Is a woman in labor a 'person'?

[Hannah Bell]

New Assaults on Pregnant Women's Civil Rights in a NJ Case

In the case, New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. V.M. and B.G., the New Jersey appellate court found that V.M. and B.G. had abused and neglected their child, based on the fact that the mother, V.M., refused to consent to a cesarean section and behaved erratically while in labor.

The mother gave birth vaginally without incident, and the baby was "in good medical condition." Then she was never returned to her parents, and the judge in the case approved a plan to terminate their parental rights and give custody of the child to foster parents. What, beyond the obvious, is wrong with this picture?

...in this case the district and appellate courts subverted a pregnant woman's informed medical decision-making in the name of fetal rights, arguing that her refusal was a form of abuse and neglect of the child that had not yet been born. This is another dangerous precedent, along with other court-ordered cesarean cases, that will allow all pregnant women to lose their rights to bodily integrity and informed consent. It may be understandable, if not excusable, that the courts don't understand medicine or recognize that medical judgment is fallible, but it is hard to understand how they could so fundamentally misinterpret the law, in which performing surgery on an individual without that person's permission can constitute criminal "battery" under common law...

The court's opinion also suggests that lawmakers have no concept of what it is like to be in labor...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louise-marie-roth/is-a-woman-in-labor-a-per_b_242307.html


she "behaved erratically" while in labor - suspend her parental rights.

[stray cat]

1. Is the baby being born a person?

[create.peace]

2. so i would have been put away for what i asked for.....

'give me drugs!!' and 'next time we adopt' (that was lame, no one would let this hippie adopt) btw, i am a 'straight' hippie. designated driver of the 70s//////

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. Bizarre!

[Warpy]

4. This is totally nuts.

This is the type of totally rotten decision that should be overturned on appeal.

Even women in labor are able to refuse surgery. Period. The doctor, while inconvenienced, was correct to allow her to attempt a normal delivery.

The judge in this case needs to review things like the patient's bill of rights.

If surgery is really indicated, it will progress from elective to emergency quickly enough. Emergency surgery can be done without consent, although getting the consent of the spouse is usually very easy once the patient is no longer responsive and in clear danger.

Losing parental rights because they successfully second guessed an OB doc is unconscionable.

[anigbrowl]

12. That is not why they lost parental rights

(from case records - link in my other post)
A social worker at Saint Barnabas Hospital contacted DYFS
on April 18, 2006, to report concerns over releasing J.M.G. to
her parents' care. Caseworker Heather Frommer immediately went
to the hospital, interviewed staff and spoke to V.M. and B.G.
V.M. and B.G. denied that V.M. had ever received psychiatric
treatment, had ever refused to consent to a c-section or had
ever been evaluated by a hospital psychiatrist. Frommer then
spoke to Dr. Kurani, who stated that he prescribed Zyprexia for
V.M., but she refused to take it. He also said that V.M.
"distorts everything that is told to her."

Frommer informed V.M. and B.G. that once J.M.G. was
medically cleared for discharge, she would not be going home
with them. V.M. became upset, started yelling and called the
police. Frommer told B.G. and V.M. that there would be a court
hearing on the matter on April 20, 2006, and wrote down the
relevant information on a piece of paper. After Frommer left,
V.M was discharged from the hospital. Later that day, Frommer
went to the parents' apartment to complete a home assessment and
reminded V.M. and B.G. about the court hearing on April 20.

On the morning of April 20, Frommer phoned the parents to
remind them again of the hearing. B.G. answered the phone, but
denied that he was B.G. and denied knowing Frommer. He insisted
he did not know what she was talking about with regard to the
court proceeding. When Frommer immediately attempted to call
back with her supervisor on the line, no one answered the
telephone. Neither V.M. nor B.G. appeared at the April 20
hearing. J.M.G. was discharged from the hospital on April 24,
2006, and placed in foster care.

(much more in the same vein. At least on parent had prior diagnoses of psychosis/paranoid delusions, which were concealed and both have been since evaluated as suffering from psychotic delusions. The court has made several attempts to reunite the family but eventually decided the risks to the infant outweigh the benefits.)

[Hannah Bell]

14. The hospital SW initiated the farce, & the investigator responded to interviews of hospital

personnel.

Case closed. I hope the parents sue the hospital & "social worker"'s pants off.

[anigbrowl]

15. Not true at all

I posted only a short excerpt (and said so); you really need to read the whole thing. The mother ('VM') had been in psychiatric treatment for 12 years prior to all this, and had been seen by a psychiatrist on the evening on which she gave birth, and denied having refused a c-section - in other words, she lied repeatedly to the social worker about these topics.

If you read the court's ruling, you'll see that the c-section is only a peripheral factor in the whole thing and in fact the appellate court affirms the mother's right to refuse such a procedure, as did the psychiatrist who examined her during the evening of her delivery. There was much other behavior which staff at the hospital found bizarre (violently refusing an epidural, refusal to allow the doctor to examine her, or even perform an ultrasound scan) which aroused suspicion and led to the social worker being assigned in the first place, and the total inconsistencies between what the mother told the social worker and what her actual medical records showed which led to her decision to put the matter in the hands of the court.

The court has since found (via indepedent psychiatrict examinations) that the mother is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia while her husband is also experiencing psychotic delusions.

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4627-06.pdf

[Hannah Bell]

17. The hospital initiated the entire farce. Being under psychiatric care isn't grounds

for revocation of parental rights. There was no diagnosis of psychosis prior to the hospital's involvement, & other psychiatric assessors came to different conclusions. The judge chose to accept one assessment over others.

The only evidence of "neglect" or "abuse" that I read in the record in the refusal of cs.

The hospital personnel decided to go after her. & if you don't think it happens, think again. it bloody well does. i work in a hospital, & i've seen it.

[no limit]

18. Why didnt they show up for court?

[Hannah Bell]

19. Here's the summary. I see no mention of their not showing up for the various hearings.

I doubt they'd have repeatedly appealed just to not show up.


"After the birth of the child, plaintiff Division of Youth
and Family Services (DYFS) investigated. It learned of V.M.'s
refusal to consent to the c-section and discovered that V.M. had
been under psychiatric care for twelve years prior to J.M.G.'s
birth. Moreover, V.M. was not forthcoming about her treatment
or diagnosis. B.G. also refused to cooperate with DYFS's
efforts to obtain information.

