Kidnapping Babies

A reminder of why we actually have a legal system, judges and all:

The High Court judge said that “on the face of it” social services acted unlawfully in taking the baby away from the 18-year-old mother without obtaining a court order.

Mr Justice Mumby said that the officials involved in the Nottinghamshire case “should have known better”.

The child, who cannot be identified, was born healthy at around 2am yesterday and taken from his mother without her consent at 4am.

Local social services had shown hospital staff a “birth plan” detailing how the mother, who suffers from mental health problems, was not to be allowed contact with the child without supervision.

However Mr Justice Mumby said that no baby can be removed “as the result of a decision taken by officials in some room”.

The judge ordered that the baby be immediately returned to his mother, who can only be referred to as "G".

Yes, even officials, doing it  "for the children", must obey the law.

 

8 thoughts on “Kidnapping Babies”

  1. “on the face of it” – seems pretty clear cut to me!

    It seems the mother had the foresight to challenge in advance. Makes me wonder how many other such cases go unreported…

  2. “I can’t help wondering how long it will be until these people start advocating forced steralisation of the ‘mentally ill’ (or poor)”

    Well, it was popular in Polly’s Scandinavian paradise once upon a time…

  3. I can’t help wondering how long it will be until these people start advocating forced steralisation of the ‘mentally ill’ (or poor)

  4. We had some chap on the radio trying to defend the actions of Social Services.

    He castigated the Lib Dem chap who had classified this as “theft – unlawful taking – that’s theft” as being too harsh. His line was that there were strict procedures.

    That these strict procedures were apparently not followed and that therefore this was indeed theft seemed not to trouble him.

  5. Interestingly though it went beyond discussion and the kidnap, yes kidnap, went ahead. I say kidnap because a person was taken without permission or due process. I’m not expecting anyone to be prosecuted for kidnap though although it does seem to be a gang that planned this in advance and may even have previous.

    All hail the state.

  6. “Well, it was popular in Polly’s Scandinavian paradise once upon a time…”

    Quite recently, in fact. Certainly into the 1950s. And just look at what happened when the economic incentives kicked in (isn’t it just oh-so-Polly-and-New-Labour):

    “While eugenic motives played a role in the sterilizations, economic aspects were also important. When child allowances – monthly payments to families for each child, administered by the tax-funded national social insurance scheme – were introduced in the 1950s, the number of forced sterilizations of the “undesirable” part of the population doubled.”

    http://www.independentliving.org/docs5/Sterilization.html

  7. 1970s, wasn’t it, for eugenics in Sweden? Anyway, ‘..no baby can be removed “as the result of a decision taken by officials in some room”’ will just lead to the buggers making the decisions al fresco. Really, we need to hang them, you know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *