In a case that is almost too frightening to believe, an Italian mother who was traveling in England for work was forcibly detained, ordered to undergo a C-section that she was not made aware of beforehand, and her baby has been in English state custody since and is on the verge of being adopted by British parents.
The Italian woman suffered from an episode of mental illness at an airport hotel and she was detained according to the Medical Care Act, which means she was involuntarily admitted for hospital care. While under this care, a judge ordered that her child be taken from her under sedation via C-section, and her infant daughter was immediately placed into state care.
Even though the mother has since recovered completely and begged that her child not be placed into another’s home by way of adoption, her pleas have been ignored. Social workers have told the court that they feel that she will not continue to comply with the treatment and medication she needs for her bipolar disorder.
I don’t even know where to begin. For one thing, the mother is an Italian citizen. Why was the British court system involved after her arrest, and why wasn’t care of the child handed over to the Italian government after her birth?
And for another — this is a biggie — how can a court order an invasive, risky medical procedure in the first place? This sounds like a plot from a sinister novel set centuries ago, not something we’d find in modern-day news. It’s indicated that this took place in the “secret” Court of Protection, which has the following description: “The Court of Protection makes decisions and appoints deputies to act on behalf of people who are unable to make decisions about their personal health, finance or welfare.”
Her other kids are being raised by her mom and dad, and she’s asked them to be returned to her as well.
Adopting this girl out is crazy. At a minimum, she should be returned to her mother’s home country of Italy, and better yet, sent to live with her grandparents until her mom is found to be capable of taking care of her.
Drinking while breastfeeding is certainly a controversial topic, but would you expect that a breastfeeding mom would get arrested because she was drinking while nursing? No? Me either. Well, now you can say you’ve heard about a story like this, because that exact thing happened to an Arkansas mom.
Tasha Adams was dining at a pizza restaurant with her baby girl. A waitress became concerned and phoned the police because Adams was nursing her baby and drinking alcohol. Adams was arrested and charged with endangering the welfare of a minor.
The waitress reported that Adams was having “drink after drink,” but no quantity was given. She decided to call the police who apparently agreed that it was a problem and they promptly arrested Adams.
If she was indeed arrested for drinking while breastfeeding, then this is outrageous. Most people don’t know a thing about alcohol and breastfeeding and how little actually makes its way into a mom’s milk. A few months ago, I wrote about breastfeeding and alcohol and how Dr. Jack Newman actually conducted a test on alcohol amounts and how much actually makes its way into breastmilk (the answer is not enough to be concerned about). Breastfeeding and drinking is completely different than being pregnant and drinking, and of course it depends on how much mom is drinking, but generally, small amounts of alcohol will not be an issue for a baby.
If she had exhibited drunken behavior, however, and was handling her baby, then I can understand the phone call and the arrest. But to arrest a mom because she is drinking a beer or a glass of wine and nursing her baby at the same time? It’s crazy, and a little scary. While moderation is obviously key, I seriously doubt that the police or the waitress are experts in breastmilk and alcohol consumption. The waitress was subsequently fired, but the reason hasn’t been released to the media.
What do you think — should the police have been called, or should this gal have minded her own business? Or do we need more information to decide?
Vanessa Van Dyke is an African-American student at a private school called Faith Christian Academy in Orlando, Florida. The school has deemed her natural hair to be a “distraction” and against the school dress code, which indicates that hair must be a natural color and not distracting to the student body. Van Dyke was told to change her hair, but she doesn’t want to — and I don’t blame her.
Her natural hair is coarse, curly and poofy. It’s super cute. She’s a beautiful girl and is upset that the school has singled her out. And what prompted this? Kids were picking on her about her hair.
Kids will pick on other kids about anything, and sometimes everything. I think it’s crazy that they’re focusing on this girl’s hair instead of the children who were teasing her. What are they going to do about the child who is picked on because he has freckles? Or blond hair?
The school is undoubtedly feeling pressure, and has said that they’ll speak to her family over Thanksgiving vacation about different styles to make her hair less of a distraction. They also said that they will not require her to cut it or use products. I honestly don’t know what they’re expecting if they’re not going to ask her to do those things.
A dress code is a dress code, but I think this is completely ridiculous and they need to back off this girl and her hairstyle. In order to change her hair or her hairstyle, she’d have to cut it, apply harsh chemical products or braid it, none of which she should be required to do. Her mother aptly points out that what is a distraction to one person may not be a distraction to another. Where do schools draw the line?