UK of the free? Social Services condemned for forcibly removing unborn child from woman

[DVTimes]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-8975808.html

[rogueteens]

I wonder what the full story here is? Don't take anything that self-serving Shami Chakrabarti says at face value. I bet there is a whole lot more going on that we haven't been told.

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

I wonder what the full story here is? Don't take anything that self-serving Shami Chakrabarti says at face value. I bet there is a whole lot more going on that we haven't been told.

I am not sure.

It sounds like somthing from the ussr or nazies did during ww2.

[ottopottomouse]

It's only 'forcibly' because she wasn't mentally capable of consenting.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

It's only 'forcibly' because she wasn't mentally capable of consenting.

How the hell does the UK government get the balls to just take her baby and tell her that they are putting it up for adoption???? She is Italian, how can a foreign government just decide to take someone's child???



totally bizarre and freakish situation.



.

[ottopottomouse]

You don't get sectioned unless you're nutty as fuck. They will have taken it away as she was a danger to it.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

You don't get sectioned unless you're nutty as fuck. They will have taken it away as she was a danger to it.

Did you read the article? She was on medication, and she had the episode because she did not have her medication. She has other kids back in Italy, but now the UK government are taking her child away forever "in case" she has another episode???

Imagine visiting some foreign country and you don't have your meds for some reason. You have a panic attack and then the government in the country you were visiting takes your newborn away FOREVER and GIVES them to some foreign family in that foreign country because you "might" have another episode. It's like kidnapping.

Fucking Nightmare.



.


.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

I wonder what the full story here is? Don't take anything that self-serving Shami Chakrabarti says at face value. I bet there is a whole lot more going on that we haven't been told.

There is a whole lot more going on : We've figured out a way to legally intellectualize medieval savagery.



Now give me any argument you can think of to make this C-section right and prove my point at the same time.

[Best-In-BC]

Why didnt the error checker go off with UK and free

[rogueteens]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

There is a whole lot more going on : We've figured out a way to legally intellectualize medieval savagery.



Now give me any argument you can think of to make this C-section right and prove my point at the same time.

All I am saying is, as someone with inside knowledge of how the social services and the health service works that what we are being told in that article is not the full story.
The only way this would have happened was that she presented an extreme threat to the unborn child - in no way was she as mild as the story suggests.

[ottopottomouse]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Did you read the article?

Yes. And it's very sparse on actual details.

She failed to take her medication. Because she lost it? Because she didn't want to?

She has two other children. How old are they? Everyone assumes young children but there is no mention of their ages, or her age. They would still be called her children if they are 20 and she is 40.

Sectioned in July, baby removed five weeks later. Removed because it was a danger to it's or her health due to a pregnancy complication? Removed because she spent the whole time threatening to jump off something high to get rid of it? Removed because the wicked people at social services really fancied having an Italian baby to play with? Removed because it was overdue and refusing to come out?

Sent her back to Italy but it doesn't say when or whether it was to home or was a transfer to another institution there. Only that she didn't return to ask for the baby back until February when it would already be 6 months old, at which point they said no as they were concerned she would relapse - which is something mental patients do, a lot.

Too many questions to know what has really gone on.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by DVTimes

I am not sure.

It sounds like somthing from the ussr or nazies did during ww2.

she's the wrong colour to have 'nazi' or 'facism' apply Woj! you should know that

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Did you read the article? She was on medication, and she had the episode because she did not have her medication. She has other kids back in Italy, but now the UK government are taking her child away forever "in case" she has another episode???

Imagine visiting some foreign country and you don't have your meds for some reason. You have a panic attack and then the government in the country you were visiting takes your newborn away FOREVER and GIVES them to some foreign family in that foreign country because you "might" have another episode. It's like kidnapping.

Fucking Nightmare.



.


.

do you normally want to kill your children during panic attacks? when does the safety of the children come into play?

[Black All Through]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

I wonder what the full story here is? Don't take anything that self-serving Shami Chakrabarti says at face value. I bet there is a whole lot more going on that we haven't been told.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

All I am saying is, as someone with inside knowledge of how the social services and the health service works that what we are being told in that article is not the full story.
The only way this would have happened was that she presented an extreme threat to the unborn child - in no way was she as mild as the story suggests.

