If you read the other reports and information now released from the court papers here are a few facts:
- At the time she was one day away from her due delivery date (not at 34 weeks as she claims).
- She did not have the mental capacity to make a decision about her own or the foetus’s welfare.
- She had voluntary stopped taking medication for a diagnosed medical condition.
- She had been in hospital sectioned under the Mental Health Act for ten weeks.
- She was not likely to recover mental capacity without medication which might harm the child.
- The decision for the delivery by caesarean section was to prevent physical injury to her sought by the health trust that employed the obstetricians caring for her.
- Both her previous children had been delivered by caesarean section (we assume in Italy and with her consent).
- She does not appear to have care or custody of either of her other children, born in the USA and in Italy.
- The application for a care order for the child was made by social services.
- She returned to Italy in October last year and was still a psychiatric in-patient there until December.
- The order for freeing for adoption was made in February this year, on the grounds this was a better option for the child than returning her to the care of her mother (see above).
_The other options offered were “relatives in America” or the mother of the child’s father who lives in Senegal.
- Which of these decisions was not in the child’s best interests?
- At the time she was one day away from her due delivery date (not at 34 weeks as she claims).
- She did not have the mental capacity to make a decision about her own or the foetus’s welfare.
- She had voluntary stopped taking medication for a diagnosed medical condition.
- She had been in hospital sectioned under the Mental Health Act for ten weeks.
- She was not likely to recover mental capacity without medication which might harm the child.
- The decision for the delivery by caesarean section was to prevent physical injury to her sought by the health trust that employed the obstetricians caring for her.
- Both her previous children had been delivered by caesarean section (we assume in Italy and with her consent).
- She does not appear to have care or custody of either of her other children, born in the USA and in Italy.
- The application for a care order for the child was made by social services.
- She returned to Italy in October last year and was still a psychiatric in-patient there until December.
- The order for freeing for adoption was made in February this year, on the grounds this was a better option for the child than returning her to the care of her mother (see above).
_The other options offered were “relatives in America” or the mother of the child’s father who lives in Senegal.
- Which of these decisions was not in the child’s best interests?
@ Brendan_Archer
"If you read the other reports and information now released from the court papers here are a few facts:
At the time she was one day away from her due delivery date (not at 34 weeks as she claims)" etc etc...
-----------------------------------
1. Please, hand us the link to (the source of) "the other reports and information now released from the court papers", and we will judge for ourselves about the validity of your (at this stage, rather) suggestive statements and assumptions so far.
2. Come to think of it : Maybe it would be appropriate for you as well - since you seem to have (exclusively and favorably) taken the case for "the Social Services" - to declare unequivocally that you have no interest (professionally or otherwise) whatsoever in this case.!
Thank you.!
d.d. 05-12-2013 / 17:10 UK time
"If you read the other reports and information now released from the court papers here are a few facts:
At the time she was one day away from her due delivery date (not at 34 weeks as she claims)" etc etc...
-----------------------------------
1. Please, hand us the link to (the source of) "the other reports and information now released from the court papers", and we will judge for ourselves about the validity of your (at this stage, rather) suggestive statements and assumptions so far.
2. Come to think of it : Maybe it would be appropriate for you as well - since you seem to have (exclusively and favorably) taken the case for "the Social Services" - to declare unequivocally that you have no interest (professionally or otherwise) whatsoever in this case.!
Thank you.!
d.d. 05-12-2013 / 17:10 UK time
Sources – try what I did - Google the words “Alessandra Pacchieri”, omit the entries that simply repeat this report. It will take a couple of minutes.
Most of what I posted came from the Daily Mail interview with her which is sensationalist in style but has the facts contained within it if read carefully.
I have no interest in this case. I am a lawyer. In the past I have been a specialist both representing parents in care proceedings and patients detained under the Mental Health Act, including patients with bipolar disorder, many of whom I now count as friends.
Most of what I posted came from the Daily Mail interview with her which is sensationalist in style but has the facts contained within it if read carefully.
I have no interest in this case. I am a lawyer. In the past I have been a specialist both representing parents in care proceedings and patients detained under the Mental Health Act, including patients with bipolar disorder, many of whom I now count as friends.
@ Brendan Archer
"ources – try what I did - Google the words “Alessandra Pacchieri”, omit the entries that simply repeat this report" etc etc...
-------------------------
1. I would like to thank you for informing us, that the name of the Italian mother (apparently very recently) has been released (by her solicitors).
