Essex social services have acquired a court order against a woman that allowed her to be forcibly tranquillised and, for her newborn child to be taken from her uterus by caesarean section.
Because she had been inflicted with a mental breakdown, the council indicated that it was doing the best in regard of the woman, who was an Italian in Britain on a work trip.
The infant who is a girl and, now 15 months old, is still in the safekeeping of social services, who are declining to give her back to the parent, despite the fact the mother maintains to have made a full recovery.
The situation has grown into a global legal row, with lawyers for the woman reporting it’s unheard of.
The mother says that she’s suffering like an animal and, promises to lobby on to be reunited with her daughter. The woman who can’t be named on legal grounds, gave her first public statement of how she was sectioned, put under sedation and, had her newborn child taken from her after she underwent a mental breakdown on a trip to Britain.
These shocking facts have been reported as ‘the stuff of Hitler’s regime’, where doctors performed surgery on her without forewarning.
The fact that the woman was drugged and forced to have a caesarean section is horrifying and gut-wrenching. If this is the image of our society today, then we are in substantial difficulty because it details how savage we really are as human beings and, should be placed back into cages.
The police told the mother that they were taking her to the hospital to make sure the baby was all right, but on arrival, she was alarmed to see that it was a psychiatric hospital and; she said she wanted to go back to her hotel.
The police had no cause to take her to a psychiatric hospital and, there are particular criteria for sectioning under The Mental Health Act.
The Mental Health Act is the statute under which someone can be admitted, held against their will and, given medical care in hospital against their wishes, but it doesn’t say anywhere under The Mental Health Act that they may tranquillise you and, take your baby by caesarian section.
The Mental Health Act 1983 is split up into different subdivisions. When a person is taken to hospital under constraint, this is often known as being sectioned. A key way in which a person with mental disorders may have exposure with the police is when they’re in a public place or outside in the street and, the police consider that they’re in need of instant care and control.
In these situations a person can be held by police officers under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and, taken to a place of protection. A place of safety is interpreted as a hospital, police station, mental nursing home or residential home, or any other acceptable location.
A Mental disorder is described as any condition or disability of the mind. This description comprises disorders such as schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, OCD, eating disorders, personality disorders, autistic-spectrum disorders, organic disorders such as dementia, behavioural changes owing to brain injuries and mental disorder or psychiatric disorders owing to drug use.
In spite of the fact, an individual can’t be held if they have a substance or drink dependency alone, but can be held if they have a drug/alcohol dependence and, a further manifestation of mental disorder.
When being sectioned three people must be of the same mind that you need to be held in hospital, even though there are special cases in pressing circumstances. Normally the three people would be made up of an Approved Mental Health Profession, or close relative as stated by the Act, a doctor who has been given special training and, a registered medical practitioner.
An Approved Mental Health Professional can be somebody such as a social worker, psychologists, occupational therapists and nurses and, are seen to supply a more impartial and social outlook in taking into consideration a persons confinement.
Everyone that is admitted to the hospital will have an evaluation done of their mental health and will be given any necessary medical care and, you must be seen inside 14 days and, additionally you must be seen by two separate doctors, one of whom has to be approved under the Mental Health Act.
A person can be contained for up to 28 days but that does not automatically mean they will be and, even though an S2 can’t be extended, it can be moved onto a section 3. Under section 2, you don’t have the opportunity to decline medical care, even though some treatments can’t be given without your agreement, unless particular criteria is fulfilled.
Section 3 allows a person to be admitted to hospital for medical care. It must be imperative to your well-being, your welfare, or for the safety of other people that you are given treatment and, it can’t be provided unless you are held in hospital and, additionally the mental disorder must be of a nature, or a level that needs treatment in hospital.
It becomes visible that the closest relative can make a request to hospital under a section 3 and, a person can be contained for up to six months, but a section 4 is used in a crisis situation and, allows a person to be admitted to hospital for an evaluation of their mental health for a restricted time period.
A request for admittance to hospital must be made by an Approved Mental Health Professional, or your closest relative, so why did the police in this instance take this woman to the psychiatric hospital, when in fact she should have been taken to the closest hospital and, been evaluated there first by an Approved Medical Health Professional and, then taken to the psychiatric unit for an additional assessment.
And how did they accomplish in getting a court order that ordered her to be tranquillised against her will and to rip the newborn out of her belly? Could they have not given her medication to restrain her difficulties and, then if they believed that the infant was endangered by the mother following the birth, then take the child into safekeeping?
It definitely amplifies the inquiry of how undisclosed fairness in Great Britain could foist an invasive medical procedure on an overseas national and, then take her child without even seemingly getting in touch with officials in her own country.
The girl, who was born last August, is now near to being adopted by a British husband and wife, in spite of a court hearing that baby’s mother had recuperated and, was giving comprehensible and fluent evidence as she begged to keep her child.
For a parent, there can be no greater fear than having a baby seized by the State at birth and, to women to whom it has occurred state their lives are wrecked for ever and, goodness know what long-term effect it has on the child.
Visualise a baby growing in your body for nine months, envisage going through the emotion of bringing it into the world, merely to have social workers take the newborn, sometimes inside minutes of its initial cry and, frequently on the flimsiest of excuses, even so, this worrying sequence of events is acted out every day.
The number of babies below one month old being taken into care for adoption is now operating at almost four a day, that’s a 300 percent growth over a period of tens years. In total, 75 children of all ages are being removed from their biological parents each week before being handed over to new families.
Some of these may have been voluntarily given up for adoption, but critics of the Government’s strategy are sure that a huge majority are taken by coercion and, time and again, the mothers state they’re blameless of any crime.
Of course, there are people who are not suitable to be parents and, it’s the responsibility of any responsible State to safeguard their children, but there is a profoundly secretive structure which is too frequently prejudice against basically decent families.