All I'm saying is that even a crazy person has rights, and forced surgery is a risk to her life and we can't chose the baby's life over hers when it's clearly her choice since
nobody would argue if she terminated a pregnancy because of her own threat to life.

People terminate pregnancies just because they don't want a child; but somehow we need to cut this crazy bitch open so she doesn't accidentally terminate the pregnancy.

Would love to read the story and see your reaction if she had died during the C-section and the baby was born dead.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

I wonder what the full story here is? Don't take anything that self-serving Shami Chakrabarti says at face value. I bet there is a whole lot more going on that we haven't been told.

The "full story" is irrelevant. What should be readily apparent to anyone that is not thoroughly insane is that social services has no authority to demand a medical procedure be performed on another... and that the decision was made collectively after her psychiatric evaluation, evaluating the risk she posed to herself and the unborn child in light of her mental disorder(s) and between all the relevant medical boards/decision makers, including those performing the procedure.

[rogueteens]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

The "full story" is irrelevant. What should be readily apparent to anyone that is not thoroughly insane is that social services has no authority to demand a medical procedure be performed on another... and that the decision was made collectively after her psychiatric evaluation, evaluating the risk she posed to herself and the unborn child in light of her mental disorder(s) and between all the relevant medical boards/decision makers, including those performing the procedure.

yes, they do have the right if the life of the child is in danger and the patent is not able to make a reasoned decision, from what little this article gives, I'm assuming that the baby was at almost full term. It's happened before, children are taken away from their parents if the parent refuses life saving treatment for the child for example.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

yes, they do have the right if the life of the child is in danger and the patent is not able to make a reasoned decision, from what little this article gives, I'm assuming that the baby was at almost full term. It's happened before, children are taken away from their parents if the parent refuses life saving treatment for the child for example.

My point was that she was in a mental institution, is suffering from bipolar disorder and was evaluated by professional medical people to determine her mental state and emotional health and whether or not she was a threat to the child... it is being made to sound like a dude with a bachelors degree in Art Appreciation, showed up at her door at home with a briefcase, diagnosed her, made a determination and then demanded she get a c-section, which clearly isn't the case at all.

Additionally, removing a child from an unsafe environment is not the same as ordering a surgery after the psychological evaluation by qualified doctors of a patient suffering from bipolar and who is at a mental institution.

The article was clearly written with a slant that makes it appear to be something it isn't. The fact that she's mentally ill and pregnant should be more than enough to give people pause for thought.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

yes, they do have the right if the life of the child is in danger and the patent is not able to make a reasoned decision, from what little this article gives, I'm assuming that the baby was at almost full term. It's happened before, children are taken away from their parents if the parent refuses life saving treatment for the child for example.

so, with that logic, will social services be taking children away from their own members, as well as the doctors who performed the surgery?

cause those people are dangerous: they will kidnap, drug, mutilate, and then kidnap the unborn children

[rogueteens]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

My point was that she was in a mental institution, is suffering from bipolar disorder and was evaluated by professional medical people to determine her mental state and emotional health and whether or not she was a threat to the child... it is being made to sound like a dude with a bachelors degree in Art Appreciation, showed up at her door at home with a briefcase, diagnosed her, made a determination and then demanded she get a c-section, which clearly isn't the case at all.

Additionally, removing a child from an unsafe environment is not the same as ordering a surgery after the psychological evaluation by qualified doctors of a patient suffering from bipolar and who is at a mental institution.

The article was clearly written with a slant that makes it appear to be something it isn't. The fact that she's mentally ill and pregnant should be more than enough to give people pause for thought.

sorry, my bad. I see what you are saying.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

yes, they do have the right if the life of the child is in danger and the patent is not able to make a reasoned decision, from what little this article gives, I'm assuming that the baby was at almost full term. It's happened before, children are taken away from their parents if the parent refuses life saving treatment for the child for example.

You're on the slippery slope of court ordered surgery; like the judge ordered you on parole but you will have your dick cut off.

The argument :

"We can save money on prisons and keep women safe from rapist by just cutting their dicks off".

I don't buy it.