DYFS commenced a Title 9 proceeding pursuant to the
Abandonment, Abuse, Cruelty and Neglect Act (the Act), N.J.S.A.
9:6-8.21 to -8.106, and placed J.M.G. in its custody. At the
1 A cesarean section is an operative procedure involving an
"incision through the abdominal wall and the uterus
(abdominohysterotomy) for extraction of the fetus." Stedman's
Medical Dictionary, Unabridged Lawyer's Edition 1267 (4th ed.
1976).

A fact-finding hearing, the trial judge found that J.M.G. was an
abused and neglected child due in part to her parents' failure
to cooperate with medical personnel at the time of her birth.
V.M.'s refusal to consent to a c-section factored heavily into
this decision.

Later, at a permanency hearing, the judge
approved DYFS's plan for termination of parental rights and
foster family adoption.

On appeal, V.M. and B.G., among other arguments, assert
that the judge erred in considering in his findings that they
abused and neglected J.M.G. based on decisions that V.M. made
concerning medical treatment, specifically, her refusal to
consent to a c-section.

At trial, DYFS asserted that V.M.'s
refusal to consent to a c-section was a relevant factor in
assessing abuse and neglect.

On appeal, DYFS maintained that
position, however, at oral argument, DYFS suggested that the
judge need not have considered such refusal in reaching his
conclusion that V.M. abused and neglected J.M.G. DYFS did urge
that such refusal and V.M.'s later assertion that she did not
refuse the procedure were relevant to the issue of credibility.2"


The HOSPITAL put the whole farce into motion. There were not grounds for the ruling of "neglect" but for refusal of the C-sec. The baby was born healthy & taken at birth.

The defendent's psychiatric history wouldn't have been open to review EXCEPT for the hospital's complaint v. the patient, provoked by her REFUSAL of C-section.

And being under psychiatic care (i.e. regularly seeing a psychiatrist or psychologist, using psych meds, etc.) isn't grounds for termination of parental rights. If it were, half the parents in the country would lose their kids.

[anigbrowl]

21. Already supplied in #12

And previously being under psychiatric care is not cited as the grounds for termination of parental rights.

Moreover, V.M. was not forthcoming about her treatment or diagnosis. B.G. also refused to cooperate with DYFS's efforts to obtain information.

It's the fact that she told one person (the hospital psychiatrist) about it and then concealed that fact, and the fact of her being evaluated by the hospital psychiatrist, from the social worker which led to her being denied custody.

As previously noted, the appellate court set aside the lower court's consideration that refusal of the c-section was a significant factor and AFFIRMED a patient's right to make such a decision for herself, but concluded that there were multiple other factors justifying the child being removed from the parents' custody.

You make it sound like everything was just going along all nice and dandy until the hospital proposed a c-section and the mother refused. It is obvious that this is not the case.

[anigbrowl]

20. Again, not true

(regarding events surrounding the birth)
In the hospital records, V.M. is described as "combative," "uncooperative," "erratic," "noncompliant," "irrational" and "inappropriate." She ordered the attending obstetrician, Dr. Shetal Mansuria, to leave the room and told her if she did not do what V.M. said, she would be off the case. V.M. then threatened to report the doctor to the police. In fact, at one point V.M. did call the Livingston Police to report that she was being abused and denied treatment. She told a nurse that "no one is going to touch my baby."

She continuously refused to wear the face mask that provided her with oxygen and also refused to remain still in order to allow for fetal heart monitoring. She thrashed about to the extent that it was unsafe for the anesthesiologist to administer an epidural. She would not allow Dr. Mansuria to touch the baby or perform an ultrasound examination. Throughout this entire period, V.M. "was very boisterous and yelling and screaming at the top of her lungs."

Does this sound rational to you? Trying to throw the ob/gyn out, complaining about denial of treatment while refusing oxygen or an ultrasound exam or an epidural (all things she had signed consent forms for)?

As for mental health...
Apparently, after one psychologist found the parents to be in "desperate" need of psychiatric care, the court was required to
issue a restraining order to protect his safety. Another psychologist, who was assaulted in the parents' home, also obtained a restraining order. Another refused to provide psychiatric services without assurances that he would not be sued.

6 The group contracted to provide parenting classes stated that it could not provide V.M. with services absent a psychological
evaluation due to her disruptive and uncontrollable behavior.

It is absolutely not, as you claim, solely to do with refusal of the c-section, and as I have noted the court upheld her right to refuse such a procedure but found the strange behavior and psychological state of both parents presented a clear danger for the child.

[Hannah Bell]

22. She doesn't have to wear the o2, she doesn't have to submit to epidural,

she doesn't have to do ultrasound, & those things aren't grounds for termination of parental rights for "neglect".

You're just further demonstrating the HOSPITAL initiated the entire farce because she didn't properly submit to their care.

Oh, & demonstrating you haven't been present at many births.

[anigbrowl]

24. So why did she pre-sign consent forms for those procedures?

And what was the point of calling the police to complain she had been abused and denied care? Why did both parents lie to the social worker about multiple different topics, knowing (if they had stopped to think about it) that there would be a record of the mother having been evaluated by not one, but two psychiatrists on the evening of the birth (while in fact they denied any evaluation had taken place)? Why avoid showing up at a court hearing, denying identity on the phone, and denying any knowledge of having to be in court?

You keep insisting that the hospital 'initiated the entire farce' when there is copious evidence of completely irrational behavior on the part of both parents.

I have been present at 2 difficult births, as a matter of fact. I expect to be present at a 3rd next year. I have seen both good and bad aspects of hospital birth, but none of that speaks to the details of the matter at hand since neither of us were there and have to go on the the facts as reported.

[Hannah Bell]

27. none of that is grounds for termination of parental rights. see if your wife/daughter/so wants to

deal with legal issues one day after delivering a baby.

everything speaks of major overreaching by the fucked-up, officious hospital personnel.

[anigbrowl]

33. Apparently it is

I refer you to the extensive discussion of legal precedent for removing a child from their parents before harm has occurred, if there is reason to believe it is likely to do so; in this case there seems to be ample reason, given a disconnect from reality. It is not pleasant to have to make such a call but on occasion it is necessary.

[Hannah Bell]

36. bollocks. the hospital way overstepped its mandate. & it's obvious the reason is

the couple wasn't sufficiently deferential.

[anigbrowl]

38. Swearing doesn't make up for your lack of an argument.

[Hannah Bell]

39. sarcasm doesn't disguise your lack of sense.

[anigbrowl]

48. I'm not being sarcastic. Enjoy your ad-hominem attacks.

[Hannah Bell]

61. hmm. lack of sense = more intense ad hom than lack of argument.

