Robert Bleeker 0 seconds ago
"BA - I don't know if it was released by her
solicitors. It was released by the court in England." etc.etc...
Part I
---------------------------
1. Thanks again (and again heartily) for your rapid, lengthy and extensive reply to my comment d.d. 05-12-2013 / 21:45 UK time.
2. Although I can not guarantee the validity of the statement in the Telegraph (BTW : I never ever would have imagined myself, to have been quoting the tabloid-press) about the head of the High Court section (Sir James Munby), I still want confront you with the following (Telegraph) quotation :
- "Sir James Munby has been pressing for greater transparency around the activities of the Court of Protection.
- But he has also raised concerns that the drive to speed up the adoption process – a cause championed by the Education Secretary Michael Gove – could be causing social services to cut corners and push for children to be adopted when less “drastic” options are available including care by other family members.
- He used a case in September to raise the alarm about what he said was a growing tendency to apply for adoption orders on “sloppy” or non-existent assessment of the alternatives to adoption."
3. If indeed this is the essence of what he said at the time about (among else) this case, this sounds slightly more alarming than the way you might have summarized his criticism.
4. More precisely : His criticism seems to have been intended to have had explicitly included the possibility, that the pre-court preparation-effort of the Child Protection Agency (CPA) might have been fundamentally compromised by the way, that the Agency might have approached / confronted this case.
5. Since the High Court - in the case of the granting of the CPA Request to have the unborn child forcibly removed from the womb of the mother (Mrs. Pacchieri)- has been heavily depending on the presentation from the Social Workers, the High Court Order might have been fundamentally and structurally flawed from the beginning.
6. Apart from the subsequent adoption decision that is, which decision also might have been taken on (practically the same) dubious grounds, to say the least, and might soon have to be revised as well.
7. But instead of continuing on the much-trodden on tracks that has been constituted by the several official participants in this case, I rather would like to go back to the root-situation, that triggered the entire sequences of subsequent medical, social and judicial proceedings in the first place :
The mother, being on a two week course with Ryan Air, staying in an airport hotel and (apparently) having been the victim of a fear-lead panic-attack, that presumably had been caused by an (unexplained (but maybe relative excusable)) arrest of the mother taking in her medicine.
d.d. 08-12-2013 / 22:44 UK time
see part II
Part I
---------------------------
1. Thanks again (and again heartily) for your rapid, lengthy and extensive reply to my comment d.d. 05-12-2013 / 21:45 UK time.
2. Although I can not guarantee the validity of the statement in the Telegraph (BTW : I never ever would have imagined myself, to have been quoting the tabloid-press) about the head of the High Court section (Sir James Munby), I still want confront you with the following (Telegraph) quotation :
- "Sir James Munby has been pressing for greater transparency around the activities of the Court of Protection.
- But he has also raised concerns that the drive to speed up the adoption process – a cause championed by the Education Secretary Michael Gove – could be causing social services to cut corners and push for children to be adopted when less “drastic” options are available including care by other family members.
- He used a case in September to raise the alarm about what he said was a growing tendency to apply for adoption orders on “sloppy” or non-existent assessment of the alternatives to adoption."
3. If indeed this is the essence of what he said at the time about (among else) this case, this sounds slightly more alarming than the way you might have summarized his criticism.
4. More precisely : His criticism seems to have been intended to have had explicitly included the possibility, that the pre-court preparation-effort of the Child Protection Agency (CPA) might have been fundamentally compromised by the way, that the Agency might have approached / confronted this case.
5. Since the High Court - in the case of the granting of the CPA Request to have the unborn child forcibly removed from the womb of the mother (Mrs. Pacchieri)- has been heavily depending on the presentation from the Social Workers, the High Court Order might have been fundamentally and structurally flawed from the beginning.
6. Apart from the subsequent adoption decision that is, which decision also might have been taken on (practically the same) dubious grounds, to say the least, and might soon have to be revised as well.
7. But instead of continuing on the much-trodden on tracks that has been constituted by the several official participants in this case, I rather would like to go back to the root-situation, that triggered the entire sequences of subsequent medical, social and judicial proceedings in the first place :
The mother, being on a two week course with Ryan Air, staying in an airport hotel and (apparently) having been the victim of a fear-lead panic-attack, that presumably had been caused by an (unexplained (but maybe relative excusable)) arrest of the mother taking in her medicine.
d.d. 08-12-2013 / 22:44 UK time
see part II
0
Robert Bleeker 0 seconds ago
@ Brendan Archer
"BA - I don't know if it was released by her solicitors. It was released by the court in England." etc.etc.
Part II
---------------------------
8. Since she had (apparently) been functioning well in the months ahead of her two week (Ryan Air) study-visit to the UK, while regularly taking her medicine - prescribed by Italian medical authorities, to compensate for / to treat a bipolar condition, she most probably would not have had to be hospitalized in the first place.
9. In my perception, that initial decision by the mental institution - where the police-authorities transported her to (also) without her knowledge - seems to have been the root of all evil, which in my view might have kick-started a process of self-fulfilling prophecy and self-propelling sequence of events and proceedings.
10. If only (so is my assumption) the psychiatrists - that took her in, observed her and developed a (plan of) treatment for her - would have limited themselves, to have her convinced to take her medicine again, the case most probably would not have been escalating as it apparently did after their intervention.