It's Saudi Arabia that cuts shit off people to control them.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

You're on the slippery slope of court ordered surgery; like the judge ordered you on parole but you will have your dick cut off.

The argument :

"We can save money on prisons and keep women safe from rapist by just cutting their dicks off".

I don't buy it.

It's Saudi Arabia that cuts shit off people to control them.

It's not a slippery slope. It is the state acting in the best interest of the child where the mother is not capable of doing so.

And by the way, the criminal justice system in the US and elsewhere does in fact castrate repeat sexual offenders and that so called "slippery slope" you invented has been going on for 1000s of years in this regard.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

It's not a slippery slope. It is the state acting in the best interest of the child where the mother is not capable of doing so.

And by the way, the criminal justice system in the US and elsewhere does in fact castrate repeat sexual offenders and that so called "slippery slope" you invented has been going on for 1000s of years in this regard.

what business does the UK state have in an unborn child, to a mother who is not a citizen?

Did you guys cut out her ovaries? 'just to be safe'?

[rogueteens]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

what business does the UK state have in an unborn child, to a mother who is not a citizen?

Did you guys cut out her ovaries? 'just to be safe'?

if the child is on British soil then it is subject to protection from the British authorities. I would have thought that that would have been blindingly obvious to anyone.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

what business does the UK state have in an unborn child, to a mother who is not a citizen?

Did you guys cut out her ovaries? 'just to be safe'?

The day you make an intelligent, rational and coherent argument not fully rooted in spontaneously conjured up fantasy, backwards rhetoric and false arguments, might be the day I waste 3 seconds of my life addressing you respectfully. I am fairly certain however, that will never happen.... so i'll likely just keep making fun of you for being a low rent, low IQ employee who lacks both the balls and intelligence to strike out on his own and where his bitterness at these facts manifest themselves in a ceaseless storm of idiotic forum posts.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

if the child is on British soil then it is subject to protection from the British authorities. I would have thought that that would have been blindingly obvious to anyone.

yes, but an unborn child 'isn't on british soil'

if that's the legal argument, you just successfully set the precedent of making abortion illegal.

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

The day you make an intelligent, rational and coherent argument not fully rooted in spontaneously conjured up fantasy, backwards rhetoric and false arguments, might be the day I waste 3 seconds of my life addressing you respectfully. I am fairly certain however, that will never happen.... so i'll likely just keep making fun of you for being a low rent, low IQ employee who lacks both the balls and intelligence to strike out on his own and where his bitterness at these facts manifest themselves in a ceaseless storm of idiotic forum posts.

i notice you didn't respond at all to what i said... which means you're too stupid to be able to remember why you were responding in the first place?

"what business does the UK state have in an unborn child, to a mother who is not a citizen?

Did you guys cut out her ovaries? 'just to be safe'?"

here it is again.. please think slow

[theking]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

It's not a slippery slope. It is the state acting in the best interest of the child where the mother is not capable of doing so.

And by the way, the criminal justice system in the US and elsewhere does in fact castrate repeat sexual offenders and that so called "slippery slope" you invented has been going on for 1000s of years in this regard.

Pigshit. The "criminal justice system in the U.S." has never castrated anyone.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by theking

Pigshit. The "criminal justice system in the U.S." has never castrated anyone.

I know its futile on my part to educate you since you never tire of being wrong., nevertheless,....

Chemical and Surgical Castration

A few states, including California and Florida, permit convicted sex offenders to be injected with Depo Provera, an FDA-approved birth control drug. Often called "chemical castration," Depo Provera is meant to quell the sex drive of male sex offenders by lowering their testosterone levels. The drug does not render any permanent physical change to the body. The treatment is believed to be most effective on sex offenders who possess uncontrollable biological urges that take the form of sexual fantasies that are usually only satisfied by acting on the fantasy.

Both the California and Florida statutes provide for mandatory injections for repeat sex offenders, as well as discretionary injections for first-time offenders. Despite the mandatory language in the Florida law, the law has apparently been invoked only a few times since its passage in 1997.

Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), charge that chemical castration violates sex offenders' constitutional rights. The ACLU contends that chemical castration violates an offender's implied right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment, rights of due process and equal protection, and the Eighth Amendment's ban of cruel and unusual punishment.