[anigbrowl]

64. 'lack of argument' was a factual description

You said the hospital had way overstepped its mandate without explaining why this should be so, and say the reason was a lack of deference, again without providing any evidence to back up your claim. An assertion is not an argument.

[Hannah Bell]

68. Even the shall we say "edited" version shows grounds for malpractice finding.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6143293&mesg_id=6146061

[anigbrowl]

73. You should offer yourself as their lawyer

with you on their side they couldn't possibly lose.

[Hannah Bell]

76. She's in the fucking delivery room, in LABOR. She refused a C-section, so this is how she spends

her labor:

"Dr. Devendra Kurani responded to the delivery room and spoke to V.M. for approximately one hour.

Dr. Kurani then made a critical finding. Although he acknowledged that V.M. was VERY ANXIOUS, Dr. Kurani concluded that V.M. was NOT PSYCHOTIC and had the capacity for informed consent with regard to the csection.

After Dr. Kurani left, the staff REQUESTED A SECOND PSYCHIATRIC OPINION from Dr. Jacob Jacoby.

BEFORE DR. JACOBY'S EVALUATION WAS COMPLETED, VM GAVE BIRTH vaginally to J.M.G."


(So these ASSHATS, not satisfied with their first Doc's HOUR-LONG EVALUATION IN THE DELIVERY ROOM WHILE THE PATIENT IS IN LABOR, SUBJECT HER TO YET ANOTHER EVAL UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES so they can get the verdict they want.

In cases of documented threat to the life of child or mother, emergency CS is an option without permission. There was no such threat or they would have done the C-section.


The next day, the same asshats started proceedings to take her kid & get her a serious psych DX because she wouldn't submit to a C-section like a nice "compliant" little patient.

And to cover their own dirty asses.

The timing brooks no other explanation.

There was no "neglect" involved, despite the finding of the judge. It's a railroad job to cover the hospital.

[anigbrowl]

80. And yet, the patient told the judge she had consented to a c-section.

At the fact-finding hearing, V.M. informed the judge that she had had a wonderful prenatal experience.4 She then offered
information that proved to be in significant conflict with the hospital records. She stated that as soon as she got to the
hospital, she signed the form giving the doctors permission to perform a c-section. (...)

4 This is contrary to a notation in V.M.'s discharge summary stating that V.M.'s obstetrician, Dr. Theodore Cohen, reported
that V.M. was "noncompliant" and "combative" with "inappropriate affect" during prenatal office visits.

Consistency is clearly not this lady's strong suit. Calling the hospital staff asshats doesn't alter that.

[Hannah Bell]

82. Consent to a medical procedure doesn't nullify one's right to subsequently refuse,

up to the point where one is under the knife.

"non-compliant". "combative". lol. you don't work in a hospital.

= "didn't do what we told her to & gave us lip besides".

"inappropriate affect" = didn't react like middle-class white professional medical personnel would.

[anigbrowl]

89. She told a judge she had given consent, when she never had. So did her husband.

Yet again, you can't argue the point so you just move the goalposts. Oh, and I have worked in a hospital. You are not the only person who has ever had a medical job. I have worked with both geriatric and mental patients, and believe in giving a patient a wide degree of latitude no matter what condition they're in. Your conspiracy theory is total BS.

"inappropriate affect" = didn't react like middle-class white professional medical personnel would.

White medical personnel like Drs. Mansuria and Kurani. Mm-hm.

[Hannah Bell]

103. so what? why do you think lying = grounds for taking someone's child?

"professional" = "white".

[recoveringrepublican]

57. In case she wanted them! I was intervention free, but still signed up for the epidural, in case

one was needed fast.

[anigbrowl]

59. OK, but the ultrasound and that too?

I've been at a couple of (arduous) labors and I can see it's certainly no picnic, but as described this particular case seems pretty far out, as if she really went off the deep end. I don't mean this to come across as if I'm arguing for cesaerian sections, I'm not.

[Hannah Bell]

63. one isn't obligated to have any procedure, even if one's previously given consent.

[uppityperson]

114. Consent to a medical procedure doesn't nullify one's right to subsequently refuse,

exactly. You can refuse at any time.

[Hannah Bell]

26. What is this bullshit?

The mother entered the hospital 4/16.

On 4/18, while the mother was still in hospital, the hospital social worker contacted DYFS with "concerns". (My suspicion is the hospital SW actually contacted DYFS the day before, given the unusually quick response. typically the info would have been given at d/c instructions, so they would have had to have dyfs waiting in the wings to get the timing right).

DYFS interviewed the parents the same day, IN THE HOSPITAL, told them their child wouldn't be going home with them, & supposedly told them there'd be a custody hearing 2 days later.

Then she allegedly went to their home on the same day once the mother was d/c'd, did a home assessment & reminded them of the hearing again.

Then she allegedly called on the day of the 20th, but the father allegedly pretended he didn't know what she was talking about & didn't show up for the hearing.

However, the parents showed up at the second hearing 2 weeks later, & every subsequent one.

Where I live, formal notification is required for a custody hearing, not a note & phone call from a social worker.

Initiation & notification 1 day after giving birth, without evidence of drug use or overt possibility for imminent harm = highly suspect.

[anigbrowl]

37. The only bullshit is coming from your end

That's a highly edited version of the story in order to make your point. You completely leave out the reason for the social worker becoming involve din the first place, or the stated basis for her decision, as well as the fact that not only did the father pretend he didn't know what the social worker was talking about and fail to show up for a hearing, he even denied his own identity on the phone.

I disagree with you, and think that leaving a newborn in the hands of someone so obviously unstable does indeed present an overt possibility for imminent harm. How do you think such a person is going to handle matters the first time they have to deal with a baby that won't stop crying or seems to reject the parent's care strategy? If you've got any children of your own or dealt with newborns you are surely aware that a newborn baby can be a handful for anyone, never mind someone suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

[Hannah Bell]

41. the reason for the SW becoming involved = she works for the hospital.

the reason for dyfs becoming involved = the hospital sw called them.

the woman had no dx of "paranoid schizophrenia" (which, btw, i don't believe is any longer a formal psych dx) or "schizophrenia" of any sort before the hospital's "experts" got involved.

and it took several "experts" to get the "right" dx.

i.e. the one the hospital personnel wanted.

[anigbrowl]

43. The longer this goes on, the more obvious it is you haven't bothered to read the case file

Initially, Seltzer diagnosed V.M. as suffering from post-traumatic stress, panic disorder and major depression. As the years went by and V.M. made no progress in coping with the 1993 workplace incident, Seltzer's notes increasingly discussed V.M.'s paranoia and psychotic ideations. Seltzer's notes from January 2006, reflected several telephone calls to V.M. to inquire about cancelled appointments.

