I read this today at Momlogic.com and you can go there for the full story:
A woman in New Jersey refused to consent to a C-section during labor in the event that her was in distress. She ended up giving birth vaginally without incident. The baby was in good medical condition.However, her baby was taken away from her and her parental rights were terminated because she “abused and neglected her ” by refusing the C-section and behaving “erratically” while in labor. How is this legal? A New Jersey appellate court has upheld the shocking ruling, and custody has been given to the child’s foster parents. The court’s decision cites hospital records that describe the , V.M., as “combative,” “uncooperative,” “erratic,” “noncompliant,” “irrational” and “inappropriate.” That’s how we acted during labor, too … but our babies weren’t taken away, thank God.
Yesterday I read about a Mom who killed her 3 1/2 week old baby and then mutilated him and ate parts of his body. This sickened me and I just couldn’t fathom the pain this woman must of been in and how alone she was for no one to notice she needed help and I can’t even begin to think of the baby and what he suffered, it is too hard. I believe they will find she suffers from severe postpartum psychosis and she will have to live with this for the rest of her life after she is well, though I don’t see how she can. For the full story: The Daily Telegraph
Today it was the story about a Mom refusing a C section if she needed it (which she didn’t) and having her child taken away because of her behavior. I know there is more to this story, like her mental health history and the fact she has 4 children and is only 18 years old but this still shocks me because who isn’t erratic or combative during labor, not a reason to take your child. I certainly hope there is more of an explanation to come on the part of the doctors and judges otherwise we as women may all be at risk of having this happen to us if we tell the doctor or nurse to piss-off while having a contraction.
I think the first case is where people who knew her should have stepped in and protected the baby from the Mother but were afraid of overreacting. The second case seems like everyone overreacted and instead should have investigated and reasoned more. I suppose it is hard to tell and maybe the old adage better safe than sorry is what the judge was thinking at the time. What do you think?