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

"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."

.

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."


:helpme
.

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?

haha nevermind

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.

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?


.
.

i see.

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

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

reap what you sow, as always

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?

got your sig spot in again :)

what right do you have to keep the child from it's family? there is a father and grandparents already caring for the siblings

sigh, please actually read up on the latest reports on this story, don't bother bleating on about old news, its all been covered in the press.

sorry, my mistake, you are pretending to be a windowlicker for sig views, aren't you.

so because TV told you its 'covered', you're unable to answer what right do you have to keep the child from the family?

you sure seem to insult a lot when you lack anything meaningful to say

is this childhood trauma?

where did I say it was TV? What right does anyone else have to place a child in danger? And I didn't insult you, I sad that your thickness was an act to generate sig views.

And yes, it will be childhood trauma for the child if it is placed with the mother. For crying out loud, plenty of other up-to-date and much more reliable articles have mentioned the trauma the other children went through before the grandparents got involved and removed them from their own daughter.

If you insist on bleating about this then at the very least read more than the original Independent article which is currently being blasted from all quarters (both on the left and right) for being a very lazy and inaccurate piece of reporting.

That's fair enough. And then what is your view regarding the "secret family court"?

I find the idea of that very disturbing, personally.

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."



.

I guess I find it strange at least in that it is a basis of the US system that the only way to know whether a court is abusing it's powers or not, is to keep trials public. If you gag everyone involved then how are injustices addressed? Within the system? That has been shown to fail over and over and over again...

And as for the specific case, I'm still not sure how some strange family from a foreign country (i.e. the UK), is deemed an automatic choice over blood relatives who are already caring for that childs siblings....

:2 cents:


.

you are the person who thinks i have only read one article

it is very important to your entire delusion of who i am.

it is wrong.