The notes concluded:
Surprised by (patient's) cancelling all future (appointments). Learned that
(patient's) litigation settled, which may have precipitated this decision. Attempted
to contact (patient) to discuss the benefit of ongoing (therapy), but (patient) did not
return any calls. Since (patient) demonstrates neither suicidal nor homicidal
ideation, she is within her right to terminate (treatment), though clearly not
recommended by this MD.

[Hannah Bell]

45. That's her former therapist, not the SW. The SW works for the hospital.

The second SW works for family services.

The hospital SW contacted to family services SW sometime between the time the pt entered hospital 4/16 to give birth & her d/c 4/18, with specific intent of getting authority to keep the child.

family services interview conducted 4/18 before her d/c.
"psych eval" conducted sometime 4/16-4/17, while she was in labor.

[anigbrowl]

47. Yes, and it contradicts your claim there was no sign of schizophrenia prior to this episode

So her mental stability was in question before the hospital got involved at all. 'Paranoia and psychotic ideations' sounds unstable to me.

[Hannah Bell]

60. There was no dx of schizophrenia of any kind. If there had been, it would have been noted,

since it would tend to support the hospital's version of reality.

The only historic dx noted = depression, post-traumatic stress, etc.

The note of "ideations" isn't a dx.

your opinion as to the woman's stablility isn't sufficient cause to vacate parental rights. nor is instability in general

The hospital initiated the entire farce to take the couple's child because the patient wasn't sufficiently deferential.

[anigbrowl]

65. Sigh...again if you would actually read the judge's opinion....

you would notice that there are also reference to the Mother's therapist coming to form an opinion of schizoaffective disorder. In fact, I think I may have already quoted that section somewhere else on the thread. You can keep dancing around the fact all you want, but there is ample evidence that the mother's behavior around the time of the birth was the result of a psychotic episode, she had had such episodes before, and both parents attempted to conceal these facts from a care worker.

Unfortunately, every year there are a few cases of children who die because their parents are mentally unstable and hurt them either actively or through negligence. That is why social workers monitor cases like this to begin with. You have presented no evidence whatosever for your theory, and I'm pretty sure that you don't have any, but rather just some axe to grind. It's not my fault you didn't bother read upon the background to this story and familiarize yourself with the facts before starting to spin conspiracy theories.

[Hannah Bell]

66. There was no such dx prior to her entering the hospital. Here's how it went. Pt. enters hospital

in labor. While in labor, pt refuses various treatments staff thinks she should have, including C-section (apparently offered as soon as she went into the delivery room), is rude, "combative," "inappropriate," "non-compliant". (If you work in a hospital, you KNOW on what minor grounds such comments can enter the patient record).

She's in the fucking delivery room, in LABOR:

"Dr. Devendra Kurani responded to the delivery room and spoke to V.M. for approximately one hour. While Dr. Kurani was there, the
anesthesiologist was able to administer an epidural. (Oh, so she WASN'T continuously combative & DIDN'T refuse "everything," just the things she didn't WANT).

V.M. informed Dr. Kurani that she had a psychiatric history and had
been on medication prior to getting pregnant.

B.G. confirmed that V.M. had been treated by a psychiatrist for post-traumatic stress disorder and had been prescribed Zoloft, Prozac and Seroquel.

When Dr. Mansuria stressed the need for V.M. to
consent to a c-section, V.M. stated that she understood the
A-4627-06T4 6 risks, but she did not want the procedure.

Dr. Kurani then made a critical finding. Although he acknowledged that V.M. was VERY ANXIOUS, Dr. Kurani concluded that V.M. was NOT PSYCHOTIC and had the capacity for informed consent with regard to the csection.

At no time did anyone seek judicial intervention or the appointment of a special medical guardian (This is likely CYA; I'd bet my bottom dollar this possibility was broached either to the pt or her spouse).

After Dr. Kurani left, the staff REQUESTED A SECOND PSYCHIATRIC OPINION from Dr. Jacob Jacoby.

BEFORE DR. JACOBY'S EVALUATION WAS COMPLETED, VM GAVE BIRTH vaginally to J.M.G."

(So these ASSHATS, not satisfied with their first Doc's HOUR-LONG EVALUATION IN THE DELIVERY ROOM WHILE THE PATIENT IS IN LABOR, SUBJECT HER TO YET ANOTHER EVAL UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES.

Anxious? You bet your booty she was, with GOOD REASON. These ASSHATS spent the majority of her delivery trying to force her into procedures she didn't want & giving her psych evals so they didn't need permission, instead of trying to reduce her anxiety & follow her wishes about her own delivery.

In cases of documented threat to the life of child or mother, emergency CS is an option without permission. There was no such threat or they would have done it.)


"In his report, Dr. Jacoby recounted V.M.'s professed history of childhood abuse, workplace violence and societal discrimination. He noted that V.M. was treated by a psychiatrist, Dr. Ronnie Lee Seltzer, for many years until V.M. stopped seeing her allegedly at the behest of her lawyers.

Although he concluded that V.M. appeared to be cognitively
intact, he admitted that "there is a gnawing concern overall
that the patient may not be as intact as I may have described."

Later that day, Dr. Jacoby dictated an addendum report
recounting a conversation with Dr. Seltzer. Dr. Seltzer related
that she initially treated V.M. for post-traumatic stress
disorder but later began to appreciate that V.M. suffered from
either a schizoaffective disorder or a bipolar disorder. Dr.
Seltzer questioned the reliability of B.G. and was concerned
A-4627-06T4 7 about V.M.'s "ability to care for her child in a responsible manner.""


Note the careful language: "began to appreciate that V.M. suffered from either a schizoaffective disorder or a bipolar disorder."

= no DX of either was ever made. Show me the pt case file.

The next day the hospital SW initiated proceedings to take the woman's newborn child for "NEGLECT".


What a FUCKING RAILROAD JOB.

[anigbrowl]

72. I don't need to tell me how it went, I read the opinion properly to start with.

Writing IN CAPS still doesn't make your case any more persuasive. What next, all doctors are class enemies?

[Hannah Bell]

74. you neglected the most important parts. perhaps you'd better read it again.

you seem to be laboring under the delusion that the mother had a dx of schizophrenia prior to the hospital's determined search for a compliant physician & vendetta v. the pt.

if i put a little note about it in your medical chart, you'd then have a hx of "delusional ideation." then i could use the note to take your kids.