Pursuant to a 1997 law, Texas permits surgical castration of offenders. By May 2005, three men had undergone the voluntary procedure. Candidates must be at least 21 years of age, have had at least two sex offense convictions, and have undergone at least 18 months of sex offender treatment, including Depo Provera injections, to understand how their bodies might react with less testosterone.

[theking]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

I know its futile on my part to educate you since you never tire of being wrong., nevertheless,....

Chemical and Surgical Castration

A few states, including California and Florida, permit convicted sex offenders to be injected with Depo Provera, an FDA-approved birth control drug. Often called "chemical castration," Depo Provera is meant to quell the sex drive of male sex offenders by lowering their testosterone levels. The drug does not render any permanent physical change to the body. The treatment is believed to be most effective on sex offenders who possess uncontrollable biological urges that take the form of sexual fantasies that are usually only satisfied by acting on the fantasy.

Both the California and Florida statutes provide for mandatory injections for repeat sex offenders, as well as discretionary injections for first-time offenders. Despite the mandatory language in the Florida law, the law has apparently been invoked only a few times since its passage in 1997.

Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), charge that chemical castration violates sex offenders' constitutional rights. The ACLU contends that chemical castration violates an offender's implied right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment, rights of due process and equal protection, and the Eighth Amendment's ban of cruel and unusual punishment.

Pursuant to a 1997 law, Texas permits surgical castration of offenders. By May 2005, three men had undergone the voluntary procedure. Candidates must be at least 21 years of age, have had at least two sex offense convictions, and have undergone at least 18 months of sex offender treatment, including Depo Provera injections, to understand how their bodies might react with less testosterone.

I am aware of all of this and no where do I see where a member of the "criminal justice system" performed a castration...chemical or otherwise. Maybe you can point out where a cop...a prosecutor...a judge...even a court clerk...administered a castration.

Castrations in the U.S. are usually not ordered by the court but are offered by the court as an alternative to reduce the sentence the Judge is proposing...be it death or be it a long term in prison. The castration itself is administered by some member of the medical profession...be it chemical or surgical...and not the "criminal justice system".

[theking]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

I know its futile on my part to educate you since you never tire of being wrong., nevertheless,....

Chemical and Surgical Castration

A few states, including California and Florida, permit convicted sex offenders to be injected with Depo Provera, an FDA-approved birth control drug. Often called "chemical castration," Depo Provera is meant to quell the sex drive of male sex offenders by lowering their testosterone levels. The drug does not render any permanent physical change to the body. The treatment is believed to be most effective on sex offenders who possess uncontrollable biological urges that take the form of sexual fantasies that are usually only satisfied by acting on the fantasy.

Both the California and Florida statutes provide for mandatory injections for repeat sex offenders, as well as discretionary injections for first-time offenders. Despite the mandatory language in the Florida law, the law has apparently been invoked only a few times since its passage in 1997.

Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), charge that chemical castration violates sex offenders' constitutional rights. The ACLU contends that chemical castration violates an offender's implied right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment, rights of due process and equal protection, and the Eighth Amendment's ban of cruel and unusual punishment.

Pursuant to a 1997 law, Texas permits surgical castration of offenders. By May 2005, three men had undergone the voluntary procedure. Candidates must be at least 21 years of age, have had at least two sex offense convictions, and have undergone at least 18 months of sex offender treatment, including Depo Provera injections, to understand how their bodies might react with less testosterone.

BTW...please post what I have ever been wrong about. I on the other hand can post where you are often wrong.

[_Richard_]

so you spend 30 minutes responding to Pathfinder?

lmfao. you should charge for comedy

[theking]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

so you spend 30 minutes responding to Pathfinder?

lmfao. you should charge for comedy

He has never responded to PF...as PF died before he ever became a member of this board...at least under the nick TheSquealer.

[DamianJ]

The level of derp in this thread is strong.

[rogueteens]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

yes, but an unborn child 'isn't on british soil'

O ... M ... G !!!

