Mom Refuses C-Section, Baby Taken Away

[ccharles000]

by Momlogic.com

A woman in New Jersey refused to consent to a C-section during labor in the event that her baby 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 child" 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 mother, 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.

The court opinion also focuses on the fact that the mother had been in psychiatric care for twelve years prior to the birth. But, as the Huffington Post points out, her psychiatric state would never have been questioned if the mother had not refused invasive abdominal surgery -- which was entirely within her rights.

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/mom-refuses-c-section-baby-taken-away-492112/

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. That is a bad decision, IMHO.

If they had done the C-section without her consent, that would have been assault.

She was entirely within her rights to refuse that.

And they way overstepped their bounds by taking the infant.

I would be so angry at this, had it happened to me.

[ccharles000]

7. I agree

[terrell9584]

2. They'll either reverse this

Or this is going to become a big national scandal


I hope she takes the state to court and takes them for a lot of money, even in these desperate times. Might teach them twice before trying crap like this.

[Arkana]

3. Yeah this won't hold up. I'd be shocked if it did.

Christ, they don't take kids away when their parents try to pray away cancer, or when a Jehovah's Witness kid refuses a potentially life-saving blood transfusion--but they'll take this woman's child away because she objected to the idea of a C-section?

[Kali]

4. on the surface that sure sounds FUCKED

I would be PISSED. Glad I had mine at home. My fucking body. MY decisions.

[Maru Kitteh]

5. did you post this before?

[ccharles000]

6. no

[MiniMe]

8. There has to be more to this story, it just doesn't sound right

Something is missing somewhere

[LisaL]

10. If you read the ruling, according to it there were other issues.

Not just refusal of a c-section.

[Crunchy Frog]

14. There were other issues, and they may very well be unfit parents

but the refusal of the c-section was the immediate reason for taking away the baby. She could have been crazy as a jay bird, and she still would have likely kept her baby had she consented to the surgery.

[MiniMe]

16. Thanks, I thought so

You're right, I didn't follow the link. The OP should have mentioned those things.

[BlooInBloo]

26. I'm sure there was a reason why the OP didn't mention those things.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. Here is the link to the ruling -- in all its legal splendor

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-4627-06T4;
New Jersey Division Of Youth And Family Services, v. V.M. and B.G., In The Matter Of J.M.G., a Minor.
(PDF, 144kB)

--d!

[cherish44]

11. There are a lot of women who think the birth experience is about "them" and not the baby

My sister worked with a woman who's child has severe cerebral palsey because the mother insisted on having a home birth despite some severe complications. She got to have her vaginal drug free home birth but her kid. who would most likely be healthy had his mother accepted the advice of the midwife and gone to a hosptial, will never walk or be able to feed himself. I'm all for natural births but C sections save lives sometimes. I had an emergency C section with my daughter because of fetal distress and although I was a little disappointed I wouldn't have natural childbirth, I didn't think twice about consenting to the surgery. My doctor told me later, "Well you could have given birth naturally, it probably would have been to a dead baby though". There's no such thing as a second rate birth. The baby's health should always be the priority. Thank god this woman's baby was alright but it could have gone horribly wrong.

[Crunchy Frog]

12. The hospital where this happened has a nearly 50% c-section rate.

They are not thought to be truly necessary in more than about 15% of cases. C-section is also associated with a substantially higher fatality rate for women.

A woman's right to autonomy over her own body is the ultimate priority. More and more women are going to stay away from hospitals if they know they can be stripped of their rights in that fashion.

[LisaL]

13. The c-section is just one of the issues listed in the decision.

I seriously think if that was the only issue the baby wouldn't have been taken way.

[condoleeza]

15. This happened 3 years ago

True - ST. BARNABAS HOSPITAL HAS A 49.3 PERCENT CESAREAN RATE, and by the time the patient"s second psych consult was over, she had given birth to a healthy baby. The obstetrician turned out to be wrong and nobody seems to be questioning her competence in trying to force an unnecessary procedure on a patient. Pretty sad statistics for St. Barnabas.

It is a rare woman who doesn't behave irrationally during labor. However, there are many troubling things here for me. The mother was diagnosed 12 years ago as a paranoid schizophrenic. She took herself off medication while pregnant, which is also somewhat understandable considering all the "warnings" about drugs. However, and a big however, is the fact that she IS a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic and while there are varying degrees, I'm sure, I just don't believe that EVERYONE should be allowed to reproduce. Call me a fascist.

So - some personal history - I have a niece, my sister's child, who is a paranoid schizophrenic. She believes she was raped by everyone from Billy Graham and Bob Hope on a trip to Vietnam in the 70's, to John McCain, sometime later {this only surfaced during last years election). She's a devout Christian but somehow most of her "perps" are religious leaders, as there are many more "rapists" who are nationally prominent as well as local religious leaders and pretty well follow the news. We also have no idea why she is focused on Vietnam but she is, and the only explanation I can come up with is that my fiance was killed there in '68 when she was 9. I was pretty much her primary caregiver from birth, as my sister had 4 kids in 6 yrs. and lived down the street so I was there every day, she knew him-he loved her, she had to have sensed I was pretty traumatized-and she had to have felt a loss. Although I certainly didn't discuss it with her, no doubt it entered her psyche, as I was not myself and it must have been very confusing for her. Us Midwesterners don't "talk" about shit, we just go on being "nice".

