- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Natural Birth
stahlop
member
No C-Section equals Child Abuse
stahlop
member
Don't know if anyone posted this article. But I thought it was interesting, and definitely a big case for midwives and home births. Or, at least, making it perfectly clear what your birth plan is from the beginning.
https://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/08/11/refusingcsection-child-abuse
This discussion has been closed.
Re: No C-Section equals Child Abuse
Huh? She didn't want to sign a pre-consent form - how is that related to being perfectly clear with a birth plan? I don't think it would have made any difference in this woman's case.
My friend's sister had a totally straight-forward vaginal birth with a 8 lb baby, and her OB told her after she gave birth, that if the OB had known how "big" her baby was, she would have done a c-section ---> total craziness out there.
DS2 - Oct 2010 (my VBAC baby!)
What?! That's nuts! My DD was 8lbs, and my birth was great. No problems whatsoever.
I knoooow! Totally effed up...she's pg again, not sure if she's going to the same doctor - I certainly hope not!
DS2 - Oct 2010 (my VBAC baby!)
There is a LOT more to the story. Here's the full text of the court's recent decision: https://tinyurl.com/28tsrvt
Summarizing very briefly, the mother appears to have some very serious mental issues. Her actions at the baby's birth were just the start of it; even if you believe that they were justified (and they might very well have been), the mother has had plenty of chances over the years to prove that she's capable of caring for the baby, and she hasn't done so conclusively yet.
Mommy to DD1 (June 2007), DS (January 2010), DD2 (July 2012), and The Next One (EDD 3/31/2015)
The point is she never should have had to prove her worthiness. They took the child for the wrong reasons. There should never have been a case in the first place. This is ridiculous.
This is just an awful story. If I was at a hospital with a 50% C-Section rate I would refuse to sign any preconsent forms either. What a gross misuse of power.
This is why I am going to a birth center. Hospitals scare me.
::Lurker:: The claim has no base. Aside from the obvious, under US law fetuses are not people and have no rights. Until the child was born, it was not a child according to the law and therefore the mother was not endangering anyone.
If the original ruling had held, I could see a case brought before the court where they prosecute a woman who aborted her fetus with endangering it. If it's endangerment during one part of a pregnancy, it's endangerment throughout the entire pregnancy, up to and including the moment the child is fully, 100% expelled from the womb.
Either unborn babies are children, or they're not. You can't have it both ways. Current law does not define them as children until they are born. When Ms M refused the C/S, her fetus was not a child and therefore could not have been an endangered child.
How can you be so sure about this? Again, if you read through the full text, I don't think it's so clear-cut.
It sounds like the mother behaved erratically during labor, so a psychiatrist was called. He found that she was not psychotic. Right or wrong, the staff was evidently still concerned about her behavior, and called another psychiatrist. While he was completing his evaluation, she delivered the baby. The baby was not taken from her right away; she did have to go to the NICU because she was premature, but DYFS did not take custody immediately. In fact, the parents visited the baby every day in the hospital until she was discharged.
As part of his evaluation, the second hospital psychiatrist called a psychiatrist who had treated the mother for 12 years. That psychiatrist expressed concerns over the mother's "ability to care for her child in a responsible manner," based solely of what he knew of her prior to her pregnancy (since she had stopped going to him a few months before getting pregnant, and he had no involvement in the birth). And that is when the second hospital psychiatrist recommended a more thorough evaluation by social services, which eventually culminated in DYFS taking custody of the baby, 10 days after the birth.
I suppose you could argue that the hospital psychiatrists never should have been called. But had the woman truly been capable of caring for the baby, even if the psychiatrists had been called, they would have found her -- well, capable of caring for the baby. They didn't. That was the problem, not the mother's actions during labor.
Regardless, I love homebirth, but I don't think that this case proves that you should avoid the hospital/deliver at home. All this case proves is that if you have a baby, it's probably not good if you have a psychiatrist who has treated you for 12 years and seriously questions your ability to safely care for a baby.
Mommy to DD1 (June 2007), DS (January 2010), DD2 (July 2012), and The Next One (EDD 3/31/2015)
I think DYFS would agree with you! They did not think that the fetus was an endangered child. Really, the refusal to consent to the c/s didn't play into their decision at all, aside from being the reason why they scrutinized the mother more closely in the first place. It was stuff that happened after the birth (the conversation with the mother's previous psychiatrist, the mother's refusal to take the medication prescribed by the hospital psychiatrist after the birth, the parents' failure to appear at a court hearing regarding custody arrangements, their erratic behavior when visiting the baby at the hospital, etc. etc.) that caused the baby to be taken from them.
Mommy to DD1 (June 2007), DS (January 2010), DD2 (July 2012), and The Next One (EDD 3/31/2015)
Both the blogger and the National Advocates for Pregnant Women present this as though a lucid woman who went to a hospital in labor and *only* refused to sign a pre-consent for a c-section had her poor baby stolen away from her ("Look how evil hospitals are!"). It's ridiculous. The woman has a history of psychiatric illness, and even those doctors who were 'on her side' were only of the opinion that with treatment/medication her condition could improve (i.e., is post-traumatic stress disorder rather than paranoid schizophrenia). She lied in regard to her previous mental state, called the cops during labor to complain they were refusing her treatment, later said she DID consent to the c-section. etc. Even the points in favor of returning the child generally are based on evaluation of the husband, rather than the wife, who will be the primary caregiver.
Reading the full description, it sounds like there was plenty of evidence that child services should intervene to do an evaluation, and it's borderline if the child should stay with the parents or not. Hopefully the judge made the right call, but either way, it's disgusting in my opinion that the advocacy group would use this case to their advantage as far as pushing an anti-hospital agenda.
what did you read? the rhreality check article notes that she had been on psychotropic drugs and quotes court's version of the hospital records noting her behavior.
this is the creepiest part to me:
At the fact-finding hearing of the abuse and neglect issues, the judge entered an order reflecting his findings that both parents had abused or neglected J.M.G. in that they "refused to cooperate with the medical professionals of Saint Barnabas Hospital during child birth," although the judge made no findings in his oral decision that B.G. had abused or neglected the child.
https://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=innjco20100806285
that is ridiculous. the mother is the patient. she has the right to refuse treatment under the law. the fact that her child can be taken from her with no evidence of abuse or neglect is just insane.