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

O ... M ... G !!!

that's good!

so, you're saying, that any abortion that happens in the UK is murder?

if this mother 'isn't fit' to raise her unborn child, and that unborn child is removed from the womb 'for its safety'.. how doesn't this get applied to actual 'would be' UK citizens?

[rogueteens]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

that's good!

so, you're saying, that any abortion that happens in the UK is murder?

if this mother 'isn't fit' to raise her unborn child, and that unborn child is removed from the womb 'for its safety'.. how doesn't this get applied to actual 'would be' UK citizens?

nah, I'm not getting into this, you are obviously just trolling now.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

nah, I'm not getting into this, you are obviously just trolling now.

by.. pointing out a serious flaw in your statement?

[bhutocracy]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

The day you make an intelligent, rational and coherent argument not fully rooted in spontaneously conjured up fantasy, backwards rhetoric and false arguments, might be the day I waste 3 seconds of my life addressing you respectfully. I am fairly certain however, that will never happen.... so i'll likely just keep making fun of you for being a low rent, low IQ employee who lacks both the balls and intelligence to strike out on his own and where his bitterness at these facts manifest themselves in a ceaseless storm of idiotic forum posts.

Both the best and truest reply I've read in ages.

[bhutocracy]

I might disagree or agree 100% with this, it's hard to know without a fraction of the facts. I definitely agree with an essentially full term baby being surgically removed if the mother is a serious danger to it and calling the cops (for a "panic attack" wtf?? Was it a "Someone call the cops I'm about to kill my baby" "panic attack"?). Hell, if it was my wife I'd probably want it removed ASAP before the psych medication poisoned it, depending on what she was being given at the hospital I'd sign that waiver.

Probably the only thing that is more obviously problematic is not giving the baby back at 6 months. At this point she could no doubt show she was back on her meds etc. This has been in front of a judge twice, there is obviously a gaping chasm of information we aren't privy to here. Can't make any real judgement on how fucked it is or is not. It's not like the guy getting x-rayed and forced enemas for clenching his buttcheeks. Not yet at any rate.

[rogueteens]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

by.. pointing out a serious flaw in your statement?

what that an unborn baby is not physically touching land so therefore not allowed protection like you claim?

No, it is obvious that your nick is being used to generate controversy just to get sig views. there can be no way that you believe any of what you say, Sextronic wouldn't be so stupid to employ a real person with such windowlicker views - hell, even KFC would refuse you if you was real.

[DVTimes]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...caesarean.html

Sir James Munby has demanded answers in extraordinary case

The child was taken from the 35-year-old Italian in forced caesarean

The case shines light on murky secrecy of Court of Protection

[sperbonzo]

"Fabio Roia, the most senior judge in Milan, said the woman?s treatment by a secret court resembled a horror film ? an unprecedented ?act of extreme violence? that could not have happened in Italy.

The mother, who was suffering from a mental illness, was subjected to a caesarean on the orders of the controversial Court of Protection.

Her ex-husband and her parents, who look after her two other children, insisted they would care for the girl. But, in a second secret hearing, a court ruled that her girl should be removed from her care for adoption by a British family.

Campaigners said it was wrong for a closed-doors court to force a foreign citizen to have an invasive medical procedure and seize her child against her will."


"At a county court hearing in Chelmsford in February this year Judge Roderick Newton heard the mother beg that she should not lose her child for ever.

The judge ruled the girl should be placed for adoption ? even though he accepted that the mother was well, successfully taking medication and had a job.

He said the mother might stop taking her drugs and the family offers were ?not a starter?.

Sir James Munby, who is the President of the Family Division of the High Court, ordered yesterday that further moves towards adoption must be heard before him in the High Court."

.

[sperbonzo]

This whole "secret family court" thing is pretty bizarre....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...e-the-law.html


"It is a basic principle of British justice that no one should be sent to prison except in open court, so that their name can be known and why they have been jailed. But this has long been one of those basic principles that are routinely ignored in our ultra-secretive family courts.

In a parliamentary answer given by Harriet Harman in 2006, she said that some 200 people had been jailed in secret by the family courts in 2005, and that her government now wanted to open up the courts to ensure that this scandal did not continue. Last May and July, following publicity given to a case in which a woman was secretly sentenced to 12 months in prison for rescuing her father from a care home, where he was being mistreated, the new head of the Family Division of the High Court, Sir James Munby, issued guidelines reminding his fellow judges that this was against the law, as clearly restated in the Rules of the Supreme Court as long ago as 1965.