2. Since I indeed inserted her name in our most celebrated searching program, I almost literally was innudated by "une mère à boire" (read : tsunami) of newly available info on the subject.
3. Because the data, that appeared to be the most factual (and the most recently updated and the least sensational) happened to be situated in "The Telegraph" (6:04PM GMT 05 Dec 2013) I have to advise you to Google on “Caesarean case mother: Italian government to step into Alessandra Pacchieri adoption battle
Italian government stepping into British legal battle over Alessandra Pacchieri and her baby delivered by forced caesarean “
4. Please do take a special note to the remarks of Sir James Munby, the president of the High Court Family Division, who seems to be criticizing fundamentally the way this section of the UK Court is functioning in general and in this specific case in particular.
5. Only his apparent intervention seems to contradict your apparent main conclusion, that the (mental condition of) mother has to be held mainly accountable for the developments around her legitimate child.
6. By the way (and I am aware of the populist undertone of this mini thought experiment) : Did you ever pose the question, what would have happened when this bizarre fate had been occurred on an English citizen, on a study course in Italy.
d.d. 05-12-2013 / 21{45 UK time
"ources – try what I did - Google the words “Alessandra Pacchieri”, omit the entries that simply repeat this report" etc etc...
-------------------------
1. I would like to thank you for informing us, that the name of the Italian mother (apparently very recently) has been released (by her solicitors).
2. Since I indeed inserted her name in our most celebrated searching program, I almost literally was innudated by "une mère à boire" (read : tsunami) of newly available info on the subject.
3. Because the data, that appeared to be the most factual (and the most recently updated and the least sensational) happened to be situated in "The Telegraph" (6:04PM GMT 05 Dec 2013) I have to advise you to Google on “Caesarean case mother: Italian government to step into Alessandra Pacchieri adoption battle
Italian government stepping into British legal battle over Alessandra Pacchieri and her baby delivered by forced caesarean “
4. Please do take a special note to the remarks of Sir James Munby, the president of the High Court Family Division, who seems to be criticizing fundamentally the way this section of the UK Court is functioning in general and in this specific case in particular.
5. Only his apparent intervention seems to contradict your apparent main conclusion, that the (mental condition of) mother has to be held mainly accountable for the developments around her legitimate child.
6. By the way (and I am aware of the populist undertone of this mini thought experiment) : Did you ever pose the question, what would have happened when this bizarre fate had been occurred on an English citizen, on a study course in Italy.
d.d. 05-12-2013 / 21{45 UK time
1. I would like to thank you for informing us, that the name of the Italian mother (apparently very recently) has been released (by her solicitors).
BA - I don't know if it was released by her solicitors. It was released by the court in England.
Since I indeed inserted her name in our most celebrated searching program, I almost literally was innudated by "une mère à boire" (read : tsunami) of newly available info on the subject.
BA - Most it seems to reproduce uncritically the interview and statements (some at least of which are now shown to be inaccurate) made by her lawyer in Italy. Not BTW a criticism of him – he will say what his client told him. When searching the – [minus] sign is a valuable tool to filter out the repetitive and find the alternative.
3. Because the data, that appeared to be the most factual (and the most recently updated and the least sensational) happened to be situated in "The Telegraph" (6:04PM GMT 05 Dec 2013) I have to advise you to Google on “Caesarean case mother: Italian government to step into Alessandra Pacchieri adoption battle
Italian government stepping into British legal battle over Alessandra Pacchieri and her baby delivered by forced caesarean “
BA – It's taken them a long time given the mother appeared in the court proceedings in February. As parties to such proceedings were entitled to legal representation with no means test I assume that she was also represented by lawyers. It also appears that they didn't bother to tell her or her lawyers which would have been polite.
4. Please do take a special note to the remarks of Sir James Munby, the president of the High Court Family Division, who seems to be criticizing fundamentally the way this section of the UK Court is functioning in general and in this specific case in particular.
BA – First given the publicity given to this case by the mother (belatedly) it is entirely appropriate that he should direct the case should be moved to him as it shortens the periods for appeal, which must be in the child's interest rather than an extended period of appeal and rehearing (which seems to characteristic of the Italian system).
He is head of the Family Division, which deals with private and public family law cases, including care proceedings. The Court of Protection is a different court which deals with cases involving people lacking mental capacity to make their own decisions. There is a debate ongoing in England about the openness of both courts.
It has been pointed out by a commentator on mental health law that the health trust could possibly have made the decision about the caesarian section without an application to the court (or allowed the “trial of labour” to start, at risk for the mother and child).
