Newborn Taken from Parents Because Mom Refused C-Section
A mom in New Jersey acted erratically while in labor. She was combative. She was noncompliant. She refused to submit to a cesarean section. She then gave birth vaginally to a normal, healthy baby (apparently not an unavoidable c-section, ya know?).
That baby was taken from her. Her parental rights were terminated. She and her partner left the hospital without their baby, and their baby was given to foster parents.
Although the mother’s refusal to submit to a c-section was supposedly only a part of the court’s decision (another factor was the mother’s decision to go off of psychiatric medications, a decision that many women make for the welfare of their fetuses), that act at the beginning of her pregnancy would never have come in front of a courtroom if it wasn’t for her refusal to be subjected to a c-section in a hospital with a stratospherically above-average rate of c-sections.
- » See also: Fleurville Bags: Eco-friendly, Family-friendly…and Sexy?!
- » Get Eco Child’s Play by RSS or sign up by email.
For a summary of the case, albeit written for a web site with the agenda of stopping unnecessary cesarean sections (which is fine by me–I’m just pointing out that it’s a biased source), read the Unnecesarean post Refusal of Unnecesarean Leads to Loss of Custody. Unnecesearean also posts the findings from the Superior Court of New Jersey, which support the termination of parental rights.
To read an editorial that discusses the mother’s civil right to refuse major abdominal surgery without fear of reprisal, please read Louise Marie Roth’s article in the Huffington Post entitled “Is a Woman in Labor a ‘Person?”.
As for me? Wow, was I combative when I was in labor. I was also noncompliant, to the point at which my birthing partner now claims he was afraid to leave me alone in case I snuck off to birth my baby all alone in a cave somewhere. And if I’d been asked to sign a document giving blanket consent for any number of medical procedures, including a c-section (which I wasn’t–my hospital was cool), as it’s alleged the mom in this situation was pressured to do, I sure would have said no!
I’m glad I got to keep my baby.
The articles you link to say it wasn’t her refusal to allow a c-section but rather that they questioned the parents mental health. It is a very unfortunate situation and hard to decipher.
Ah, but it was the catalyst. The tipping point? The deciding factor, perhaps. It was the reason that psychiatric evaluations were ordered, which was how the mom’s history of psychiatric medication was uncovered, which was how she became labeled paranoid-schizophrenic, which was why her baby was removed from her care just after its vaginal birth, no c-section needed.
My heart breaks for that family, and for the mother and baby especially. I can’t even imagine being sent home without my newborn son. How traumatic.
I can’t even imagine. What a sad case.
And now, it seems, the child is coming up on 3 years old having seen her parents every 2 weeks. How sad.
This made me understand the significance of the loss of “personhood” rights of pregnant women. Yes, the case seems complex, but the starting point was the refusal of a woman in labor of a blanket c-section consent in a hospital with a 43% c-section rate. The fact that the mother’s instincts proved out correct, the baby was born vaginally and without complications or any evidence of any kind of harm was simply not considered. The focus was on her refusal of consent.
The fact that we focus on Evil Drugs and Evil Moms draws the attention away from the errosion of rights that affect all mothers and their own personhood while pregnant.
This is totally sick.That hospital should be shut down along with CPS and the judicial system is no better.
I think that this is a horrible violation of this young mother’s rights. She has a very viable case against that hospital. I have been observing for quite some time now an increasingly large number of c-sections when they used to be few and far between. Given this hospital’s large percentage of cesarean sections, I would say it is definitely related to the actions that they pursued against this young mother. My daughter is on mood medication and stopped it during her pregnancy to protect her unborn baby. This is a choice recommended to most mothers-to-be to protect their babies. Many react in ways they normally would not during labor. She apparently knew her own body’s limitations better than the hospital staff and medical professionals who were supposed to be looking out for her BEST interest!!! She needs to seek legal counsel right away and pursue compensation from that institution as well as a full apology, not to mention the obvious, getting her baby back!!!!!!
I can’t believe they can just arbitrarily terminate parental rights like that. My family used to foster, and you have to do a hell of a lot wrong to get your parental rights terminated in Australia. Your kid might get taken away from you temporarily, or even permanently, but you will still be considered the parent. And I’ve never heard of someone’s baby being taken away from them due to refusal of a caesarean, even if later they made it more about the mother’s mental health. That’s just wrong.
This is New Jersey, so it doesn’t really surprise me. Second only to California, it’s the most socialist state in the Union.
I hope the mother has hired a good attorney.
[...] Well, at least Allen didn’t have her parental rights terminated for refusing an unnecessary c-section. [...]