In recent years, I have come across many cases of judges continuing to break the law in this way. In one instance, a father who had already lost his two teenage sons because they were held to be ?at risk of emotional abuse? from their mother, from whom he had separated, was before a judge who wanted to order the removal for adoption of his third son, aged four. When the father left the courtroom in disgust, the judge ordered his arrest for contempt.

While he was in custody, his new partner, still at home and fearful that the little boy might also be removed, panicked and took him to a secret destination. The judge summoned the father back to court to ask where they had gone. Since his partner?s flight was on the spur of the moment, the father explained, truthfully, that he had no idea. Refusing to believe him, the judge angrily sentenced him in secret to 12 months. The police tracked down the woman, who was convicted of kidnapping the boy but let off with a caution. The father was released after six months in prison, but given a penal notice forbidding him to have any further contact with his boys, all now in foster care, whom he had brought up and who loved him.

In another recent case, a couple whose son had repeatedly run away from a care home were secretly jailed for not disclosing his whereabouts. In October, months after Munby issued his guidelines, three judges in the Court of Appeal upheld their sentencing. Also last month, John Hemming MP protested that the sentencing of a woman to 28 days by another High Court judge, Mrs Justice Theis, was yet another example of ?secret justice? in breach of Munby?s guidelines and the law, because, although her court had been technically ?open? for the brief period of the sentencing, the case was not advertised and no one was allowed to know the woman?s name or why she was imprisoned.

It seems that Lord Justice Munby has a battle on his hands to persuade judges that it is their duty to obey the law of the land."



.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

what that an unborn baby is not physically touching land so therefore not allowed protection like you claim?

No, it is obvious that your nick is being used to generate controversy just to get sig views. there can be no way that you believe any of what you say, Sextronic wouldn't be so stupid to employ a real person with such windowlicker views - hell, even KFC would refuse you if you was real.

no, the conflict is your laws don't protect your own unborn babies on uk land.. how in the world do you think they apply to visitors.. under these circumstances?

the only controversy here is your bizarre position.. are you against abortion, may i ask?

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

This whole "secret family court" thing is pretty bizarre....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...e-the-law.html


"It is a basic principle of British justice that no one should be sent to prison except in open court, so that their name can be known and why they have been jailed. But this has long been one of those basic principles that are routinely ignored in our ultra-secretive family courts.

In a parliamentary answer given by Harriet Harman in 2006, she said that some 200 people had been jailed in secret by the family courts in 2005, and that her government now wanted to open up the courts to ensure that this scandal did not continue. Last May and July, following publicity given to a case in which a woman was secretly sentenced to 12 months in prison for rescuing her father from a care home, where he was being mistreated, the new head of the Family Division of the High Court, Sir James Munby, issued guidelines reminding his fellow judges that this was against the law, as clearly restated in the Rules of the Supreme Court as long ago as 1965.

In recent years, I have come across many cases of judges continuing to break the law in this way. In one instance, a father who had already lost his two teenage sons because they were held to be ?at risk of emotional abuse? from their mother, from whom he had separated, was before a judge who wanted to order the removal for adoption of his third son, aged four. When the father left the courtroom in disgust, the judge ordered his arrest for contempt.

While he was in custody, his new partner, still at home and fearful that the little boy might also be removed, panicked and took him to a secret destination. The judge summoned the father back to court to ask where they had gone. Since his partner?s flight was on the spur of the moment, the father explained, truthfully, that he had no idea. Refusing to believe him, the judge angrily sentenced him in secret to 12 months. The police tracked down the woman, who was convicted of kidnapping the boy but let off with a caution. The father was released after six months in prison, but given a penal notice forbidding him to have any further contact with his boys, all now in foster care, whom he had brought up and who loved him.

