Support NeoGAF

[w1gglyjones]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/02/forced-caesarean-risk-mother-child

"John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, said in a statement that he was also in touch with Italian officials to find out if they could help. Hemming, who chairs the Justice for Families Campaign, has said he hopes to raise the matter in parliament.... He also criticised Essex council for failing "to follow proper proceedings". He said: "The rules are straightforward when it comes to foreign nationals and care proceedings. The foreign country concerned should be contacted through their central authority (in Italy's case part of the Justice Ministry). This clearly did not happen and for this Essex County Council are clearly in the wrong. Essex have not managed to explain why no one in the wider extended family was competent to look after the baby when they were already looking after two of her siblings"

 

[Pandaman]

i can imagine circumstances where this would be okay, gonna need more details.

 

[hat_hair]

As someone who has worked in Children's Social Care in the UK (not as a Social Worker), and without commenting on this specific case due to a lack of information, I have to say that Social Workers get an awful reputation. I think this is because their job involves children at risk, which tends to get people emotional.

Social Workers are inundated with cases all year round, constantly have to deal with the worst people in the country, and if they make any mistakes they get pounced on immediately. The percentage of cases that go absolutely fine is well over 99%, but whenever something unusual happens the newspaper headlines all read "Social Workers Incompetent" rather than "Social Care Massively Underfunded and Overworked".

They get vilified for not taking kids into care, they get vilified for taking kids into care, they get vilified just for fucking talking to parents and trying to set up support.
"Don't talk to Social Services, or they'll take your kids away" seems to be the common feeling, despite care proceedings being used only as a last resort or in an absolute emergency. This means families don't work with Social Workers, don't accept support, don't even accept that maybe being drunk 24 hours a day or letting your new partner's brother's friend pick up your kids from school isn't appropriate.
On top of all this, Social Services literally can't do anything without police intervention or a court order. A judge has to agree to any care order, any adoption order, or any legal proceedings against a family, and the police can only put children into our care without a care order for a maximum of three days.

We actually dealt with a case once were we tried to get some kids back to Italy. The mother had given birth (to twins) while in the UK, and when she tried to go home, the children didn't have passports. But the mother wasn't allowed to stay because her visa ran out, so the kids ended up in our care but placed with a relative. And because the mum had been foricbly removed from the country, she wasn't allowed back in. It was a nightmare to deal with, and I never found out how it eventually got resolved after the case transferred to a long term team. For all I know, the kids are still here, and ended up learning English.

I don't know why anyone would want to be a Social Worker, and anyone that sticks with it for more than a couple of years gets my utmost respect.

 

[daviyoung]

"John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, said in a statement that he was also in touch with Italian officials to find out if they could help. Hemming, who chairs the Justice for Families Campaign, has said he hopes to raise the matter in parliament.... He also criticised Essex council for failing "to follow proper proceedings". He said: "The rules are straightforward when it comes to foreign nationals and care proceedings. The foreign country concerned should be contacted through their central authority (in Italy's case part of the Justice Ministry). This clearly did not happen and for this Essex County Council are clearly in the wrong. Essex have not managed to explain why no one in the wider extended family was competent to look after the baby when they were already looking after two of her siblings"

Just to remind, the bolded relates to the situation after the birth and not to the "takes baby from womb" that is getting people riled up.

Good post by hat_hair btw.

 

[Divvy]

As someone who has worked in Children's Social Care in the UK (not as a Social Worker), and without commenting on this specific case due to a lack of information, I have to say that Social Workers get an awful reputation. I think this is because their job involves children at risk, which tends to get people emotional.

Social Workers are inundated with cases all year round, constantly have to deal with the worst people in the country, and if they make any mistakes they get pounced on immediately. The percentage of cases that go absolutely fine is well over 99%, but whenever something unusual happens the newspaper headlines all read "Social Workers Incompetent" rather than "Social Care Massively Underfunded and Overworked".

They get vilified for not taking kids into care, they get vilified for taking kids into care, they get vilified just for fucking talking to parents and trying to set up support.
"Don't talk to Social Services, or they'll take your kids away" seems to be the common feeling, despite care proceedings being used only as a last resort or in an absolute emergency. This means families don't work with Social Workers, don't accept support, don't even accept that maybe being drunk 24 hours a day or letting your new partner's brother's friend pick up your kids from school isn't appropriate.
On top of all this, Social Services literally can't do anything without police intervention or a court order. A judge has to agree to any care order, any adoption order, or any legal proceedings against a family, and the police can only put children into our care without a care order for a maximum of three days.