[anigbrowl]

78. OK Hannah, you're right. There's no forest there, just a bunch of trees.

[Hannah Bell]

109. Tell me anig, why was the child taken from the mother immediately

after she delivered it, & why did the hospital social worker immediately call Family Services to get a fitness hearing for "neglect"?

The patient came in on the 16th in labor & was d/c'd on the 18th without her child, whom she did not get to see once she delivered it. It was born healthy. The hour-long hospital psych eval found the mother non-psychotic & capable of making decisions.

Even the second psych eval - the one done just on the basis of what the evaluator had access to at the hospital, not the later addendum added after the evaluator called up her old therapist & got access to 12 years of "confidential" records of their sessions - had no findings to indicate a custody hearing was in order.

Tell me why by the 18th a custody hearing was scheduled for "neglect" when the patient had not even had contact with her healthy child.

[rd_kent]

95. Yes, very rational.

Educate yourself on the truth about hospital births.

"She continuously refused to wear the face mask that provided her with oxygen and also refused to remain still in order to allow for fetal heart monitoring. She thrashed about to the extent that it was unsafe for the anesthesiologist to administer an epidural." This is how hospitals "speed up" the process when labor is taking too long (in their opinion) because time is money. Fetal heart monitoring is unnecessary and is usually the first thing a hospital uses to get you to take pitosin, to speed up the labor process. Pitosin then puts stress on the baby and they want to do a c-section.

[Rage for Order]

58. How dare you interrupt her screed with relevant facts!

:hi:

[Hannah Bell]

70. maybe you need to check the definition of "screed".

and check out the facts your buddy neglected to mention.

he thinks anyone with psych hx deserves to get their kids taken away if some professional asshat doesn't like them.

[readmoreoften]

113. A doctor who says she "distorts everything told to her?" That sounds like every conservative at DU

and I wouldn't take their children away.

Every patient has the right to refuse treatment. This doctor should be investigated.

[Cairycat]

5. Most women "behave erratically" in labor

unless they're doped into the docility that some doctors insist upon.

The doctor, the hospital, trial judge and appellate judge are wrong here - but many women will recognize this as the routine infantilization of mothers in labor, except taken farther than usual.

[tblue37]

13. I sure did! When I went to the hospital, my husband was at a conference

nearby, so I had to do the check-in procedure in the hospital office by myself.

I was so uncomfortable I couldn't sit still, so I actually got down on my hands and knees and crawled all around the floor while answering the receptionist's questions.

She kept laughing and apologizing, but it was so funny I couldn't blame her for laughing--although I couldn't quit crawling, either.

[Hannah Bell]

71. more than infantilization: they took her child & saddled her with a psych dx

to cover their own malpractice.

[Chemisse]

6. That is unbelievable!

There are still plenty of unnecessary C-sections happening in this country. A woman should certainly have the right to decide if she is to have major surgery without the threat of a neglect/abuse charge hanging over her head.

[omega minimo]

7. Hospitals have been pushing women to have C-sections for decades. Criminal arrogance.

Easier for them. None of that bother with "uncooperative" women giving birth. Just slice em open and take the kid out.

Nowhere in the article does it say why the staff wanted to perform the C section. The report says the child was fine.

Taking the child away is COMPLETELY INSANE.


Women in labor tend to find themselves on a different mental plane, where they have to focus inward and work with their bodies to give birth. As midwives know, some women become belligerent. Some seek privacy and seclusion. Most women in labor are likely to find the routine and usually unnecessary procedures of hospitals to be invasive and unwelcome. Yet the courts that decided this case didn't seem to be aware that women are unlikely to behave the same way when they are in labor as when they aren't. The decision cites hospital records that describe the mother, V.M., as "combative," "uncooperative," "erratic," "noncompliant," "irrational" and "inappropriate." Also, her husband indicated that the way she was acting was not her "normal manner and that she is not as 'tranquil.'" Why would anyone expect a woman in labor to be compliant, tranquil, or rational? What kinds of expectations does our society have for women undergoing a powerful physiological process, often with an absurd amount of poking, prodding and general interference? This mother was uncooperative with hospital staff, but clearly her uncooperativeness had nothing to do with the well-being of her baby. There is no reason to believe that she did not have the well-being her baby as her top priority, even though she was not a model patient. There is also no reason to believe that everything the hospital staff wanted to do was essential or even beneficial for the well-being of either mother or baby. In fact, typical obstetric care engages in many procedures that are unnecessary and often harmful, more out of habit and for the convenience of hospital staff than in the best interest of patients.

[Odin2005]

52. Not to mention that C-sections can be bad for the kid.

I have recently read that kids that were born via C-section was more likely to get food allergies, apparently because they don't get contact with vaginal bacteria that give something for the baby's immune system to be occupied with.

[omega minimo]

54. Did not know that. Thanks O2

:yourock:

[Odin2005]

56. No problem!

:hi:

[bobbolink]

8. "Behaved irratically". I hope this gives some here an insight into what passes for

the designation of "mental illness" that some trumpet so loudly.


This should be an awareness moment for many here about the abuses in the "system".

[anigbrowl]

9. It's a very poorly reported story, IMHO

There is a lot more to this case than the HuffPo writer lets on. I had difficulty understanding the chain of events until I actually read the court transcript, which is here.

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4627-06.pdf

[lunatica]

10. I recall I behaved somewhat erratically

I tried to climb up the wall behind my bed when they came to check how dilated I was. And the things I said when the enema kicked in, well it's a good thing my kid wasn't born yet so he couldn't hear me.

[ejpoeta]

11. this is scary. granted, my two kids i never had anyone try to force a c section on me

but wtf!! Why did they try to force a c section on this woman? and how did they take the baby away because she refused the c section!! this makes no sense.

[Wednesdays]

16. K&R

:kick:

[varelse]

23. The lesson here is... psychiatric care terminates your right to refuse surgery?

After the birth of the child, plaintiff Division of Youth
and Family Services (DYFS) investigated. It learned of V.M.'s
refusal to consent to the c-section and discovered that V.M. had
been under psychiatric care for twelve years prior to J.M.G.'s
birth. Moreover, V.M. was not forthcoming about her treatment
or diagnosis. B.G. also refused to cooperate with DYFS's
efforts to obtain information.

[anigbrowl]

25. no, but lying about the fact might

Furthermore, if one parent gets evaluated by 2 psychiatrists on the evening of the birth but later both parents deny that any evaluation took place, you have to wonder if they're living in the same reality.

