This is TERRIBLE

[Ian]

I know this is nothing to do with anything we post on this site, but I find this frightening, disgusting and utterly repugnant. No wonder the government wants control over the press.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517144/Explain-snatched-baby-girl-birth-Judges-order-social-workers-forced-caesarean.html

[F1fanaticBD]

That is just wrong, simply wrong. No one should be allowed to do such things. One might argue on the Caesarian section on medical ground, but putting up the baby for adoption when the mother is holding a job, is simply horrendous.

I know it may not be relevant to our site, but awareness is never a bad thing anywhere. Thank Ian for posting it. 

[Jericoke]

Without knowing all the facts, I find it difficult to decide if this is terrible or not.

If the woman is truly incapable of being a mother, then the child certainly should be placed with family that will take proper care.

I can appreciate that the people making these decisions require  a certain degree of anonymity.  While the decisions should be public, I can't say I would want to be that person... nor can I say I'd trust anyone willing to make these decisions under public scrutiny.  This was literally an instance for the Wisdom of Solomon, and quite frankly, there's only been one King Solomon in all of history, and he's not sitting on this secret court.

The surgery was wrong, but again, without the facts, we don't know if the woman was endangering herself or the baby.  If this was an open hearing, then we'd necessarily know exactly how dangerous she was being (or not).  Is that fair to print her metnal condition on the front page of the tabloids?  Or are we supposed to only know who made the decision without knowing any of the facts?

The father and child have rights which also must be protected.  It's a tragedy that some people's rights trump other people's, but it happens.

[Ian]

Bi-polar is perfectly manageable Jeri, the fact of the matter is that there is far too much of this sort of thing going on in the UK. Some years ago social workers took all of the kids off of a Scottish island (?) on the 'charge' of child abuse, the police examiner could find no trace of abuse at all, but it took the parents ages to get their kids back.

[Jericoke]

Bi-polar is perfectly manageable Jeri, the fact of the matter is that there is far too much of this sort of thing going on in the UK. Some years ago social workers took all of the kids off of a Scottish island (?) on the 'charge' of child abuse, the police examiner could find no trace of abuse at all, but it took the parents ages to get their kids back.

That's what I mean when I say I need more facts 

In this context it sounds like enthusiastic people trying to prove that they do an important job. Nothing quite as dangerous as a public servant in fear for their job.

[John S]

Ian the authorities must act in the interest of the child, born or unborn, and the mothers rights come secondary, that's just how it has to be for proper child protection.

Funny how this so called top judge wants answers now from the social workers, it's not them who granted the permission to carry out the caesarean or gave authorisation to put the child forward for adoption; but rather some of his own judicial colleagues and medical practionners. Maybe he should be examining what took place in his courtrooms before seeking to be populist with knee jerk reactions.

The court of protection proceedings are secret to protect identities of vulnerable children, the powers obviously can sometimes be misused - like in any legal process. However if the judge at the top of the system can't look at what's happened here without pontificating publically there is something wrong with his court system. 

I re-iterate the welfare of the child is everything in these matters, can't be any other way.



   

[Jericoke]

Ian the authorities must act in the interest of the child, born or unborn, and the mothers rights come secondary, that's just how it has to be for proper child protection.

Funny how this so called top judge wants answers now from the social workers, it's not them who granted the permission to carry out the caesarean or gave authorisation to put the child forward for adoption; but rather some of his own judicial colleagues and medical practionners. Maybe he should be examining what took place in his courtrooms before seeking to be populist with knee jerk reactions.

The court of protection proceedings are secret to protect identities of vulnerable children, the powers obviously can sometimes be misused - like in any legal process. However if the judge at the top of the system can't look at what's happened here without pontificating publically there is something wrong with his court system. 

I re-iterate the welfare of the child is everything in these matters, can't be any other way.



 

I agree with you John, but there simply isn't enough information available to decide if cutting open a human being against their will was the right course of action.

I have a feeling that the journalist is pushing an agenda, truth be damned.

But if the story is true, and those are all the facts the journalist has available... that's pretty shady.  A doctor cannot be expected to just 'follow orders'.  Can they?

[Scott]

For me the question isn't really if they should have given her the forced caesarean (like Jeri and John said, there could well have been a very good reason to force the caesarean on her for the child's protection), but why they decided to not place the newborn with the woman's ex-husband or her parents, who were taking care of her other two children (they are after all the maternal grandparents, who, as long as they are willing should always be considered first guardianship before foster care).  It seems to me that the horror is to remove the child from what appear to be stable family members. 

[lkjohnson1950]

If I were the Italian Government, I would be strongly protesting such treatment of an Italian citizen. Not sure how Italy confers citizenship, but if the mother was an American, the child would be an American citizen and not subject to British adoption without a lot of legal and diplomatic wrangling.