We actually dealt with a case once were we tried to get some kids back to Italy. The mother had given birth (to twins) while in the UK, and when she tried to go home, the children didn't have passports. But the mother wasn't allowed to stay because her visa ran out, so the kids ended up in our care but placed with a relative. And because the mum had been foricbly removed from the country, she wasn't allowed back in. It was a nightmare to deal with, and I never found out how it eventually got resolved after the case transferred to a long term team. For all I know, the kids are still here, and ended up learning English.

I don't know why anyone would want to be a Social Worker, and anyone that sticks with it for more than a couple of years gets my utmost respect.

This. They get shat on by everyone and never get their due credit for their work.

 

[Funky Papa]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/02/forced-caesarean-risk-mother-child

Well, well, well.

 

[Jackben]

Well, well, well.

Yep. Guardian article actually has the issue clearly laid out instead of obfuscating the facts with sensationalism. What a surprise.

The Telegraph is just barely a step up from the Daily Mail. Both are tabloid trash.

 

[Archaix]

Not going to lie, if you had put a G/A/F up, I would have been positive that the answer had to be georgia, alabama, or florida (ie I thought there was no way in hell this wasn't america).

Complete nonsense, not even remotely probable.

There was no mention of sending the medical bill to the mother afterwards.


I also don't really think the new article from the Guardian changes that much (even if the original was sensationalist). Sure, it paints a bit of a picture but the fact remains that this woman was traveling in a foreign country where she was detained and had an invasive surgery performed, only to have her child taken from her.

 

[Walshicus]

the fact remains that this woman was traveling in a foreign country where she was detained and had an invasive surgery performed, only to have her child taken from her.

We share a government tier with them, it's hardly 'foreign' any more.

 

[Funky Papa]

Yep. Guardian article actually has the issue clearly laid out instead of obfuscating the facts with sensationalism. What a surprise.

The Telegraph is just barely a step up from the Daily Mail. Both are tabloid trash.

I see you already attended reeducation camp, comrade.

 

[kirblar]

Complete nonsense, not even remotely probable.

There was no mention of sending the medical bill to the mother afterwards.


I also don't really think the new article from the Guardian changes that much (even if the original was sensationalist). Sure, it paints a bit of a picture but the fact remains that this woman was traveling in a foreign country where she was detained and had an invasive surgery performed, only to have her child taken from her.

"Invasive Surgery" is one hell of a sensationalist way to describe a C-section.

 

[Deaf Spacker]

Was the baby's father not involved in any of the decisions?

 

[Mondy]

EDIT: Oh, it was sensationalized Murdoch press bullshit? Carry on then.

 

[meltingparappa]

So not that it really matters, but was it ever explained why the birth was carried out via cesarean versus a normal birthing process?

Was the issue that she didn't want to carry it to term during the last few weeks?

Was there going to be a potential physical complication?

Considering it's the cesarean that's the hangup in the original Murdoch article, this seems like an important point.

I feel like most people are hung up on what might seem like "the government forcibly scooping a child out of a woman" while ignoring the delicate grey area of where the state could/should intervene with someone mentally ill and in psychiatric care.

 

[Archaix]

"Invasive Surgery" is one hell of a sensationalist way to describe a C-section.

"Invasive surgery" is a medical term for any surgery which opens the body cavity. By absolutely any definition, a C-Section is invasive surgery. But...okay, sure, it's sensationalist?

 

[God Dayumm]

I was going to say, hyperbole much? But then I realised posts like this will do a fine job of keeping EU immigrants out, so go ahead

Combating hyperbole with racism. Stay classy, EU

 

[Walshicus]

"Invasive surgery" is a medical term for any surgery which opens the body cavity. By absolutely any definition, a C-Section is invasive surgery. But...okay, sure, it's sensationalist?

It *is* a medical term, but it also has an... emotive power behind it.

 

[daviyoung]

Combating hyperbole with racism. Stay classy, EU

EU being racist to itself?

 

[Dany]

It *is* a medical term, but it also has an... emotive power behind it.

it doesn't. its what it is called. you're giving it that false 'power' to MAKE it sensationalist

 

[Raiden]

I wonder how the mental breakdown was. For all we know she was delusional about having Satan's baby in her womb and threatened to kill it and herself.

All i'm saying is there might be more to the story.

 

[daviyoung]

it doesn't. its what it is called. you're giving it that false 'power' to MAKE it sensationalist

If there wasn't any power to the contextual double-meaning they would have just used caesarian section, everyone knows what one of those literally is. Journos are good like that.

 

[Walshicus]

it doesn't. its what it is called. you're giving it that false 'power' to MAKE it sensationalist

With respect, I think it absolutely, unequivocally *does* have an impact beyond a neutral term.