[Hannah Bell]

29. god, you're a tool. who says they knew they were undergoing a psych

eval?

furthermore, what kind of relevant "psych eval" is done when a woman's in labor, or has just delivered?

furthermore, the first "psych eval" came out in favor of the couple. The HOSPITAL decided it didn't come out "right," & got another.

Furthermore, since when is "lying" about having a psych eval on the day one delivered a baby grounds to take the baby?

[anigbrowl]

31. No, I just bothered to read the facts first

It's obvious they knew they were undergoing a psych eval; the mother freely discussed her psychiatric history with both psychiatrists, and (at least in the first case) this was confirmed by the husband (there's no record in the court transcript of whether he was present at the second examination or not).

The psych evaluation was carried out because the mother's behavior was belligerent, irrational (refusing treatment, then calling the police and complaining she was being denied treatment), and because the obstetrician had detected signs of fetal distress.

[Hannah Bell]

32. no, it's not "obvious". particularly on the day one's given birth.

hospital personnel do evaluations regularly without patients understanding it's a formal "evaluation," or what the purpose is.

furthermore, personnel fairly often question or give info to patients in pain, under the influence of drugs, etc., which the patients later have no memory of.

[anigbrowl]

40. So what drugs was the father taking?

Dr. Jacoby also related a conversation with B.G. in which B.G.:

indicated that he feels the way the patient
is acting now is not her normal
manner and that she is not as "tranquil."
She seems to be more rambunctious and over
expansive (i.e., in a possible hypomanic
state)<.> He also was hesitant but seemed
to intimate that the patient has in fact had
episodes of psychotic ideation, which he did
not want to elaborate upon, prior to this
present birth.

Dr. Jacoby concluded that V.M.'s and B.G.'s ability to parent the child "needs to be more fully evaluated by state social
services."(...)

A social worker at Saint Barnabas Hospital contacted DYFS on April 18, 2006, to report concerns over releasing J.M.G. to
her parents' care. Caseworker Heather Frommer immediately went to the hospital, interviewed staff and spoke to V.M. and B.G.
V.M. and B.G. denied that V.M. had ever received psychiatric treatment, had ever refused to consent to a c-section or had
ever been evaluated by a hospital psychiatrist.

[Hannah Bell]

42. "he feels the way the patient is acting now is not her normal"

SHE'S in LABOR with her first child, what is it you don't understand.

The interview was conducted at the HOSPITAL where she'd gone to give birth for the first time.

Jesus christ, spare me from liberals. They'll lock you up in a new york minute.

[anigbrowl]

44. What about the prior incidents? What about the lying? Stop cherry picking.

You keep responding to one detail as if that were the whole of the point being made, and then behaving as if you had settled the argument - when in fact you are glossing over equally, if not more, important points.

[Hannah Bell]

69. What "prior incidents"? What "lying" & since when is lying grounds for terminating parental rights?

Even MURDERERS don't get their kids taken unless the state can prove likely harm.

I repeat: the HOSPITAL initiated this bullshit farce, I believe now in CYA mode, since their treatment of the patient was both unethical & inhumane, & could have been grounds for a suit.

They pushed until they got the psych eval they wanted even as she was in labor & started work on getting her kid taken within 1 day.

She had a psych history, so she was vulnerable.

For those of you who think mental health services are always used to "help" people, think again. Get on the wrong side of the authorities & see what happens to you. You'll be transformed into a certifiable nut case quicker than Bob's your uncle, & you'll find people who are willing to stick their own necks out to help you scarcer than hen's teeth.

Marcus Welby types are the exception in medicine. Or any profession, for that matter.

[boppers]

49. Hey anigbrowl!

Thanks for all you research and background work on this thread. Definitely much more to this case than reported.


edit: typo

[anigbrowl]

50. np

Personally, I'm in favor of homebirth whenever possible (one reason I took an interest in the thread), and I think mentally ill people need a lot more help than they generally get. I have worked with chronically mentally people in hospital and it's a terrible burden.

However, I think the HuffPo reporter did a really weak job on this story. I initially looked up the case file because I was having so much difficulty understanding what had taken place from the HP story and was startled to find that there were so many facts which were omitted from the journalist's report - a case of seriously misleading the readers, if you ask me.

[EndersDame]

85. Don't They have a right to privacy

If i was going to therapy I have the right not to tell anyone

[Hannah Bell]

105. in theory, yes. in reality, no. if you have a psych history, even something as inocuous

& ubiquitous as an antidepressant prescription, it can be used to smear you as a nut if you get on the wrong side of the power structure.

you don't need to tell anyone. you have a medical record, & many institutions have access to it, or can get access - as the authorities in this case got access to the patient's "confidential" therapy records.

[Sebastian Doyle]

28. Was there any valid medical reason for the woman to have a Caesarean section?

The story says "The mother gave birth vaginally without incident, and the baby was "in good medical condition." So I must be missing the reason why they attempted to cut her open to begin with? :shrug:

[Hannah Bell]

30. 1) safer for the md, insurance-wise. 2) lets the hospital schedule its or more conveniently

& lucratively.


& if you don't mind them, they'll take your kid.

[Sebastian Doyle]

34. So in other words

another fine example of the fucked up US corporatist "health care" system in action?

[Hannah Bell]

35. i don't know why they rec'd c-section. but those are some considerations that

sometimes play into recs.

the us has a substantially higher rate than most western countries.

the woman had the right to refuse.

the fact that they initiated investigation & removed her child the day after she gave birth says it all.

[anigbrowl]

46. Judge for yourself; the obstetrician thought so

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4627-06.pdf

[Odin2005]

51. What the hell?

Nanny State morons gone MAD!

The involvement of psychs reminds me of a story out of the UK when a lady with Asperger's Syndrome had her kid taken away just because of her Asperger's, as if being on the autism spectrum makes one unfit to be a parent no matter how high-functioning one is.

[anigbrowl]

53. A good point, but psychosis/schizophrenia is a bigger deal than Asperger's

Please see the (extensive) discussion upthread - the report cited in the OP leaves out all kinds of very significant details suggesting that neither of the parents was of fully sound mind.

[likesmountains 52]

55. ok, I read the whole thread and links and I will say I have attended well over 1000

births..I have yet to see a woman in labor refuse to put on some oxygen if it will help their baby..I have seen plenty of behaviors in labor...but bottom line is that most moms will do what you suggest if they think it will help their baby. This woman had a history of psychiatric problems (not a reason for denying custody) erratic responses in labor ( beyond the expected) and
those two things worried the hospital staff enough to warrant an investigation. I could spend all night recounting unusual responses to labor that I have witnessed ( standing up on the bed screaming " I'm dying and you don't care.") and none of these are considered to be indications that the mom should not be given custody. This case has much more involved and people posting here should not jump to conclusions.

