I was tricked into having Caesarean

A WOMAN who was forced to have a Caesarean section by Essex social services said she was drugged and tricked.

The 35-year-old Italian woman said on the day of the birth, she begged to return home, but instead was sedated.

The unnamed woman, who suffers from bipolar disorder, is reported to have come to Britain while pregnant to attend a training course with an airline at Stansted Airport.

After she stopped taking medication she had a panic attack and was sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

The Court of Protection took the unusual step of giving a health trust permission for doctors to carry out a Caesarean section in August last year, and the newborn child was taken into care by Essex social services.

Speaking to the Sun newspaper, the woman said: “On the day of the birth, I thought they were moving me to a new room.

“Then I was sedated and when I woke up she wasn’t with me. I want my daughter back.”

Stefano Oliva, the unnamed woman’s lawyer, has hit out at Essex County Council after social services made the decision.

Mr Oliva told BBC Radio 5 Live: “I do not understand why my client has been forced to have a Caesarean section. It is a very unusual statement to be issued by a judge. From my point of view, this decision is absolutely unreasonable.”

Mr Oliva said the mother was permitted to see her baby once a week until the end of October, when she moved back to Italy to get support from her family.

After returning to her home country, she came back to Britain once a month to visit the child.

This arrangement stood until May this year when social workers told her it would be the last time she would see her daughter, he said. In February, Judge Newton, sitting at Chelmsford County Court, ruled that although the mother’s condition had improved and she was “extremely well” when she gave evidence, adoption was the best way to provide “a permanent, predictable and stable home” for the baby.

The council had argued adoption was “the only safe route”.

The North Essex Mental Health Partnership said: “The pregnancy made it difficult to treat the mother as medications would have affected the unborn child. The application for the Caesarean was made to the Court of Protection to ensure the safety and wellbeing of both mother and baby.

"We can see why this is such a troubling case, but it hinges on the difficult balance of the best interests of the mother and baby.

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:07am Fri 6 Dec 13

whataday says...

You're not sectioned for just having a panic attack
You're not sectioned for just having a panic attack whataday

10:59am Fri 6 Dec 13

I-say-you-say says...

whataday wrote:
You're not sectioned for just having a panic attack
Very true....I think there's more to this than meets the eye!

This is a very unusual step taken by ECC and Social Services and for a Judge to agree it there must be extenuating circumstances the "un-named woman" isn't willing to share.

What happens next time she "forgets" to take her medication? Will she have an alleged panic attack over having a baby? What if it's crying? Or when it's talking and asking for everything etc etc

I think the right thing has been done for both the child's safety and the mothers mental health.
[quote][p][bold]whataday[/bold] wrote: You're not sectioned for just having a panic attack[/p][/quote]Very true....I think there's more to this than meets the eye! This is a very unusual step taken by ECC and Social Services and for a Judge to agree it there must be extenuating circumstances the "un-named woman" isn't willing to share. What happens next time she "forgets" to take her medication? Will she have an alleged panic attack over having a baby? What if it's crying? Or when it's talking and asking for everything etc etc I think the right thing has been done for both the child's safety and the mothers mental health. I-say-you-say

1:32pm Fri 6 Dec 13

EthanEdwards says...

No the right thing would have been to send her home to her family in Italy. Let the Italian authorities take care of them. What occurrred was to put it mildly completly EVIL and just VERY shocking. I hope the Essex SS (aptly termed) can sleep soundly because I think they are just EVIL and wicked.
No the right thing would have been to send her home to her family in Italy. Let the Italian authorities take care of them. What occurrred was to put it mildly completly EVIL and just VERY shocking. I hope the Essex SS (aptly termed) can sleep soundly because I think they are just EVIL and wicked. EthanEdwards

2:29pm Fri 6 Dec 13

I-say-you-say says...

EthanEdwards wrote:
No the right thing would have been to send her home to her family in Italy. Let the Italian authorities take care of them. What occurrred was to put it mildly completly EVIL and just VERY shocking. I hope the Essex SS (aptly termed) can sleep soundly because I think they are just EVIL and wicked.
And what if the Italian Authorities did nothing? What if the mother had another "episode" and killed that child? Just because it would be in Italy it wouldn't be our problem?

Essex Social Services, County Council and the Judge have just saved that baby's life! I bet if the story had been the other way round - that they hadn't done anything and it all went wrong, you'd be saying the same thing!
[quote][p][bold]EthanEdwards[/bold] wrote: No the right thing would have been to send her home to her family in Italy. Let the Italian authorities take care of them. What occurrred was to put it mildly completly EVIL and just VERY shocking. I hope the Essex SS (aptly termed) can sleep soundly because I think they are just EVIL and wicked.[/p][/quote]And what if the Italian Authorities did nothing? What if the mother had another "episode" and killed that child? Just because it would be in Italy it wouldn't be our problem? Essex Social Services, County Council and the Judge have just saved that baby's life! I bet if the story had been the other way round - that they hadn't done anything and it all went wrong, you'd be saying the same thing! I-say-you-say

3:42pm Fri 6 Dec 13

News Bunny says...

