Sunday, 1 December 2013

Cutting your baby out and stealing it

I've posted before on the way Britain's secret courts destroy families. This case has just come to light -

"The woman....is an Italian national who come to Britain in July last year to attend a training course with an airline at Stansted Airport in Essex. She suffered a panic attack, which her relations believe was due to her failure to take regular medication for an existing bipolar condition. She called the police, who became concerned for her well-being and took her to a hospital, which she then realised was a psychiatric facility. She has told her lawyers that when she said she wanted to return to her hotel, she was restrained and sectioned under the Mental Health Act."

"Meanwhile, Essex social services obtained a High Court order in August 2012 for the birth 'to be enforced by way of caesarean section'....The woman, who says she was kept in the dark about the proceedings, says that after five weeks in the ward she was forcibly sedated. When she woke up she was told that the child had been delivered by C-section and taken into care. In February, the mother, who had gone back to Italy, returned to Britain to request the return of her daughter at a hearing at Chelmsford Crown Court."

"Her lawyers say that she had since resumed taking her medication, and that the judge formed a favourable opinion of her. But he ruled that the child should be placed for adoption because of the risk that she might suffer a relapse. The cause has also been raised before a judge in the High Court in Rome, which has questioned why British care proceedings had been applied to the child of an Italian citizen 'habitually resident' in Italy."

Yes, they even steal foreigners' children as well - anything to help meet those damned targets. For previous posts on this growing menace see here and also here - and here too.

5 comments:

  1. Christopher Booker has been like yourself on this for some time and his story has been lifted today by all the nationals despite which give it the profile it needs.
    What I still don't understand is the position of the Italian State in all this has it moved on from the Judges statement in Rome, it should have.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes it should, and I suspect that we are witnessing the coordination of EU member states' social services teams. Certainly the Italian High Court seemed happy enough about the Caesarian, it was just a bit iffy about where the adoptive family should be living.

    See Article 52 of the charter of fundamental rights, which allows for the suspension of rights on any pretext.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It would appear Ian that despite my belief that what happened was totally abhorrent, a lot more is now being revealed on the case, that changes much of the sequence of events and what was and not said and done plus who was involved and at what stage, this link is one of several with more on the story.
    http://heresycorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/forced-caesarian-mothers-story-and.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. I followed your link, and saw that despite the author's criticism of Booker, he sees the judge as remiss -

    "Judge Newton's ruling is a model neither of clarity nor of judicial reasoning; he contradicts himself at various points and his decision seems unsupported by any compelling weight of evidence.....Perhaps good reasons can be found as to why it was impossible to transfer her to Italy, despite her express desire, prior to the birth. But it seems on the face of it difficult to see any, given that she seems to have been kept heavily sedated."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Following my above comment, Essex Social services seems to have persuaded the judge to keep the mother in Britain until the forced Caesarian - and then it shipped her back to Italy afterwards, still doped up and minus her baby, in order to show how irresponsible she was being by leaving the baby in Britain. SS depts have adoption targets to meet, after all.

    "She had been 'dispatched (indeed escorted) from the UK with undue haste simply because she wished to go back to Italy'. The judge said 'by going to Italy any realistic prospect of P returning to her care was diminished substantially'. Allowing her to leave had been 'most ill-advised', he said."

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/03/forced-caesarian-italian-woman-suffering-animal

    ReplyDelete

Keep it clean.....