[anigbrowl]

62. +1

[Hannah Bell]

67. Nurses & docs tell me otherwise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6143293&mesg_id=6146061

The hospital took her kid & got her a psych dx so she couldn't fucking sue them for malpractice, which they heartily deserve.

[anigbrowl]

75. keep on believing that

Yep, the lady was railroaded. After all, refusing care and then calling the police to complain you're being denied care, that's totally rational. Everyone does it. 4 psychiatrists stated in a variety of ways that this woman has serious mental problems, but you think it's some sort of baby theft conspiracy.

[Hannah Bell]

77. She *was* being denied care.

[anigbrowl]

79. That's the exact opposite of what's recorded

She (the patient) ordered the attending obstetrician, Dr. Shetal Mansuria, to leave the room and told her if she did not do what V.M. said, she would be off the case. V.M. then threatened to report the doctor to the police. In fact, at one point V.M. did call the Livingston Police to report that she was being abused and denied treatment. (p 4)

She ordered the attending obstetrician to leave the room, did not allow the obstetrician to perform an ultrasound examination,
told a nurse that "no one going to touch baby," refused to continuously wear the face mask that provided her with oxygen and would not remain still in order to allow for fetal heart monitoring and the administering of an epidural. Incredibly, she also called the Livingston Police to report that she was being abused and denied treatment when it was her "erratic" and "combative" behavior that was preventing the hospital staff from providing treatment. (p 39)

Now, find me the part where the obstetrician 'threatened to walk'.

[Hannah Bell]

81. my error, indeed nonetheless, she *was* being denied care. she refused c-section, she was

within her rights to do, & the ob team spent the rest of her delivery pressuring her to accept c-section & giving her multiple psych evals to force it on her without her consent.


Neither you nor i were there, but i've been there in similar situations, & i no longer take the word of medical personnel above the patient's without questions, nor do i accept medical records as an honest accounting of fact.

The refusal of treatment *is* the reason the entire proceeding was put into motion; the rest of the rationale for termination of rights came after the fact. Refusing c-section is not neglect, nor is removing an 02 mask during labor or refusing ultrasound.

OTOH, pressuring a patient to accept treatment & submitting her to mental evaluation & questioning throughout the stress of labor is abusive & unethical, as is initiating termination of parental rights the day after such abuse.


PS: rate of C-section at St. Barnabus = 49.3% of births. On its face prima facie evidence the hospital staff is incompetent or crooked.

I vote for both.

[anigbrowl]

88. What care was she denied that she needed to call the police?

If it was as simple as just refusing the c-section, then I'd agree, and indeed the family would probably have all gone home together. But there's a lot more to the story, it's more complicated than presented, and no amount of theorizing is going to alter that fact.

[Hannah Bell]

99. there is more to the story, but it's not in your judge's report.

[Sigh Sister]

91. There are many reasons for the high rate of C-sections in the US

Many woman now DEMAND them. Doctors will often do them when the baby exhibits any signs of distress because they don't want to get sued even though simple interventions can sometimes correct the problem. Once a woman has a c-section, she almost always opts for repeat c-section instead of attempting a VBAC (vaginal birth after c-section). Breech presentation is another reason. What evidence do you have that the staff is incompetent or crooked?

[Silent3]

92. She doesn't need evidence.

Start with a health suspicion of authority, then crank it up to 11.

This person views nearly all authority with enormous suspicion, if not outright contempt, and practically anyone challenging that authority as a victim, hero, or both. Facts don't matter since "facts" are just the pronouncements of corrupt and control-hungry authority, tools used to subjugate us.

It's the evil medical establishment vs. sacred motherhood. I think that's all HB can possibly see looking at this, regardless of any "so-called" facts.

[Hannah Bell]

104. I know the "evidence". Better than the poster.

I work in the medical establishment, in a "professional" position, & if you trust the medical profession, you're a fool. Yes, I view *all* authority with suspicion.

My objection to this case has nothing to do with "sacred motherhood," but I don't expect you to understand.

[Sigh Sister]

111. You're good at making assumptions.

I work in a hospital in a "professional" position too. Labor and Delivery RN. My previous position was Medical/Surgical RN. Prior to that I was a case manager working with the mentally ill.

[Hannah Bell]

112. yes, i read your apologetics. like i said, if you "trust" the profession.....

exhibit no. 1: your diagnostic from the judge's report

[Sigh Sister]

115. I truly feel sorry for you that your so paranoid.

Your theory that the MD's/RN's initiated this to retaliate against this patient for not agreeing to the c-section and generally being non-compliant is truly ridiculous.

[Hannah Bell]

116. i feel truly sorry you're such a tool. what *other* basis for their actions *was* there?

oh, she acted "crazy"?

symptoms of her "crazy" = "not agreeing to the c-section and generally being non-compliant"

nice circle jerk you got going there.

[likesmountains 52]

118. Amen..

[Hannah Bell]

101. 49.4% rate of c-sections. This hospital is in NJ, NJ has the highest c-sec rate in the country,

& this hospital is way above even NJ rates. & no, it's not in an area where you'd expect to find a high % of high-risk births.


"Cesarean section can be a life-saving procedure, but it is a major surgery that carries extensive risks for both mother and baby, risks that are not present in a vaginal birth. Research conducted by the World Health Organization shows that these risks of cesarean outweigh the benefits when the c-section rate exceeds 15%. Currently, women have no way of knowing if their local hospitals exceed this recommended rate."


You can list all the reasons you like; delivering half of all births c-sect = bullshit.

[redqueen]

117. I'd be interested to see anyone try to argue against that.

This story is truly frightening.

[NashVegas]

98. I Think This Woman Was Probably Scared Shitless The Hospital Was Going to Screw Her Over

and it turned out, she was right

more info from a different blog:

http://www.unnecesarean.com/blog/2009/7/21/refusal-of-unnecesarean-leads-to-loss-of-custody-vs-story.html

On April 16, 2006, V and B, a married couple, went to Saint Barnabas Hospital after V began experiencing contractions. V is described in court documents as a 42 year old, college educated woman who was thirty-five weeks pregnant and in labor upon arrival at St. Barnabas Hospital in New Jersey, which boasts a 43.9 percent cesarean rate. V signed the consent form for the administration of intravenous fluids, antibiotics, oxygen, fetal heart rate monitoring, an episiotomy and an epidural anesthetic. However, she refused to the blanket consent forms for c-section or fetal scalp stimulation. According to the court documents, hospital personnel explained the “potentially dire consequences of not allowing a c-section in the event of fetal distress.”

