Well, this seems a little extreme

[james_davis_nicoll]

In a case which has been described by those representing the mother as “unprecedented,” a court order was obtained, in August 2012, for the Italian mother-to-be, in England on a work placement at the time, to be enforced to give birth “by way of cesarean section.”

Comments

[mishalak]

This is so horrible that if it had happened in fiction I would have found it unrealistic.

[matgb]

FWIW:
http://pinktape.co.uk/cases/never-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-a-good-story-eh/

Headline says it all, rest of it in summary is "never believe anything in a British newspaper, as even the quality ones don't factcheck and the story then gets repeated all over the place without further enquiry"

[legionseagle]

Chiming in late to the party, but I've done a post with all the relevant links, which started coming out over the last few days here.

In short, the initial media report was blatant sensationalism and in a number of places flat-out lying (for example, the statement that the mother had suffered "a panic attack")
on the part of a journalist and a politician with known previous for both.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Defining the term "nanny state" . . .

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

That's edging more into midwife state...

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

"Nanny" lasts longer. Once the "state" has that kid, they're gonna be responsible for it.

[srogerscat.livejournal.com]

Holy Shit.

I have heard of cases in the US where a Caesarean was conducted against the mother's wishes due to claimed medical necessity... but Holy Shit. Separating the two is a new one.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Sadly, not a new thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_abduction

[srogerscat.livejournal.com]

But this was legally sanctioned abduction, there is a difference. But the mother was not killed, there is that I suppose.

Perhaps the Essex Social workers were just trying to prove that the United States is not really that barbaric compared to Great Britain after all.

As ever, it is not actually that simple

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

(Disclosure: I work in child care law in England, often representing parents. I know the lawyer representing this woman - we both practise law in the same city - but have no personal knowledge of the case itself.)

There is a lot of incomplete and sensationalist reporting of this case. Essex County Council has issued a press release that makes some important points:

- This woman had already had Italian social services intervene regarding her other children.
- The request for a court order to allow a caesarian without her consent was made by the hospital that was accommodating her under mental health laws, because of grave concerns for her health and that of the baby.
- Subsequent concerns about the risk the mother posed to the child led to another court granting a care order regarding the child.

Now, this is an extraordinary set of circumstances. But this seems to have been a case where medical and social services professionals have sought legal orders allowing drastic intervention to protect the life and well-being of both mother and child. The court process for adults with mental health problems and for children is not 'secret', it is private, which is why details are sparse. That being said, there is a move at present to try to allow more open reporting of such cases provided that identities of the people involved can be kept private, and I expect much more information about this case to be available soon.

Lucy Reed, a very respected family lawyer and blogger (again, someone I know) has written a very useful summary of matters. As she notes, it is possible that something has gone very wrong here. But it is also possible that professionals and judges have made very hard decisions because they were necessary to avoid worse outcomes.

Re: As ever, it is not actually that simple

[nathan helfinstine (from livejournal.com)]

So why is the child up for adoption in England, as opposed to being returned to her family in Italy? At least in the US, the default when a parent is found to be incompetent to care for a child, is to look for a relative to care for the child, with the expectation that the mother might be either given visitation rights or granted custody once she recovers.

This just seems like the UK is trying to double down over the USA's TSA in becoming unfriendly to visitors. "Come visit the UK for two weeks, and we'll compel surgery and take your child, based on legal proceedings to which you were not a party!"

Re: As ever, it is not actually that simple

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

We don't have much information yet about the mother's family situation, other than that it seems that her other two children were removed from her care by the Italian authorities and placed with the maternal grandmother. There will certainly have been detailed investigations into arranging kinship care; I am speculating here, but perhaps the Italian authorities reported that grandmother couldn't cope with another child, and there weren't other family members able to offer care. There has been some discussion of a relative in the USA offering care, but again we don't know why this route was rejected (but having been involved in similar cases I can say that it must have been rejected for a reason.)

Removal of children from parents in England is governed by the Children Act 1989, and this makes it clear that the interests of the child are paramount. This child was born in England and the courts aren't going to go "Huh, some other country's problem, deport it" when considering her rights.

Placement outside the family is the last resort option for the family courts when dealing with children taken into care. But there is ample evidence that it is damaging for children to be moved from one family to another, and so the approach in England is to seek a permanent outcome (return to parent, placement with family, placement for adoption) relatively quickly rather than allowing a child to spend years in what may be a series of temporary placements waiting to see if it is possible to return that child to the parent(s).

Re: As ever, it is not actually that simple

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

legal proceedings to which you were not a party

That would not be the case. If an adult is held to lack capacity to manage his or her affairs then the Official Solicitor will instruct lawyers to represent him/her, usually at public expense. Children in care cases have a court-appointed litigation guardian who actively represents the child's interests in legal proceedings, and the parents (or anyone else with parental responsibility for a child in such circumstances) gets free, non-means-tested legal aid to fund their lawyers.

Re: As ever, it is not actually that simple

[nathan helfinstine (from livejournal.com)]

I think we disagree on what it means to be a party. I have no doubt that the court appointed a lawyer to reflect the mother's interests, and another lawyer to reflect the unborn child's interests. But the blog post you suggested lead to the official statement of the Essex County Council, which listed some key dates. The two that caught my eye were:

* Mother detained under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act on 13 June 2012
* Mother took part in the care proceedings ending on 1 February 2013

The combination of the two very strongly suggest that she had not taken part in any earlier proceedings. While it's all very nice to have a lawyer speaking on your behalf, if you're not permitted to speak for yourself, then you're the object of the hearing, not a party to it.

Search engines and online resources

[nojay.livejournal.com]

More open reporting of such cases will inevitably lead to the identities of people in the process being revealed as eager muckracking "journalists" make connections between sources and race to put the prurient details on the front pages.