11. One might add, that the forced hospitalization of the woman and the apparent suggestion to her, that the CPA would seek a HQ Order to have her unborn baby removed against her will, in itself might have been more than enough, to have the woman thrown into a deep depressive and/or fear-related paranoid mood.
12. After all, this horror-scenario would have been more than enough even to have totally mentally sound and well-balanced people to instantly develop serious symptoms of a complicated mental disorder.
13. So I am in fact pleading for an thorough and independent evaluation of the entire case from its very origin, and to have formulated in short term, a sound judgement on the base of the outcome of that objective examination.
14. An examination that (and I am anticipating on the outcome) very well might lead to the conclusion that serious mistakes had been made in this case and one even might be open to accept a totally new set of points of reference in this case.
15 So, in my opinion, the illogical and forceful way, that the Italian woman has been treated by the entire line-up of UK authorities from day one, has created the severity of the case and has been mainly responsible for the steep escalation of the case, that so dramatically ended in the forcible removal of the fetus from the womb, separating the baby from the mother and destining the baby for adoption.
d.d. 08-12-2013 / 22:44 UK time
"BA - I don't know if it was released by her solicitors. It was released by the court in England." etc.etc.
Part II
---------------------------
8. Since she had (apparently) been functioning well in the months ahead of her two week (Ryan Air) study-visit to the UK, while regularly taking her medicine - prescribed by Italian medical authorities, to compensate for / to treat a bipolar condition, she most probably would not have had to be hospitalized in the first place.
9. In my perception, that initial decision by the mental institution - where the police-authorities transported her to (also) without her knowledge - seems to have been the root of all evil, which in my view might have kick-started a process of self-fulfilling prophecy and self-propelling sequence of events and proceedings.
10. If only (so is my assumption) the psychiatrists - that took her in, observed her and developed a (plan of) treatment for her - would have limited themselves, to have her convinced to take her medicine again, the case most probably would not have been escalating as it apparently did after their intervention.
11. One might add, that the forced hospitalization of the woman and the apparent suggestion to her, that the CPA would seek a HQ Order to have her unborn baby removed against her will, in itself might have been more than enough, to have the woman thrown into a deep depressive and/or fear-related paranoid mood.
12. After all, this horror-scenario would have been more than enough even to have totally mentally sound and well-balanced people to instantly develop serious symptoms of a complicated mental disorder.
13. So I am in fact pleading for an thorough and independent evaluation of the entire case from its very origin, and to have formulated in short term, a sound judgement on the base of the outcome of that objective examination.
14. An examination that (and I am anticipating on the outcome) very well might lead to the conclusion that serious mistakes had been made in this case and one even might be open to accept a totally new set of points of reference in this case.
15 So, in my opinion, the illogical and forceful way, that the Italian woman has been treated by the entire line-up of UK authorities from day one, has created the severity of the case and has been mainly responsible for the steep escalation of the case, that so dramatically ended in the forcible removal of the fetus from the womb, separating the baby from the mother and destining the baby for adoption.
d.d. 08-12-2013 / 22:44 UK time
Robert Bleeker 0 seconds ago
Dear Brendan Archer
1. I have to apologize to you, because for reason's completely unknown to me, the Indy moderation TWICE - first the sixth of December and now the eighth of December - entirely removed my extensive reply to your last answer.
2. Reason's completely unknown to me, however we seem to become slowly but certainly aware of the opportunistic rational behind the transition from the DisQus format towards the comment-format of today :
3. The Indy apparently wants to seriously dis-encourage intelligent discussion between civilized commentators.
4. So we - both supposed to be intelligent people - are no longer allowed to freely exchange intellectually interesting opinions with each other on the subjects, that has been served to us by the Indy article's....
5. Different of course from a comment which only will contain two or three sentences that is.
6. The next stage undoubtedly will be a restriction to answering by smartphone only and next to that, the reader's will only be allowed to react by way of Twitter.
7. How utterly degressive a development within a newspaper that once had a golden image of progressiveness and moral high ground I would say regrettably.
d.d. 09-12-2013 / 00:14 UK time
-------------------------------------------------
1. I have to apologize to you, because for reason's completely unknown to me, the Indy moderation TWICE - first the sixth of December and now the eighth of December - entirely removed my extensive reply to your last answer.
2. Reason's completely unknown to me, however we seem to become slowly but certainly aware of the opportunistic rational behind the transition from the DisQus format towards the comment-format of today :
3. The Indy apparently wants to seriously dis-encourage intelligent discussion between civilized commentators.
4. So we - both supposed to be intelligent people - are no longer allowed to freely exchange intellectually interesting opinions with each other on the subjects, that has been served to us by the Indy article's....
5. Different of course from a comment which only will contain two or three sentences that is.
6. The next stage undoubtedly will be a restriction to answering by smartphone only and next to that, the reader's will only be allowed to react by way of Twitter.
7. How utterly degressive a development within a newspaper that once had a golden image of progressiveness and moral high ground I would say regrettably.
d.d. 09-12-2013 / 00:14 UK time
-------------------------------------------------
Brendan_Archer 3 days ago
I don't know the technolgical background to the problems with posting but it also fails to show my link to The Indepedenents onw much more balanced and coherent follow up to this item.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-mother-the-csection-baby-and-secret-british-court-a-secrecy-scandal--or-the--birth-of-a-scare-story-8986804.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-mother-the-csection-baby-and-secret-british-court-a-secrecy-scandal--or-the--birth-of-a-scare-story-8986804.html
