Forcibly removed by Cesaerean...

[Hetta]

I found this blog to be balanced:

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story eh?

It doesn't seek to answer many of the questions raised by this case. It just points out the poor standard of journalism which has been applied to it.

Thanks for that.

 

[MrLuther]

Seriously, this is exactly the kind of thing the Mail is looking for. You'll go far.

Keep ignoring the point, in favor of personal jabs. You're making mine
Also: If it had been a British woman who'd had her child forcibly removed, and given away, in...say....Nigeria or Sudan or something, would you be as willing to say: "Meh, she probably had it coming"?

 

[Hetta]

More hyperbole.

Some people are allergic to facts.

 

[MrLuther]

Some people are allergic to facts.

Yeah, life can't be very pleasant for you, and I feel for you, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us should stop presenting the facts.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

More hyperbole.

Some people are allergic to facts.

And facts are something we still really don't have. We have no idea of the situation in Italy, and just because an agency says "we had contact with family members" doesn't mean they did. Intercontinental child services cases are dicey at best.

What should've happened is that this woman should've been taken back to Italy and the Italian courts (who allegedly have been dealing with her, it seems) should've handled the situation.

I can only imagine the outrage if this had happened to an American woman abroad.

 

[Hetta]

Yeah, life can't be very pleasant for you, and I feel for you, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us should stop presenting the facts.

When you present a fact, I'll let you know. So far .. zero.

 

[Hetta]

And facts are something we still really don't have. We have no idea of the situation in Italy, and just because an agency says "we had contact with family members" doesn't mean they did. Intercontinental child services cases are dicey at best.

What should've happened is that this woman should've been taken back to Italy and the Italian courts (who allegedly have been dealing with her, it seems) should've handled the situation.

I can only imagine the outrage if this had happened to an American woman abroad.

So basically you're saying that the statement from the health authority is a lie? Well, it will all come out in court.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

So basically you're saying that the statement from the health authority is a lie? Well, it will all come out in court.

If I was saying it was a lie, I would've said "it's a lie".

What I said was that they SAY they exhausted every avenue, but that doesn't mean they actually did. You know how the family has had time to possibly spin things? Well, so has the court. They can spin things, too.

Something is still totally fishy about all of this. I think there's stuff on both sides, but I don't think ANYTHING that's been said even comes close to justifying sedating her and giving her a c-section.

 

[Oafman]

Keep ignoring the point, in favor of personal jabs. You're making mine
Also: If it had been a British woman who'd had her child forcibly removed, and given away, in...say....Nigeria or Sudan or something, would you be as willing to say: "Meh, she probably had it coming"?

I think you know as well as I do that I have said nothing of the sort. All I have said so far, is that we should withhold judgment until we have all the facts.

So I'm not sure what point it is that you think I'm ignoring. I get the impression that you are simply critical of my lack of outrage.

Two major decisions were made in this case. The first was a clinical decision - to sedate the mother for the birth (C-sections are normally only local anesthetic). The second decision was to take the baby into care. Both were made based on the mother's mental health, about which we know almost nothing, so it seems premature of us to criticise those decisions, without enough available facts.

So let's just wait for more information to come to light. If bad decisions have been made, the courts will find against the authorities.

 

[MrLuther]

snip

Not letting you get away with it
Please answer me: Would you be as indifferent if it had been a British woman who had been cut open and had her baby kidnapped in Sudan or Nigeria?
Or would that somehow have been "like tolly diffrentz 'n stuffz"?

If bad decisions have been made, the courts will find against the authorities.

That parallel universe in which you live, that consists of only fluffy bunnies where everyone is nice all the time and no one ever make mistakes, or unjust decisions, ever, must be a great place to live.
We, however, live in a world where this is not the case.

 

[Oafman]

Would you be as indifferent

I'm not indifferent. At all. I doubt I'd be writing this if I was. I'm just trying to point out that we don't have sufficient facts to draw accurate conclusions.

cut open

The cesarean was an obstetric necessity.

and had her baby kidnapped

Do you describe all children who are taken into care as 'kidnapped'?

Or would that somehow have been "like tolly diffrentz 'n stuffz"?

No. It would have been tolly ze same. I'd wait for facts before drawing conclusions

That parallel universe in which you live, that consists of only fluffy bunnies where everyone is nice all the time and no one ever make mistakes, or unjust decisions, ever, must be a great place to live.
We, however, live in a world where this is not the case.

I live somewhere that has a very well established legal system - one of the oldest in the world - and an independent judiciary. I've never heard anyone make a convincing case that this is not true. Perhaps you'd like to have a go?
I can give you plenty of examples of courts and enquiries finding against childrens' services, and against health services. The recent tragic case of Baby P immediately springs to mind.

But you don't want to wait for the facts to come to light, and you don't trust the systems which are in place to review cases like this. You appear to believe you're better placed to draw conclusions than the professionals employed to do so, who unlike you have access to all the facts. I don't think you are.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I will admit that I'm leery of family courts because one let me languish in 7 different foster families for 7 months while my biological mother went back and forth between keeping me or her boyfriend. In America, family courts all to often assume that placement with the mother is the best thing over anything. Other countries might be just the opposite, but ultimately it's anyone's guess as to what would be best for the child.

How will this kid feel knowing her mom fought for her but yet she's not with her? And she's already 15 months old.

There is no winning here at all.

 

[Hetta]

I will admit that I'm leery of family courts because one let me languish in 7 different foster families for 7 months while my biological mother went back and forth between keeping me or her boyfriend. In America, family courts all to often assume that placement with the mother is the best thing over anything. Other countries might be just the opposite, but ultimately it's anyone's guess as to what would be best for the child.

How will this kid feel knowing her mom fought for her but yet she's not with her? And she's already 15 months old.

There is no winning here at all.

Not meaning any offense, but was it the fault of the family courts or your mother? If she was going back and forth, they weren't responsible for that, yes? I think that in most cases, the courts would much rather that a child is with its parents.

We don't know yet if the parent did fight for her child. ISTM that she has only recently started to try to get her back.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Not meaning any offense, but was it the fault of the family courts or your mother? If she was going back and forth, they weren't responsible for that, yes? I think that in most cases, the courts would much rather that a child is with its parents.

My adoption case helped bring about massive overhaul in the adoption system and helped institute the time limit for "changing your mind" in adoption.

I believe it was the court's fault, ultimately. My biological mother was very young and was relying on the courts to help her. She KNEW she needed to give me up but it seems that due to the court's willingness to keep children with their biological parents, they were afraid to just straight up tell her that.

The idea that children belong with biological parents is not always the smart thinking, which is what I was trying to get at it earlier. She's my biological mom, but she wasn't fit to be a mom.

We don't know yet if the parent did fight for her child. ISTM that she has only recently started to try to get her back.

Several articles I've read stated she was allowed to go back to Italy and that made things very difficult for her. She had a fight going on over there, too, because of her other kids being taken away. From what I've gathered, they weren't taken away before she left, but AFTER. Of course, that's not been verified either so...

And the father wants the child too if they won't give her to the mother.