So now every woman who is bi-polar and pregnant has to worry that if she stops taking her medication (to protect the baby) then she runs the risk of being sectioned, given a forced caesarian and the baby taken away? What a choice to have to make!
So now every woman who is bi-polar and pregnant has to worry that if she stops taking her medication (to protect the baby) then she runs the risk of being sectioned, given a forced caesarian and the baby taken away? What a choice to have to make! News Bunny

4:48pm Fri 6 Dec 13

_champagne2 says...

The mother already had two other children in Italy in care so we haven't been given the full story here
The mother already had two other children in Italy in care so we haven't been given the full story here _champagne2

4:56pm Fri 6 Dec 13

I-say-you-say says...

News Bunny wrote:
So now every woman who is bi-polar and pregnant has to worry that if she stops taking her medication (to protect the baby) then she runs the risk of being sectioned, given a forced caesarian and the baby taken away? What a choice to have to make!
As previously said, a simple panic attack through not taking bi-polar meds would not be sufficient.

The whole story has not been given here as champagne has pointed out. For something like this to have happened it needed to be more serious and with extenuating cicumstances beyond bi-polar.

If it is true that she has had 2 removed previously then the choice should have been simple - don't get pregnant again!
[quote][p][bold]News Bunny[/bold] wrote: So now every woman who is bi-polar and pregnant has to worry that if she stops taking her medication (to protect the baby) then she runs the risk of being sectioned, given a forced caesarian and the baby taken away? What a choice to have to make![/p][/quote]As previously said, a simple panic attack through not taking bi-polar meds would not be sufficient. The whole story has not been given here as champagne has pointed out. For something like this to have happened it needed to be more serious and with extenuating cicumstances beyond bi-polar. If it is true that she has had 2 removed previously then the choice should have been simple - don't get pregnant again! I-say-you-say

6:06pm Fri 6 Dec 13

abd123 says...

It said in the reports she had the first 2 children by caesarian and it is unheard of having a normal delivery after those. It probably saved her and the child's life. Having been sectioned and having 2 previous children into care this woman must have serious problems that she cannot handle alone.
It said in the reports she had the first 2 children by caesarian and it is unheard of having a normal delivery after those. It probably saved her and the child's life. Having been sectioned and having 2 previous children into care this woman must have serious problems that she cannot handle alone. abd123

8:47am Sat 7 Dec 13

returnoftheleftie says...

Disappointing yet predictable that the echo leaves out really pertinent parts of the case like that, and just reproduces press releases from the aggrieved party's solicitor
Disappointing yet predictable that the echo leaves out really pertinent parts of the case like that, and just reproduces press releases from the aggrieved party's solicitor returnoftheleftie

3:00pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Lastlaugh,,. says...

Ryanair seem to cause trouble everywhere!
Ryanair seem to cause trouble everywhere! Lastlaugh,,.

3:40pm Sat 7 Dec 13

runwellian says...

How have they saved a babies life?
We do not know enough about this case to from any judgement!
I know so many mothers with bi polar, they are fantastic mothers! We don't worry about fag puffing, beer swigging mothers that don't care about their kids so we really do need to know more about this case and why the mother was considered so unfit to keep her child.

Because she had an unstable episode in her illness does not justify removing her child into care and placing it up fro adoption!

Wait till we get the real story and then judge!
How have they saved a babies life? We do not know enough about this case to from any judgement! I know so many mothers with bi polar, they are fantastic mothers! We don't worry about fag puffing, beer swigging mothers that don't care about their kids so we really do need to know more about this case and why the mother was considered so unfit to keep her child. Because she had an unstable episode in her illness does not justify removing her child into care and placing it up fro adoption! Wait till we get the real story and then judge! runwellian

10:37pm Sat 7 Dec 13

returnoftheleftie says...

runwellian wrote:
How have they saved a babies life?
We do not know enough about this case to from any judgement!
I know so many mothers with bi polar, they are fantastic mothers! We don't worry about fag puffing, beer swigging mothers that don't care about their kids so we really do need to know more about this case and why the mother was considered so unfit to keep her child.

Because she had an unstable episode in her illness does not justify removing her child into care and placing it up fro adoption!

Wait till we get the real story and then judge!
Thanks to the internet, you can actually read why the judge decided to order it, and it involves every professional involved being deeply concerned with the welfare not only of the child, but of the mother too!

http://www.judiciary
.gov.uk/Resources/JC
O/Documents/Judgment
s/re-aa-approved-jud
gment.pdf
[quote][p][bold]runwellian[/bold] wrote: How have they saved a babies life? We do not know enough about this case to from any judgement! I know so many mothers with bi polar, they are fantastic mothers! We don't worry about fag puffing, beer swigging mothers that don't care about their kids so we really do need to know more about this case and why the mother was considered so unfit to keep her child. Because she had an unstable episode in her illness does not justify removing her child into care and placing it up fro adoption! Wait till we get the real story and then judge![/p][/quote]Thanks to the internet, you can actually read why the judge decided to order it, and it involves every professional involved being deeply concerned with the welfare not only of the child, but of the mother too! http://www.judiciary .gov.uk/Resources/JC O/Documents/Judgment s/re-aa-approved-jud gment.pdf returnoftheleftie

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree