Jeebus

A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers.

Essex social services obtained a High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb.

The council said it was acting in the best interests of the woman, an Italian who was in Britain on a work trip, because she had suffered a mental breakdown.

The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery.

Nowt to say but Jeebus.

25 comments on “Jeebus

  1. Other to the rest of the natural sense of horror at this, I wonder what would be the legal position if she’d suffered medical complications, or even died (any operation has risks)?

  2. And yet there are plenty of cases of clear and repeated abuse where SS are happy just to tick boxes and leave the poor mites to be starved/beaten to death. ‘Multi-agency’ working ensures that it is always Somebody Else’s Fault. The bureaucracy will be working as designed … i.e. for the benefit of the bureaucracy. Being state bureaucracy, of course, there is no limit to what it can’t achieve.

  3. Not sure if this wouldn’t be a justification for the Italians to declare war. Jenkin’s Ear & all that.
    Not sure if I wouldn’t back them.
    Not my country anymore. Thank heavens.

  4. The caring welfare state in action. I hope the Italians take the social workers to the EHRC which for once might justify its existence.

  5. I think it might be worth adding though that this sort of abuse of the weak is nothing new, but characteristic of the Progressive/therapeutic state. This is why the First Wave produced the rich “horror story” trope of hospitals/asylums/colonies etc, to which people are spirited away and terrible things done to them. Now we’re in a second wave we can expect an intensification of this kind of maltreatment.

    I can think of at least one other example I knew of a while ago of a woman held under guard until birth so that the baby could be immediately removed. If they’ve now gone another step, to forcible extraction, it is not surprising. There is no doubt a great deal more of concern occurring under the umbrella of secret courts, gagging orders, legal anonymity etc.

  6. Not surprising – given it’s Essex SS involved. They have plenty of form.

    And as Vir Cantium points out, while they were attending to this case, they were probably allowing plenty of cases of actual abuse to actually-born children…

  7. A very strange and disturbing tale, we haven’t been told the half of it.

    Why did Ryanair send an Italian national to Stansted for a training course when she was a week or two away from taking maternity leave? Why couldn’t they fly her home to a country which has its own psychiatric clinics?

    Or did Essex SS induce a deliberate premature “birth”, from the mother’s womb untimely ripped…

    Lithium for bi polar disorders has fairly low risk for the foetus but maybe there was a need for stronger anti psychotics which the doctors thought would harm the baby.

    That’s the best gloss I can put on this revolting tale. Even the church, and certainly all law, puts the mother’s health before the baby’s. But when it comes to mental illness, suddenly the priorities are reversed, it seems.

    (BTW Lithium notoriously lowers sexual desire. Was this woman a victim of rape?)

    We know that one set of grandparents acted, even if they acted after months of delay. What about the father and the parental grandparents?

  8. Anyone who approves of more power to the State should be told forcibly that there is no such thing as the State, there are only Social Workers, and politicians, and policemen, and soldiers, and ……. : and any of them may fancy ruling a gulag.

  9. For once I almost agree with an international arrest warrant. Let’s hope the Italians issue one, sling these bastards into some filthy hole in Naples and forget about them.

  10. We clearly don’t know the whole story. After my initial reaction of shock, the next is “how on earth did they get a judge to agree?” Someone persuaded the penny-pinching Essex bureaucracy to pay for umpteen years of looking after a baby that logic would have suggested they could palm off onto Italian Social Services. None of it makes sense (even in bif should say a couple of months, not weeks, it is nonsense because the course would be out-of-date by the time she returned to work).

  11. More and more I am becoming convinced that the best policy for dealing with social services workers is to buy the biggest gun consistent with not breaking your wrist with the recoil.

  12. This is shocking! Though presumably the hospital had to agree to do the surgery, adding another layer of protection. Did she perhaps develop pre-eclampsia and her own life was at risk?
    This is the trouble with secret courts.

  13. John77: a small baby should be highly adoptable – no years of cost to SS. And doesn’t the ss have targets for adoption rates? There’s incentives for it.

  14. The approval was granted by Mr “Justice” Mostyn, whose training for the judicial bench was, er, in winning outrageous divorce settlements.

    One wonders at the mental state of the ghouls who performed the actual operation. Hippocratic Oath, anyone?

  15. @ Tracy W
    Adoption without the mother’s consent?
    I seem to have missed the news item announcing the independence of the People’s Democratic Republic of Essex.

  16. I don’t understand that judgement.

    In (9) he complains about how unwell the mother was when he saw her, and how she went back to Italy because, “by going to Italy any realistic prospect of P returning to her care was diminished substantially.” Can anyone explain what he means by that?

    In (10) he relates how, subsequent to returning to her family, she has improved vastly and is more articulate than many English natives. He doesn’t seem to connect the improvement with her living among her family.

    In (12) to (18) he seems to be leaning heavily toward returning the child to her mother.

    In (19) he dismisses the suggested adoptive families as unsuitable.

    In (20) he announces that, “I am not able to say that P can return to the care of her mother today,” by which he seems to mean ever, as this decision sends her into adoption.

    Don’t these judgements usually follow some path of logic? I can’t see anything against the mother, except that she has lapsed in the past, so may do again.

  17. In (9) he complains about how unwell the mother was when he saw her, and how she went back to Italy because, “by going to Italy any realistic prospect of P returning to her care was diminished substantially.” Can anyone explain what he means by that?

    I’m not sure, but I think he means because she wasn’t assisted to give evidence here, that meant he couldn’t hear her evidence? btw he’s not criticising her, he’s criticising the people who assisted her back to Italy.

    In (10) he relates how, subsequent to returning to her family, she has improved vastly and is more articulate than many English natives. He doesn’t seem to connect the improvement with her living among her family.

    I think the point is that the medication helped her.

    In (12) to (18) he seems to be leaning heavily toward returning the child to her mother.

    No, he’s just stating the premise, what has been given in evidence and what the rules are.

    12. states the premise the child is best off with relatives.

    13. states the task of the court, to consider whether the child can be placed with relatives “and be cared for to a satisfactory and predictable standard within an appropriate timescale”.

    14. if on the other hand if a ‘placement order’ is appropriate then here are the rules about placement orders.

    15-16. what the mother said about that.

    17. the child’s guardian’s opinion.

    18. recognises the mother’s sincere wish to care for the child, then restates the task of the court.

    In (19) he dismisses the suggested adoptive families as unsuitable.

    Yes, and says there must be a national search.

    In (20) he announces that, “I am not able to say that P can return to the care of her mother today,” by which he seems to mean ever, as this decision sends her into adoption

    Yes, but doesn’t deny access.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>