In another recent case, a couple whose son had repeatedly run away from a care home were secretly jailed for not disclosing his whereabouts. In October, months after Munby issued his guidelines, three judges in the Court of Appeal upheld their sentencing. Also last month, John Hemming MP protested that the sentencing of a woman to 28 days by another High Court judge, Mrs Justice Theis, was yet another example of ?secret justice? in breach of Munby?s guidelines and the law, because, although her court had been technically ?open? for the brief period of the sentencing, the case was not advertised and no one was allowed to know the woman?s name or why she was imprisoned.

It seems that Lord Justice Munby has a battle on his hands to persuade judges that it is their duty to obey the law of the land."



.

haha nevermind

[rogueteens]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

the only controversy here is your bizarre position.. are you against abortion, may i ask?

sigh, no of cause not but its is obvious to all but windowlickers that the child was way beyond 24 weeks gestation or whatever it is nowadays.

On the rare chance that you really are as thick as you are making yourself sound and you are not just doing this for sig views then do yourself a favour and read up on the other reports and you'll see just how ill-informed the article from the Independent was. The woman was suffering from extreme paranoid delusions - not a little panic attack. You really are backing a loser by arguing for the claims of a discredited article.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

You really are backing a loser by arguing for the claims of a discredited article.

So how do you explain this other article? (and if it is so "discredited", and there is nothing wrong here, then why is a high judge intervening?)




"Her ex-husband and her parents, who look after her two other children, insisted they would care for the girl. But, in a second secret hearing, a court ruled that her girl should be removed from her care for adoption by a British family.

"At a county court hearing in Chelmsford in February this year Judge Roderick Newton heard the mother beg that she should not lose her child for ever.

The judge ruled the girl should be placed for adoption – even though he accepted that the mother was well, successfully taking medication and had a job.

He said the mother might stop taking her drugs and the family offers were ‘not a starter’."


Sir James Munby, who is the President of the Family Division of the High Court, ordered yesterday that further moves towards adoption must be heard before him in the High Court."

??



Are you saying you have no problem with a foreign government just taking the child of a family in a secret court hearing?


.
.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by rogueteens

sigh, no of cause not but its is obvious to all but windowlickers that the child was way beyond 24 weeks gestation or whatever it is nowadays.

On the rare chance that you really are as thick as you are making yourself sound and you are not just doing this for sig views then do yourself a favour and read up on the other reports and you'll see just how ill-informed the article from the Independent was. The woman was suffering from extreme paranoid delusions - not a little panic attack. You really are backing a loser by arguing for the claims of a discredited article.

i see.

well i wish you guys the best of luck, liberating these unborn children from their 'loser' mothers

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

So how do you explain this other article? (and if it is so "discredited", and there is nothing wrong here, then why is a high judge intervening?)

.
.

that article, other articles, you can actually dig up the police reports

reap what you sow, as always

[rogueteens]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

So how do you explain this other article? (and if it is so "discredited", and there is nothing wrong here, then why is a high judge intervening?)




"Her ex-husband and her parents, who look after her two other children, insisted they would care for the girl. But, in a second secret hearing, a court ruled that her girl should be removed from her care for adoption by a British family.

"At a county court hearing in Chelmsford in February this year Judge Roderick Newton heard the mother beg that she should not lose her child for ever.

The judge ruled the girl should be placed for adoption – even though he accepted that the mother was well, successfully taking medication and had a job.

He said the mother might stop taking her drugs and the family offers were ‘not a starter’."


Sir James Munby, who is the President of the Family Division of the High Court, ordered yesterday that further moves towards adoption must be heard before him in the High Court."

??



Are you saying you have no problem with a foreign government just taking the child of a family in a secret court hearing?


.
.

The high judge didn't intervene, its a normal course of action in family cases like this, there is nothing unusual in it. The mother has had ALL of her children taken from her at the request of her own parents in Italy. the father is an illegal in Italy and is looking at deportation, it seems he has nothing to do with the child except for wanting it as a means for staying in Italy.
The woman did not have a panic attack as the Independent reported but was suffering from extreme paranoid delusions and the judge still maintains that the child should not be with the mother for its own safety.
Are you saying that the child has no rights of protection just because it's mother is not British?

[rogueteens]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

blah, blah, something ... I dunno, I didn't bother reading it. no doubt it was some rubbish.

got your sig spot in again