby for adoption? They have no jurisdiction and no right to hold the baby in UK.

Here in America we are one of the most over depressed and over medicated nation, still I have never hear of anybody been kidnaped and held captive then on top of that have their fetus taken from the womb, yet. (I could be mistaken).

But if our nation starts to tag women that do not take anti depressants for their depressed conditions during pregnancy as a danger to their unborn child during pregnancy, I guess we will have to have hospitals dedicated just for the purpose of holding pregnant women under antidepressant until their can steal their fetus out of the womb.

Thinking about a future like this is just incredible, and anybody that agree with something like this needs medical supervision also.

Unity_99
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Having a panic attack is not psychotic. She is holding down a job after all. They have no business taking her child.

She reports an anxiety attack, which alone is not sufficient to be detained. A "psychotic episode" refers to any break with reality, so an anxiety attack could conceivably lead to (or indicate the beginning of) a psychotic episode.

This article is also quite informative if you are aware of the roles and requirements of section 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 - s 2 is an initial assessment section that lasts for 28 days, while s 3 is the longer term treatment section that can last for up to 6 months in the first instance. As someone presumably unknown to mental health services at the time, it seems quite likely that the woman would have been initially detained under s 2. Anyone detained under s 2 has the right to an independent court hearing within 7 days.

According to the various articles, the woman was detained under for 5 weeks. Provided this is accurate, we can infer the following:

• The woman was unwell enough - and displayed sufficient level of risk to herself or others - that two doctors were both convinced that it was necessary for them to legally detain her in hospital. This was almost certainly under section 2 of the MHA.
  
• It is almost certain that a tribunal would have been held. The independent panel were also convinced by the evidence that her detention was necessary in the circumstances. This is even more certain if it had become a "lack of capacity" case.
  
• The woman remained unwell enough (including displaying risks) that, when the s 2 detention expired after 28 days, the doctors were still convinced that she met the legal test for continuing detention under s 3.
  

So, this was not a woman who just had an "anxiety attack". Yes, people do sometimes get brought in under section 2 for something that doesn't really require detention, but being there 5 weeks would involve a total of 4 separate psychiatric assessments and (almost certainly) an independent review by a panel involving another psychiatrist and a judge. If she was there for 5 weeks, she really was not well.

Why take the baby? In the circumstances I can understand why social services were involved. A risk had been identified and they would have been under a duty to intervene in some way. It is quite common for children to be moved into foster care when there is a lone parent brought in under section, though often this is temporary until another family member is available or the parent is considered to be stable and ready to resume the responsibility.

Why c-section?

It is not uncommon for social services to determine that they will take a child at birth and they usually encourage a c-section to make this easier - they will know the exact date and time to be there when a c-section is scheduled. They cannot force it, but they can encourage it.

The c-section can be done without the mother's consent if it is necessary to take immediate action to save a life (though the focus is actually on saving the life of the mother rather than the child).

Why now? That is the interesting thing here.

The pregnancy itself did not seem to pose any immediate risk to life - the mother wasn't even on the labour ward and if the social services had time to go to court this clearly wasn't a response to an immediate danger.

I would guess that SocSer would have argued that (i) mother lacked capacity to agree to a c-section, and (ii) in the circumstances there was a risk to both mother and baby as the mother was likely to physically resist having the baby removed if it progressed to natural birth, so (iii) the only safe way to fulfill their duty was for a court-ordered c-section.

Pimpintology

A lot more to this then anyone is even looking at before they state an opinion. How can anyone have an opinion when we know nothing about this woman?

We know she had been in hospital for 5 weeks at the time of the c-section. Lawyers might not know psychology, but we do know what it takes to keep someone in hospital for that long. You can build a surprisingly good picture, in fact.

The whole issue of the baby still being held by UK SocSer is another matter though. I do not deal with that aspect of law so I could not comment usefully on it. It feels wrong, though.

reply to post by EvillerBob


Disagree, I had panic attacks that lasted two years, many trips to the emergency room with blood pressure during the attacks at 189 over 110, never was prescribed any medications for it and the ones recommended I didn't agree with them, is been now about 4 years since my last panic attack, never got any other problems but the anxiety, I am doing fine just on my own with alternative medicine.

So no, panic attacks do not necessarily give hart attacks and neither get you to lose your mind.

reply to post by justwokeup

Its not conspiracy, its just what happens when 'protect thy arse' becomes the overriding ethos of a complicated and dysfunctional bureaucracy.

There is definitely more than just an element of this involved.

After the public outcry over the Victoria Climbie and Baby Peter cases the 'cover your arse at all costs' attitude is rampant within the Social Services.

If it's true that this woman suffered a panic attack due to her failure to take prescribed medication for a bipolar problem then the relevant bodies - qualified Doctors and Social Workers etc - may have had some reason to believe there was a chance the woman would take her own life and by extension put the life of the unborn at risk too.
Granted it's an if, and there is some evidence to suggest that this is the case, but if this is true then they would examine every possible option whilst ensuring the baby's well being.

Both are alive - either one or both might not have been.
Imagine the headlines then.

It's truly scary and utterly horrific what they have done to that poor woman. We all know that medication for bipolar is dangerous to a foetus in utero, she was obviously doing her best, she had a panic attack over some lost passports...that is all!!! My God what is this world coming to, yet they don't remove the ones that are being abused, saying that the kids are lying. I have first hand experience as I went through it as a child, which lasted for 38 years before I could break free. And that was with a foster family who were cruel, manipulative soul destroyers, after being removed once from a situation with my father that landed me in intensive care covered in fractures at 6 weeks old. Yet he was given unsupervised access for 2 1/2 years after to carry on abusing me. Social services wouldn't know abuse if it smacked them in the face, yet they remove perfectly well looked after children for the smallest detail, and in this case a panic attack of a woman with a bipolar label. Seriously? They need to give her her beautiful daughter back...I hate to hear about this kind of situation, what they did to her was against any human rights, her having bipolar isn't an excuse, my friend has bipolar and I would trust her with my life!!!!

A foetus has no rights as an individual in the uk, you can not be forced into anti natal care, or prosecuted for taking drugs while expecting, so from that I would assume that the women had some type of illness that was threatening her life and could be solved by giving birth.

That could then be construed as she lacked capacity to make an informed decision, giving ss the upper hand.

I have worked for ss and been on the other side, it seems to me, the more intelligent a mother is, the more they expect, I have seen cases where abused children have been left to suffer, while children whos mothers are struggling but loving have been harassed, pressured even taken to court for custody, because ss expected more given their level of intellect, iq does not equal ability.

ss are pretty dreadful, but I do know someone who used to have to decide these cases and he told me many stories about neglect and abuse put before him by social workers, which indicated that although the mother didn't undertake mothering in the manner expected of them, they were not abusive nor neglectful, he only ever ordered a child removed when it was clear they were in danger. he also told me that many judges felt as he did.

Either the system is even more corrupt and government focused than I could ever imagine, or there is a lot more to this story. I have never come across a newspaper article that accurately reported the facts.