Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:

What I find bizarre is that the British Government is essentially keeping an infant Italian national in custody against the wishes of its mother who supposedly is now well? Arguably she isn't but even then wouldn't it be more proper for the child to enter the custody of the Italian government? Why is it still in British social services? Is that the law in the UK? EDIT: Is there any word on the father in this? If he were British it would make much more sense to me.

Its a bit of an odd one but as she was born in Britain she is a British citizen and the UK government has a duty of care to the baby. The reason that the judge gave for not returning the baby to the mother is that he could not guarantee that she would continue to take her medication and as such was a real danger to the child. Now that could be argued to be harsh but on the other hand if she was sufficiently ill the last time that she failed to take her medication to be sectioned then its probably fair.

Usually people bash me when I bring up the 'do this because someone might do something bad in the future' excuse

I reference my cousin who worked 30 years helping troubled youth and families in Maine. He has told me of cases where the parents of children say everything is fine and the kids should stay with them, when he has seen far different.
This could be one of those cases, perhaps.

I hesitate to rush to judgement on this without facts, but I'll do it anyway! My "gut" feeling is that the rules as they are were probably followed in this case but that it may still not sit right with many people as more information becomes available.

I've heard numerous horror stories about social services. If your kids are taken away, you're gagged from talking about it. You can discuss it with your lawyer but if you discuss it publicly you are threatened with having them permanently removed. So there's a walk of silence enforced around their cases. If you have your child removed for an extended period, even if you are totally exonerated there's a chance they still won't return them because it would confuse the child or some such, it's almost a certainty if they've adopted them with someone else. Seeing as this child was effectively taken away pre birth and it's been nearly 4 months, they'll try to keep it.

Social services deal with some really bad stuff and it's not a job I would touch. Working in a school, I'm aware of the backgrounds of some children, and it's bad, and they need people to go in and help them. But social services have some dubious policies and when they feth up, they really feth up badly. It's very dependent on the types of people working as social workers, the culture of your local area and the pressures they are under. I'm glad they sort out problem families but I'd be as terrified as feth if they came after me on false pretences.

Yeah, I was going into social services, but now I realize its just something I dont have the guts for.

IANASW but I think that in the case regarding this child a perfect storm of rules and regulations were applied and adhered too cascading into the seeming clusterfeth we have now.

I expect that a hearing will take place where questions will begat questions.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yeah, I was going into social services, but now I realize its just something I dont have the guts for.

Go for it but I think Social Services is for the very strong willed.

Social Services are in a bit of a state here in the UK it seems, although I don't envy them at all the job they have to do and the kind of people they seem to have to deal with a lot of the time.

Something that kind of ties into this story, a personal story which I hope will add a bit to this discussion. I have a member of my family that is mentally disabled. Very ill at birth, his brain was starved of oxygen which severely and permanently damaged his cognitive ability. After narrowly surviving the doctors estimated that he had the mental age of an 8-year old, although he has always worked and is able to look after himself more or less without care. Some years ago he had a 'relationship' with another mentally disabled woman (she had similar issues, I believe a mental age of about 7) and they got married.

The woman had a lot of pets, however after complaints from neighbours the RSPCA (animal protection agency) entered their house to find numerous dead rabbits and gerbils. Despite loving the animals dearly, she had forgotten to feed and water them and various small furry corpses were found scattered around. Despite this, and the RSPCA getting a special order saying they were not allowed to keep pets, she then became pregnant, carried the child to term and gave birth. They were then allowed to keep the baby. I'll let that sink in for a moment..

Eventually, after a big effort from both sides of the family, the baby was put up for adoption. And of course at this point it was an extremely painful process for the mother - despite being quite severely disabled, of course every mother feels the loss of their child. Fortunately the baby went to a good family, and was able to have a normal childhood with capable parents.

The point I'm trying to make here is that, for the most part, there is a strong argument to be made for separating mental and physical age and the ability of an individual to be responsible for their actions. I'm not defending what the Social Services did in this story; obviously there should have been a full enquiry and investigation about whether such a thing should take place, and when it has to happen, it is done in the most conscientious way possible. But, one has to look at the potential alternative; of a mentally ill mother harming the baby. In the case related to my family, the mother neglecting to feed the baby, of shaking it too hard when it won't stop crying.. it doesn't take much imagination to see that the potential fall-out is much worse. And there have actually been several prominent stories in the UK press recently of the Social Services failing to protect vulnerable children from incapable parents.

I suppose the point is, where do the rights of the individual end, and the rights of the state to protect its citizens (including those who cannot protect themselves) begin. It's a very fine line no doubt..