By making the application to the Court of Protection it put to the test of an independent court at which the mother's interests were represented both whether she had mental capacity and whether the C section was in her (not the child's interests).
5. Only his apparent intervention seems to contradict your apparent main conclusion, that the (mental condition of) mother has to be held mainly accountable for the developments around her legitimate child.
BA – No, see above 4. The child's legitimacy is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the father did not offer to care for it, nor did any of the mother's immediate family in Italy.
The “developments” are that she want to Italy, and she didn't return to care for the child, which was an option available to her. The decision was based on the best interests of the child, which is the test in English law, which values continuity and confidence in stable care, as the evidence shows the value of that.
The basis for that was the mother's medical history, and the lack of any evidence of her ability to care for (as opposed to care about) any of her children.
By the way (and I am aware of the populist undertone of this mini thought experiment) : Did you ever pose the question, what would have happened when this bizarre fate had been occurred on an English citizen, on a study course in Italy.
BA – By way of riposte you are presumably not aware of the Welsh woman presently under threat of arrest under order of an Italian Court for returning to the UK with her child to escape an abuse violent relationship in Italy with an Italian man who was banned by the court from having contact with the child. At least that's how it's reported.
BA - I don't know if it was released by her solicitors. It was released by the court in England.
Since I indeed inserted her name in our most celebrated searching program, I almost literally was innudated by "une mère à boire" (read : tsunami) of newly available info on the subject.
BA - Most it seems to reproduce uncritically the interview and statements (some at least of which are now shown to be inaccurate) made by her lawyer in Italy. Not BTW a criticism of him – he will say what his client told him. When searching the – [minus] sign is a valuable tool to filter out the repetitive and find the alternative.
3. Because the data, that appeared to be the most factual (and the most recently updated and the least sensational) happened to be situated in "The Telegraph" (6:04PM GMT 05 Dec 2013) I have to advise you to Google on “Caesarean case mother: Italian government to step into Alessandra Pacchieri adoption battle
Italian government stepping into British legal battle over Alessandra Pacchieri and her baby delivered by forced caesarean “
BA – It's taken them a long time given the mother appeared in the court proceedings in February. As parties to such proceedings were entitled to legal representation with no means test I assume that she was also represented by lawyers. It also appears that they didn't bother to tell her or her lawyers which would have been polite.
4. Please do take a special note to the remarks of Sir James Munby, the president of the High Court Family Division, who seems to be criticizing fundamentally the way this section of the UK Court is functioning in general and in this specific case in particular.
BA – First given the publicity given to this case by the mother (belatedly) it is entirely appropriate that he should direct the case should be moved to him as it shortens the periods for appeal, which must be in the child's interest rather than an extended period of appeal and rehearing (which seems to characteristic of the Italian system).
He is head of the Family Division, which deals with private and public family law cases, including care proceedings. The Court of Protection is a different court which deals with cases involving people lacking mental capacity to make their own decisions. There is a debate ongoing in England about the openness of both courts.
It has been pointed out by a commentator on mental health law that the health trust could possibly have made the decision about the caesarian section without an application to the court (or allowed the “trial of labour” to start, at risk for the mother and child).
By making the application to the Court of Protection it put to the test of an independent court at which the mother's interests were represented both whether she had mental capacity and whether the C section was in her (not the child's interests).
5. Only his apparent intervention seems to contradict your apparent main conclusion, that the (mental condition of) mother has to be held mainly accountable for the developments around her legitimate child.
BA – No, see above 4. The child's legitimacy is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the father did not offer to care for it, nor did any of the mother's immediate family in Italy.
The “developments” are that she want to Italy, and she didn't return to care for the child, which was an option available to her. The decision was based on the best interests of the child, which is the test in English law, which values continuity and confidence in stable care, as the evidence shows the value of that.
The basis for that was the mother's medical history, and the lack of any evidence of her ability to care for (as opposed to care about) any of her children.
By the way (and I am aware of the populist undertone of this mini thought experiment) : Did you ever pose the question, what would have happened when this bizarre fate had been occurred on an English citizen, on a study course in Italy.
BA – By way of riposte you are presumably not aware of the Welsh woman presently under threat of arrest under order of an Italian Court for returning to the UK with her child to escape an abuse violent relationship in Italy with an Italian man who was banned by the court from having contact with the child. At least that's how it's reported.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten
Opmerking: Alleen leden van deze blog kunnen een reactie posten.