caesarian section

A pregnant Italian woman who suffered a panic attack when she forgot to take her medication for Bipolar Disorder was forcibly (actually unconsciously) subjected to a “compulsory caesarean section on the decision of the High Court under an ex-parte order obtained by social workers. (Ex-parte means that the other party didn’t get notice, wasn’t consulted and had no opportunity to challenge the decision.) This MIGHT be justified in itself if it was to address an immediate crisis. But the Essex authorities went on to refuse to return the child and have now put it up for adoption. This goes far beyond addressing the immediate crisis and raises questions about both the honesty and integrity of the Essex Social Services and the commitment of the British courts to law.

The claim made by the social services, was that she might suffer a relapse. A judge in Chelmsford Crown Court accepted this argument and ruled that the child should be put up for adoption in the UK. Now you would think that a judge would know the law. But this ignorant judge did not seem to realize that as the mother was normally resident in Italy, the matter of custody of the child falls within the jurisdiction of the Italian courts not the British ones.

The woman, who incidentally has two other children in Italy, has never been allowed to see the child, who is now 15 months old.

The question is why was this blatantly illegal action taken by the Essex Social Services and backed up by a judge who one presumes must have known better. Could it be that Essex is short of babies for adoption and is looking for short-cuts to find more? Even if it involves fabricating bogus pretexts and breaking the law? It reminds me of a book I wrote a few years back about a baby racket conspiracy between social services and a devious paediatrician: How I cleared my mother of a murder charge when I was eleven (The Ethan and Lexie adventures)