The state has a 'right' to protect its citizens? Did they grant this 'right' to themselves and therefore can take any actions the state and its bureaucratic minions deem necessary to exercise their 'right'?

Honestly, the concept of a state having 'rights' at all, let alone 'rights' which trump individual rights disgusts me. The state should have limited and clearly defined responsibilities and very clearly defined and very limited power to make good on their responsibilities.

There are every grounds for sedating someone for mental illness reasons, just ask anyone who works in a hospitals emergency dept.

5 weeks for a panic attack is bs, it's 5 weeks for going off meds and the required observation time (particularly if they think the person may have to care for a baby).

I don't know if mental health in the UK is the same as here, but in Aus mental health is pretty much a revolving door system. Have incident--> go under observation-----> be released i n 2 days.

I just discovered that phosphine gas tablets at my work. I didn't really have to mention that but i wanted to contribute to the Godwin

The scary part is not just that they did this, but they did it to a non-citizen from another country. I feel like if someone has such an issue, there would be attempts to contact the home country and there would be some effort to 'ship the person home' opposed to doing stuff for 5 weeks.

I feel like after a week or so, someone had to be missing her and that embassies would have been involved.

I..... Feth me, that is wrong.
In this country the SS has way to much power. They have a role, but they refuse to stick with it.
You should never piss off a member of the SS. Once they are on to you their worse than a pack of light mechs on your six.

Frankly i find this disgusting. Just another thing that is wrong with this country

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yeah, I was going into social services, but now I realize its just something I dont have the guts for.

Yep, it cost my cousin his health because of all the things he saw happening with kids over the years. The only reason he stayed with it was because he felt the kids needed someone who would stand up for them.

Not surprising really. similar problems in SS in other countries. To much power and not enough responsibility. You put somebody in charge that's an over reacting nut and this is what you get.

Please allow me to clarify....

Your statement indicates that as long as the social services is acting within the law, that their actions are therefore deemed acceptable/ok/kosher because they are "lawful".

I will grant you that. Yes. Their action may very well be within the scope of the law.

However, as I pointed out, so were the actions of the Nazis against the Jews because the German government, at that time, passed a number of laws that were anti-Semitic.

The comparison that I am making, therefore, is that although an action may be "lawful"...it does *not* equate to being morally or ethically right.

I'm fine with the holding her 5 weeks. We once had a patient on our floor for almost 4 months because there was no program or facility that wanted to accept him. Sometimes it *can* take a significant amount of time for a person to adjust to their medication. I get that.

I am *not* fine with forcing a c-section on her.

I am *not* fine with the government apparently not finding next of kin (husband? grandparents? aunts/uncles?) first to place the child with.

I am *not* fine with the government currently refusing to give custody back to the mother on the chance that she *might* go off her meds again.

People who are on mental health medications always have a chance at having something happen and become "non-compliant" with their medication.
-- medical illness (I've seen medical docs stop psych meds while pt is in the hospital--stupid docs!!)
-- finances (can't afford to buy them and they run out)
-- purposeful non-compliance
-- drug interaction makes medication ineffective

Just to name a few reasons!

To punish someone for the possibility of something that might happen but only if a certain set of circumstances happen.....that very much scares me....and it should scare you, too!

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
And these guys....

Spoiler:

Were completely within German law (at the time) when they herded their prisoners into these gas chambers....[/color]

Spoiler:

Yay! Godwin!

Oh, wait, we are talking about compltely different things - one being the actual topic - a woman who may have been mentally unable to take part in her own care and that of her baby having medical decisions taken for her with the baby subsequently being placed for adoption due to on going concerns about her ability to care for herself and her child. The other being the systematic elimination of entire races and ethnic groups...

It is the same mindset....and the same type of government...

 Palindrome wrote:
Its a bit of an odd one but as she was born in Britain she is a British citizen and the UK government has a duty of care to the baby. The reason that the judge gave for not returning the baby to the mother is that he could not guarantee that she would continue to take her medication and as such was a real danger to the child. Now that could be argued to be harsh but on the other hand if she was sufficiently ill the last time that she failed to take her medication to be sectioned then its probably fair.

I wasn't aware that the UK granted citizenship on the basis of simply being born in the UK anymore. Frankly the US might want to consider amending the Constitution and stop granting citizenship on that basis, which should help stop birth tourism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law#British_citizenship_by_birth_in_the_United_Kingdom

Under the law in effect from 1 January 1983, a child born in the UK to a parent who is a British citizen or 'settled' in the UK is automatically a British citizen by birth.

Only one parent needs to meet this requirement, either the father or the mother.
"Settled" status in this context usually means the parent is resident in the United Kingdom and has the right of abode, holds Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), or is the citizen of an EU/EEA country and has permanent residence, or otherwise unrestricted by immigration laws to remain in the UK.[4] Irish citizens in the UK are also deemed settled for this purpose.
Special rules exist for cases where a parent of a child is a citizen of a European Union or European Economic Area member state, or Switzerland. The law in this respect was changed on 2 October 2000 and again on 30 April 2006. See below for details.
For children born before 1 July 2006, if only the father meets this requirement, the parents must be married. Marriage subsequent to the birth is normally enough to confer British citizenship from that point.
Where the father is not married to the mother, the Home Office usually registers the child as British provided an application is made and the child would have been British otherwise. The child must be under 18 on the date of application.
Where a parent subsequently acquires British citizenship or "settled" status, the child can be registered as British provided he or she is still aged under 18.
If the child lives in the UK until age 10 there is a lifetime entitlement to register as a British citizen. The immigration status of the child and his/her parents is irrelevant.
Special provisions may apply for the child to acquire British citizenship if a parent is a British Overseas citizen or British subject, or if the child is stateless.
Even if a child born in the UK on or after 1 January 1983 does not acquire British citizenship, he/she does not require any visa (leave to enter or remain) to live in the UK.[5] However, he/she is subject to immigration control and needs to obtain leave to enter if he/she leaves the UK and seeks re-admission, or leave to remain where permission is sought for the child to be allowed to stay in the UK.[6]

Before 1983, birth in the UK was sufficient in itself to confer British nationality irrespective of the status of parents, with an exception only for children of diplomats and enemy aliens. This exception did not apply to most visiting forces, so, in general, children born in the UK before 1983 to visiting military personnel (e.g. US forces stationed in the UK) are British citizens by birth.

To clarify a couple of points raised earlier :

The child father is, AFAIK, an American citizen , who is separated from the mother and has been sometime.

His sister in the USA has, apparently, offered to take the child in -- exactly when this offer was made ..?

The woman has 2 other children, both of whom have been removed from her care and are being looked after by her mother back in Italy.

She has had lapses with regards to her medication before -- hence why she no longer has custody of her other children one assumes.

Does seem odd in the extreme though that the authorities haven't or aren't making more of an effort to get the child in question placed with a family member. I thought that was standard/best practise in adoption cases but situation might be different here or that might not even be the case ?

Yeah Red, but remember our goverments motto-"Think of the children!"

 master of ordinance wrote:
Yeah Red, but remember our goverments motto-"Think of the children!"

Does this mean anyone who has ever seen boobs online will have their children taken away from them?

 CptJake wrote:
The state has a 'right' to protect its citizens? Did they grant this 'right' to themselves and therefore can take any actions the state and its bureaucratic minions deem necessary to exercise their 'right'?

Honestly, the concept of a state having 'rights' at all, let alone 'rights' which trump individual rights disgusts me. The state should have limited and clearly defined responsibilities and very clearly defined and very limited power to make good on their responsibilities.

The State has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens. This is time honored law and tradition back to Da Queen (not to be confused with Queen who were epic). It has no duty to do so, but it has a compelling interest in it. Thats why the state can step in to protect children and others as needed.

 master of ordinance wrote:
I..... Feth me, that is wrong.
In this country the SS has way to much power. They have a role, but they refuse to stick with it.
You should never piss off a member of the SS. Once they are on to you their worse than a pack of light mechs on your six.

Frankly i find this disgusting. Just another thing that is wrong with this country

Yeah! Social services, health and safety, PC culture, immigrants, and them straight-banana-loving Brussels crypto-klepto-crats are ruinin' this here glorious nashun! Rabble rabble rabble!

If social services do their job, they're accused of being fascists. If they can't do their job because of chronic underfunding, they're derided as incompetent. The reality is that they provide an incredibly valuable service to society, and no amount of "down the pub heard it from a mate of a mate" anecdotes or sensationalist guff in the hostile and circulation-hungry gutter press will change that. I'll wait until we have the full story, because each and every one of the individual actions taken isn't just legal but entirely justifiable, and I suspect that once the full context becomes clear this nonsense about "sectioned for having a panic attack" and so forth will fall apart.

If you have mental health problems, the reason to avoid the UK isn't social services, it's the monstrous Westminster political consensus that solves fuel poverty by redefining the term to exclude the poor, that declares people "fit for work" on the same day they lie in a hospital bed drowning in their own fluids, and which has developed a social security system specifically designed to discriminate against "invisible" disabilities like mental health disorders and at the same time have dramatically cut funding for mental health services, mental health charities, and fed the poisonous narrative that the mentally ill are either the stereotypical raving loons, or else they're just feeling a bit mopey and should get over themselves.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The state has a 'right' to protect its citizens? Did they grant this 'right' to themselves and therefore can take any actions the state and its bureaucratic minions deem necessary to exercise their 'right'?

Honestly, the concept of a state having 'rights' at all, let alone 'rights' which trump individual rights disgusts me. The state should have limited and clearly defined responsibilities and very clearly defined and very limited power to make good on their responsibilities.

The State has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens. This is time honored law and tradition back to Da Queen (not to be confused with Queen who were epic). It has no duty to do so, but it has a compelling interest in it. Thats why the state can step in to protect children and others as needed.

Interest or responsibility is much different than a 'right'. The state should only be allowed to step in when clearly defined conditions are met, and only step in in clearly defined ways. Somehow I suspect a forced C-section and the further actions in this particular case were not what was intended by the laws which allow the state to step in.

 CptJake wrote:
Interest or responsibility is much different than a 'right'. The state should only be allowed to step in when clearly defined conditions are met, and only step in in clearly defined ways. Somehow I suspect a forced C-section and the further actions in this particular case were not what was intended by the laws which allow the state to step in.

C-sections are medically recomended for a number of medical condictions or situations, regardless of what the state may or may not want.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Interest or responsibility is much different than a 'right'. The state should only be allowed to step in when clearly defined conditions are met, and only step in in clearly defined ways. Somehow I suspect a forced C-section and the further actions in this particular case were not what was intended by the laws which allow the state to step in.

C-sections are medically recomended for a number of medical condictions or situations, regardless of what the state may or may not want.

And that applies to this particular situation and my comments on it in what way?

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The state has a 'right' to protect its citizens? Did they grant this 'right' to themselves and therefore can take any actions the state and its bureaucratic minions deem necessary to exercise their 'right'?

Honestly, the concept of a state having 'rights' at all, let alone 'rights' which trump individual rights disgusts me. The state should have limited and clearly defined responsibilities and very clearly defined and very limited power to make good on their responsibilities.

The State has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens. This is time honored law and tradition back to Da Queen (not to be confused with Queen who were epic). It has no duty to do so, but it has a compelling interest in it. Thats why the state can step in to protect children and others as needed.

Interest or responsibility is much different than a 'right'. The state should only be allowed to step in when clearly defined conditions are met, and only step in in clearly defined ways. Somehow I suspect a forced C-section and the further actions in this particular case were not what was intended by the laws which allow the state to step in.

No. The State should indeed have the interest to protect its citizenry from others. What you're describing is what occurs in the use of that interest.
A C-section would have occurred because labor was a problem. Taking the baby and thus starteing the Third Punic War would have been under the State's authority to protect its citizens and those within its environs. As Reddy noted, there appears to be a lot more to this story then originally told.

As to the State Interest. Its existed since a Frenchie crossed a river, shot a Dane in the eye with an arrow, and so Yo Bro Limeytown's mine Bro!
I want a state that has an interest in protecting its owners. Its a nice contrast to the USSR.

 CptJake wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Interest or responsibility is much different than a 'right'. The state should only be allowed to step in when clearly defined conditions are met, and only step in in clearly defined ways. Somehow I suspect a forced C-section and the further actions in this particular case were not what was intended by the laws which allow the state to step in.

C-sections are medically recomended for a number of medical condictions or situations, regardless of what the state may or may not want.

And that applies to this particular situation and my comments on it in what way?

If your mental state is such that you or your child would be endangered by giving birth naturally then a C-section might be indicated.

Social Services can be give the power to take away a baby at birth if the parent is deemed not suitable. Usually this is if they have mental problems or drug related. I don't have an issue with this, unlike our cousins across the pond I believe that the state does have responsibility to perform these actions, if a child's well being is at risk. This does not make us a Fascist or Communist state, nor should it make us complacent about what the government does in our name.

 reds8n wrote:
To clarify a couple of points raised earlier :

The child father is, AFAIK, an American citizen , who is separated from the mother and has been sometime.

His sister in the USA has, apparently, offered to take the child in -- exactly when this offer was made ..?

The woman has 2 other children, both of whom have been removed from her care and are being looked after by her mother back in Italy.

She has had lapses with regards to her medication before -- hence why she no longer has custody of her other children one assumes.

Does seem odd in the extreme though that the authorities haven't or aren't making more of an effort to get the child in question placed with a family member. I thought that was standard/best practise in adoption cases but situation might be different here or that might not even be the case ?

Well that makes more sense then. Someone with chronic off the meds behavior probably lost the leeway to take care of their kids already, especially since she's lost two. But now I more want to know why the child hasn't been sent to live in the care of its siblings (presumably they're safe where they are now).

Graham Linehan is tweeting about it:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/why-the-forced-caesarean-story-was-wrong