boyfriday Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 I agree where's the babys mothers family they could of cared for the baby or what about the father and his side of the family don't they get any <REMOVED> right I'm sure they would of loved caring for the baby Youre making many assumptions there which the court may already have considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 The media can only report a limited amount about a case that has gone through the family court system. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but IMO the safety of a child always has to take precedence in cases like this. The mother knew she was pregnant, yet stopped taking the medication necessary to control her condition. Not the smartest move when a newborn baby is imminent. I doubt the social workers would have made any decisions without taking advice from the psychiatrists treating the mother. If by ensuring the welfare of any child means that social workers are covering their own backs, then so be it. Lets face it they're damned if they do and if they don't. Plus, we can't be sure of anything to do with the child's family, unlike the courts we are not privy to all the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 I agree where's the babys mothers family they could of cared for the baby or what about the father and his side of the family don't they get any <REMOVED> right I'm sure they would of loved caring for the baby What's with all the swearing and agression. What is wrong with you? This story is very shocking and obviously very distressing. However, the social services and/or courts have a duty to make sure the child AND mother are protected accordingly. We have already had someone on this thread referring to "baby P". They intervene - they get slagged off. They dont intervene - they get slagged off. They are the only ones who know the full facts. They are the only ones who are in a position to make a judgment. They have a tough decision- but their duty is to the welfare of the child and parent. They will be aware of their reasons of who is and whose not suitable and have to make a very difficult decision on that information. They have an extremly difficult and thankless job to do for low money. Less of the words that must be removed and give these people some credit they deserve. Its not your child. You are not related to the mother. You are not related to the family. You are commenting on a news story just like the rest of us. Calm down. You are making yourself look very silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportsTrophy Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 They are the only ones who know the full facts. They are the only ones who are in a position to make a judgment. It would be good if that was the case but it has reached court because others do not agree. You may have your thoughts and be in denial of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babyblueeyes Posted December 1, 2013 Author Share Posted December 1, 2013 What's with all the swearing and agression. What is wrong with you? This story is very shocking and obviously very distressing. However, the social services and/or courts have a duty to make sure the child AND mother are protected accordingly. We have already had someone on this thread referring to "baby P". They intervene - they get slagged off. They dont intervene - they get slagged off. They are the only ones who know the full facts. They are the only ones who are in a position to make a judgment. They have a tough decision- but their duty is to the welfare of the child and parent. They will be aware of their reasons of who is and whose not suitable and have to make a very difficult decision on that information. They have an extremly difficult and thankless job to do for low money. Less of the words that must be removed and give these people some credit they deserve. Its not your child. You are not related to the mother. You are not related to the family. You are commenting on a news story just like the rest of us. Calm down. You are making yourself look very silly. Its wrong to judge the mother when she may of had a reason to stop taking her medication maybe she thought it d harm her unborn baby maybe the medication was making her sick and she wanted different medication but her doctor said no and therefore went lengths maybe she wasn't getting enough help who knows only god knows Its wrong just wrong and unhuman to snatch baby from womb ---------- Post added 01-12-2013 at 23:47 ---------- It reminds me of that film where a woman was pregnant and she had a c section and her baby snatched Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 The Telegraph article stated that she lacked capacity, so consent is a moot pointOh I see, so presumably its okay then. Obviously the best intentions and concerns were meant for mother and child. Its just that its the first I've heard of anyone issuing power to authorise that someone have a caesarean section for the mentioned intention and I thought it seemed rather extreme, but admittedly I'm a little behind the times on these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeMac 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. It has been already. By a court of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 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. You do realise it was the High Court that made the decision! Social services will have put forward their case for the procedure and legal representation would have put forward the mothers case. High Court judges would have then made a decision based on the facts so why would an investigation be needed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe-b-1 Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 I find it incredible and disgusting that courts can give permission for someone to be cut open. To me if this had happened in certain countries many people would be saying how backward and barbaric they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 maybe people should be able to hear about these complex backgrounds(if any) What's the point? Most people just read the headlines and make decisions and assumptions based on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.