There is a practiced chicanery by social workers and, controversial verification given by doctors which has unfairly judged mothers. At the same time, millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been given to councils to motivate them to converge soaring Government goals on child adoptions.
Tony Blair altered the goals in the year 2000, which then elevated the number of children being adopted by 50 percent to 5,400 a year. The yearly running total then extended to almost 4,000 in England and Wales, which is four times higher than in France, which has a comparable dimension in population.
Tony Blair gave his assurance of millions of pounds to councils that attained the goals and, some were given more than £2 million each in recompense for effective adoptions. Four other, Norfolk, Gloucestershire, Cheshire and Hampshire were pledged an additional £1 million.
This extensive shake up was outlined for all the right reasons, evidently to get difficult to place older children in care homes assigned to new parents, but the reforms didn’t work. Motivated by the guarantee of extra cash, social workers started to set aside babies and cute toddlers who were most unchallenging to place in adoptive homes, leaving the more demanding to place older children in care.
Evaluators, comprising family solicitors, MPs and midwives as well as the wronged families, reported cases where young children were chosen, even prior to birth, by social workers in order to be the winner of those bonuses. More chillingly, parents had been told by social workers they must lose their children because, at some time in the time ahead, they might abuse them.
One mother’s son was adopted on the reasoning that there was a possibility she might yell at him when he was older. In Scotland, where there are no authorised goals, adoptions are a tiny amount of the number south of the border, even allowing for the smaller population.
What’s more, the all-consuming confidentiality of the system means that the public only sometimes gets an idea of the human calamity now developing across the nation. For the heart of this adoption system are the family courts, whose investigations are managed behind closed doors in order to keep safe the names of the children involved.
Yet this confidentiality intimidates the centuries oldest historical convention of Britain’s legal structure, the concept that people are innocent till shown to be guilty beyond all fair-minded uncertainty, because from the minute a mother is first cited of being incompetent as a parent, a decision almost continually made by a social worker or doctor, the systematic method is pitted against her.
There are no juries in family courts, just a single judge or group of magistrates who make arrangements founded on the balance of probability and, crucially, the courts’ farming of confidentiality means that if a social worker invents an untruth or falsifies records, or a medical authority giving substantiation makes an error, no one finds out and, there are is no punishment for this and, only those employees of the homeland security, M15, are protected more closely than those of the family courts.
From the time a child is specified on a social services care mandate until the day they’re adopted, the biological parents are breaking the law, an offence punishable by imprisonment, if they tell a person what is happening to their family. Anything from a conversation with a neighbour to a letter posted to a friend can land them in prison.
Numerous families have found themselves sent to jail for violating court orders by talking about their situation and, it appears quite inexcusable that there should be no right of entry by the media and, no entry by the public, to what is going on in courts where judges are, day by day, taking people’s children away.
Nevertheless, it’s not only secretive and publicly unscrutinised family courts that are producing a tyranny to our adoption system. There is a more worrying element associated with it. If you look at the authorised figures, why are they so high and, is it in fact correct that more mothers are becoming possible killers or abusers?
Or is it that the monetary benefits put forward to councils is incentive for the astounding increase in forced adoptions? There is proof that 1,000 children are wrongly being grabbed from their birth parents each year even though they’ve not been injured in any way.
The objectives are treacherous and lead the way to social workers being over keen and, the construction of confidentiality conceals any crime and, one has to inquire if a mother is expected to have difficulties looking after her baby, why doesn’t the State help her as an alternative of taking the child away?
It appears to be that newborns are being removed from their mothers by social workers using any pretence and, it is suspected that this is because recently born babies and toddlers are more easily found a home than older children are and, that they’re a marketable commodity. There are seemingly social workers making up tales about innocent mothers simply to make sure their babies are put up for adoption.
Suitable babies are even being set aside when they are still in the uterus and, babies are forcibly being removed from maternity wards by social workers before the mother has even concluded the child birthing process and has given birth to the placenta and, a young couple who must stay unnamed because of family court law are fighting for the restoration of their three year old daughter, who was taken within weeks of birth and is near to being adopted.
Astonishingly, a judge issued a Draconian order, silencing them from divulging anything, to anyone at all, which could single out their daughter till her 18th birthday in 2022. A report was issued and, straightaway after the article was published, 35 families came forward, whose children had as well been forcibly removed.
Letters and emails were presented, coming from a broad span of families across the societal classes, encompassing a castle in the centre of England. One email came from one father who wanted help NOW because he and his wife were about to lose their son and, that they had done nothing unlawful.
Another father rang to say his wife’s baby was one of eight grabbed by social workers from hospital maternity units in one tiny part of North East England throughout one fortnight the previous summer and, a Welshman protested that his grandson of three weeks was designated for forced adoption by social workers.
The mother, a 21 year old with a slight learning disorder, was informed she might, just might, get post natal depression and fail to look after her son. To her great anguish, her baby was put in the care of social services within moments of its birth, yet there was an entire extended family to help out, which comprised of two nurses, a credentialed caregiver and a police officer, who had volunteer to help care for the baby, but clearly the child had been marked for adoption since he was in the womb.
A woman told how her daughter’s baby was seized by three police officers and two social workers who came to the door of her house, the girl has now been adopted… And the mother’s negligence, she was too young to manage. Still, a little over a year later, she had another baby, a boy, whom she was allowed to keep, in the identical home and, with the same partner.
All the family had come forward to provide assistance to look after the daughter and, all of them were told they were not good enough. The social worker told the family to forget her and, that she was water under the bridge. And is it a wonder that thousands of other parents want a reorganisation of the heartrending and brutal adoption system which has torn to pieces so many families and, which proceeds to do so?