Dr. Mansuria, the obstetrician, explained the possible complications that could occur if the fetus went into distress and a c-section was not performed, such as brain damage, mental retardation and fetal death. Mansuria claimed that “an examination” revealed a nonreassuring fetal status. B said that he understood the risks and V would not consent to the procedure.

The legal findings show that the “hospital responded appropriately to confront V’s mental state and her refusal to consent to the c-section.” The staff requested an emergency psychiatric evaluation to determine V.’s competency. Dr. Devendra Kurani spoke to V for approximately one hour and while Kurani was there, the anesthesiologist was able to administer an epidural. V informed Kurani that she had a “psychiatric history” and had been on medication prior to getting pregnant. B confirmed that V had been treated by a psychiatrist for post-traumatic stress disorder and had been prescribed Zoloft, Prozac and Seroquel.

Dr. Kurani concluded that although V was anxious, she was not psychotic and had the capacity for informed consent with regard to the c-section. The staff called in a second psychiatric evaluation from a Dr. Jacoby. Before the second psychiatrist was able to complete the examination, V gave birth vaginally to J without incident in spite of Dr. Mansuria’s repeated claims that V’s baby was in distress and could suffer brain damage, mental retardation or fetal death without the recommended cesarean.

A social worker at Saint Barnabas Hospital contacted the Division of Youth and Family Services on April 18, 2006, two days after J’s birth to report concerns over releasing the baby to her parents’ care. Caseworker Heather Frommer went to the hospital, interviewed staff and spoke to V and B, who denied that V “had ever received psychiatric treatment, had ever refused to consent to a c-section or had ever been evaluated by a hospital psychiatrist.”

IOW, when the hospital with a 43% cesarean rate couldn't get the finding they wanted, they went looking for another psychiatrist, and then they handed the newborn over to child services because a 42 YO woman refused to be docile.

I hope they sue the motherfuckers for everything they have.

[Hannah Bell]

106. that's my interpretation too.

[Odin2005]

83. KICK

[dorktv]

84. Did anyone else notice that the Trial Court had stated that the child could be returned

if there were a few steps taken to reassure the Court the child would be safe?

[anigbrowl]

87. yup

But that doesn't fit the outrage narrative.

[Hannah Bell]

102. you mean like having the father undergo psych eval too? On what grounds?

btw, "folie a deux" ain't any "rare disorder" - because it's not a psych diagnosis or a legitimate disorder at all.

[EndersDame]

86. No A Pregnant Women is Just an Incubator

Apparently pregnant women are not capable of making any medical decision for themselves whether it be to have an abortion or to give birth vaginally and must defer to the person in charge whether it be her husband ,doctors, parents, or legislators

[Sigh Sister]

90. Chiming in.

I'm a labor and delivery nurse and have a few thoughts. First, based on the court documents, the baby was exhibiting what we call non-reassuring fetal heart tones. Because they wanted to do fetal scalp stimulation, which she refused, the baby was more than likely exhibiting signs of acidosis. The RN or the MD stimulates the baby's scalp with their fingertips to attempt to elicit an acceleration in the baby's heart rate to determine if it has any reserves left. She also refused oxygen which would be a crucial, non-invasive intervention.It is HIGHLY unusual for a mother to refuse simple interventions (fetal scalp stim and O2) when told that her baby is in distress. I'm guessing that this is probably the point at which it was determined a c-section should be done. The woman was refusing attempts at intrauterine resuscitation. Doing nothing when a baby is exhibiting signs of distress is malpractice and can result in brain damage and/or death. Her behavior was irrational. Luckily, the baby ended up doing well, but I can tell you from experience, this is definitely not always the case.

[Hannah Bell]

107. 1) Deliveries with fetal heart monitoring result in no better outcomes than deliveries without it.

The only statistically significant difference in outcomes is higher C-sect rate.

http://www.changesurfer.com/Hlth/EFM.html


Besides which, it's uncomfortable & restricting. and it's not clear she "refused" o2 or just took off the mask for the same reason: uncomfortable & restricting. She was in labor, you know.

Besides which, she had two asshats in the delivery room giving her psych evals up to the moment the kid came out, a doctor pressuring her to have a c-section & trying to get her a psych dx.

Maybe she wasn't breathing well because she was anxious: due to the fact that she was in a vulnerable position in a room full of people who were hostile to her, did you consider *that* possibility in your diagnostics?

[Still Sensible]

93. If you read the appellate court decision, it's not

as cut and dried as the Huffpo writer indicates. The court in fact, and quite emphatically, said that it was not upholding the lower court ruling on the basis that the mother refused a c-section. The judges clearly pointed out that the lower court was wrong to consider that question in making its determination and cited numerous cases which clearly indicated that the mother's right to refuse invasive treatment was inviolate.

The appellate court upheld the ruling on the custody question based on other erratic behavior, both past history and actions since the child was born.

Had the court not completely struck down the c-section question and the mother's right to refuse that, I would come down strongly on the same side. It is instructive to read the entire ruling:

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4627-06.pdf

[Hannah Bell]

110. child & family services argued & got a judgement in the initial case that

refusal of the c-sect constituted "neglect".

& the refusal of procedures was the impetus for taking her child from her as soon as it was born & calling family services the next day to start proceedings to take her parental rights.

[rd_kent]

94. And this is why we are having a "natural" birth

at home. No we are not hippies, fundies, or anything else. We have educated ourselves and founf that there is NO GOOD REASON to have a baby in the hospital, as long as the pregnancy is normal. We are using a mid-wife and are 1 mile from the hospital in case of emergency.
She was probably "taking too long" to have the child and the hospital wanted to perform a c-section and she said no.

[Sigh Sister]

96. Most often things turn out just fine

There are many woman who have normal pregnancies, but complicated labor and deliveries resulting in fetal distress. Please make sure that you have oxygen and an ambu bag available in case the baby needs resuscitated at birth.

[rd_kent]

97. Well, we have educated ourselves

and we know what we need and don't need, but thanks for your advice.

[Mythsaje]

100. That's insane...

I thought women in labor were supposed to act erratically? That it was expected. Pain has been known to do that.

[Hannah Bell]

108. no, according to some people, the best time to do psych evals is in the middle of labor.

and the best time to give notice of a hearing to take someone's child is the day after they have the baby.