Super Hans Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 maybe shed have done nothing Maybe, but if the risk is high enough then they have to act, evidently it was and they did. Call me too trusting but I don't think court orders to cut babies out of women are given out willy nilly. Baby P's mom and dad might not have killed him, but the risk was there, action should have been taken and it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 How did Social services manage to make this decision, and get permission for the mother to be forced to have a caesarean section, which is a surgical operation? This certainly needs investigating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoGo_dancer Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 My friend is a children's social worker. She had to attend hospital to take custody of a newborn belonging to a woman with severe learning & emotional difficulties. My friend is one tough cookie but she cried buckets over that baby but as soon as she handed that baby to a loving foster family she knew the right decision had been made by the courts. They don't just go in taking babies willy-nilly despite what people think. Walk a day in their shoes before jumping to conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babyblueeyes Posted December 1, 2013 Author Share Posted December 1, 2013 The social services don't have the baby or any child/rens best interest they just want to save their own skin so they don't look bad with all their failings well they are scum 1 way or another and they should be hunted like dogs ---------- Post added 01-12-2013 at 21:50 ---------- My friend is a children's social worker. She had to attend hospital to take custody of a newborn belonging to a woman with severe learning & emotional difficulties. My friend is one tough cookie but she cried buckets over that baby but as soon as she handed that baby to a loving foster family she knew the right decision had been made by the courts. They don't just go in taking babies willy-nilly despite what people think. Walk a day in their shoes before jumping to conclusions. Yes but adoption? What if the babys mother got better and wanted to prove she could look after her baby foster family would of been ideal but to place baby in adoption I don't f****ing agree with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minimo Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 What concerns me is that the woman was an Italian citizen, maybe the woman had family in her own country who would have cared for this child. Should they not have been given the chance? And did the father not have any rights, was he consulted? So many questions. I wonder what the Italian government thinks. If this had happened to a UK citizen in Italy or indeed any country, I wonder if there would have been a diplomatic protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 Gripping stuff, but I'd like to hear the full story. however whatever the outcome there should be great concern for a child of 15 months being estranged from its mother, native culture and language which presumably it will eventually be repatriated to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 My friend is a children's social worker. She had to attend hospital to take custody of a newborn belonging to a woman with severe learning & emotional difficulties. My friend is one tough cookie but she cried buckets over that baby but as soon as she handed that baby to a loving foster family she knew the right decision had been made by the courts. They don't just go in taking babies will-nilly despite what people think. Walk a day in their shoes before jumping to conclusions. No of course they don't, but forcing the procedure of a caesarean section without consent is a totally different situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoGo_dancer Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 The social services don't have the baby or any child/rens best interest they just want to save their own skin so they don't look bad with all their failings well they are scum 1 way or another and they should be hunted like dogs ---------- Post added 01-12-2013 at 21:50 ---------- Yes but adoption? What if the babys mother got better and wanted to prove she could look after her baby foster family would of been ideal but to place baby in adoption I don't f****ing agree with that The baby was placed with a foster family as I said. The girl in person was actually impregnated by a family member and her illness meant that she hadn't even been able to confirm that she had consented to sex in the first place, there was no way she could look after herself, nevermind a child. These stories are always emotive but there are often complex backgrounds that the public don't get to hear about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babyblueeyes Posted December 1, 2013 Author Share Posted December 1, 2013 And like melt said maybe shed have done nothing to hurt her baby or kids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 These stories are always emotive but there are often complex backgrounds that the public don't get to hear about. maybe people should be able to hear about these complex backgrounds(if any) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.