I am trying to wrap my head around this scenario.
A pregnant Italian woman left her country in order to attend an airline training course.
For some reason, despite a diagnosed bipolar disorder, she apparently stopped taking her medication.
She suffered a panic attack, which her relations believe was due to her failure to take regular medication for an existing bipolar condition.
She called the police, who became concerned for her well-being and took her to a hospital, which she then realised was a psychiatric facility.
She has told her lawyers that when she said she wanted to return to her hotel, she was restrained and sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
But that was only the beginning. Social services now had, under their power, a foreign woman who wanted to return to her home country and to her relatives and friends. Rather than allow this pregnant woman to return, Social Services got a court order to operate on her without her consent and remove the child by C-section.
The mother has returned to Italy and, we are told, has made a full recovery. That’s amazing to me because I think it would be difficult to recover your sanity after a government puts you to sleep so that you wake up not pregnant anymore.
The only good thing about this story is that it happened in the UK, not the United States.
All this was such a shock to the mother that, back in Italy, she resumed taking her medication and embarked on a legal battle for the return of her daughter, which has by now involved lawyers in three countries, all of whom I have spoken to at length to establish the facts of this remarkable story. The High Court in Rome expressed outrage at what had been done to an Italian citizen “habitually resident” in Italy. But the judge there concluded that, since she had not protested at the time, she had accepted that the British courts had jurisdiction – even though she had not known what was to be done to her, was deemed to have no “capacity” to instruct lawyers because she had been sectioned, and had only been represented by solicitors assigned to her by the local authority.
In February, when the mother returned to Chelmsford to plead for the return of her daughter, the judge, I am told, admitted that, since resuming her medication, she seemed impressively articulate and a different person from the one he had seen earlier. But, because he could not risk a failure to maintain her medication in the future, he ruled that the child must be placed for adoption.
If you think our bureaucrats are more noble and ethical than British bureaucrats, you are living in a dream world. And notice how feebly Italy is defending one of their own! Governments respect other governments more than the people they pretend to represent or protect.