We don't know why she focuses on rape, but she's always been focused in this direction since her diagnosis. Prior to this illness she was a Presidential Scholar before it overtook her when she was 19, she had never dated or had a boyfriend. She had a paternal aunt who was also schizophrenic and died young and her death has always been "a secret" but I suspect it was suicide. Schizophrenia most often begins to show itself when people are at the age of 18. When she is off her meds she will call at any hour, accusing anyone who crossed her path of some crime. There is no way she could ever parent a child and again I realize that there are degrees. Her mother is 80 now, still working, and in the last year has finally realized that she is in danger, so my niece is now in a "facility", as my sister cannot deal with the daily drama of on and off of meds.

Of my sister's 4 children we have 1 schizophrenic, 2 who each have one child who is autistic, and another who has never married or reproduced because she is scared shitless of passing on this kind of genetics. My own family w/o the BIL's genetics was crazy enough already, so maybe it was the combo that was the toxic mix, I don't know, but again - Jesus, I can only hope that the people who want to adopt this child, who have had custody since birth, will be able to deal with a child with possible mental issues that won't appear for another 15 years. We can debate all day about toxic metal poisoning, vitamin deficiency, etc. as causes for mental illness, but in the meantime a child is forming into a future adult and that child is more important to me than the mother and I am a mother.

This happened 3 years ago. Forgive me if I am just glad that for once the courts took the life and future of the child as paramount over parental rights, and considered, apparently carefully, what was best for the child and gave custody to the foster parents who have had custody since birth. Too often these children go home from the hospital into a nightmare. I question the forces behind the pushing of this story as a parental rights issue, as it is most often the R/Wingers who scream the loudest about "rights" and don't give a rats ass about the actual LIFE this child would have.

Schizophrenia is not a curable disease, when they are on meds and feeling "normal" they go off their meds because they believe they are normal - they will never be normal - a child deserves more than that - IMO.

[lindisfarne]

17. You should make sure your niece thinks about the fact she can adopt & not pass on her genes. I think

I'd have the same reaction as her, given her family. But if she wants to marry &/or "have" children, she has safe options.

You're wrong about schizophrenia:
25% have one episode and never have a problem again
25% manage the disease very well on drugs.
25% need to be on drugs & live in a group home (Schiz. somewhat managed but not well).
25% end up hospitalized & never managed much with drugs.

Also, there's a lot that isn't understood about schiz. but there is evidence you have a genetic propensity which requires environmental triggers. Identical twins, separated at birth show a high concordance (but not perfect concordance - which indicates environmental triggers are important). Monochorionic (identical) twins (both in 1 amniotic sac) have a higher concordance rate that dichorionic twins (each has own amniotic sac) which suggests environment in utero is relevant as well.

There is epidemiological data suggesting that a pregnant woman's exposure to the flu virus in 2nd trimester raises risk of schiz.

There is also data from WWII - 2 populations in the Netherlands, one in an area controlled by allies & one population in an area still controlled by Germany. First population had adequate food supplies; 2nd population was essentially starving. The schiz. rate in the 2nd population is much higher than in the first. Exactly what role the lack of food played is unclear - it could be that being malnourished, pregnant women were more susceptible to various viruses/bacteria (possibly including flu virus).

Also, developing toxoplasmosis while pregnant increases risk of schiz. The parasite that causes this is pregnant in dirt (wear gloves & wash hands well if gardening while pregnant), raw meat (wash hands well), & cat feces (if you can get someone else to change litter box, or if no one else can, change it daily - it takes >24 hours for the spores in the feces to develop; there are other safety precautions as well).

[condoleeza]

25. You obviously know more than I do about this, but

even using your statistics here what I see is that 75% are never "cured" and the other 25% who have one episode is very questionable, as how would anyone ever KNOW it was actually a schizophrenic episode?

[NashVegas]

20. Yes. The Other Issue Is That She Was Mean and Unsubservient to Hospital Staff

Read the documents. The hospital had a psych. talk to her for an hour, and when they couldn't get the diagnosis they wanted before delivery, they hired another one who would give them what they wanted so they could punish her by stealing her healthy child and turning it over to the state.

[NashVegas]

18. Newslash: It IS About the Mother

Cesarean-happy OB/GYNs and hospitals try to make it about what's convenient for their business.

If they weren't pressuring women into so many unnecessary surgical deliveries in the first place, more determined women wouldn't be forced to dig their heels in and do anything to defend their decision the first place, such as the woman in the OP's case.

The woman you're writing about, if she ignored her midwife's advice, she's a nutbag. Her actions don't speak for the whole species. I'm sorry for her kid, but she doesn't represent all pregnant women any more than an OB in a hurry to get to the golf course represents all OBs.

That's great for you and your child you had the surgery when it was needed, but if your doctor really said this: "Well you could have given birth naturally, it probably would have been to a dead baby though. then he or she is a flaming asshole.

[Raineyb]

19. WTF?

This is scary shit. And as it turned out it looked as though she didn't need the C section. Why should she have to give permission for a C section before they've decided anything. Is this or is this not a decision that could be made when there are facts on the ground. Blanket signing for permission to perform surgery seems unnecessary and taking the child for refusing to be pressured into it is excessive to say the least.

As it is this country does a lot of unnecessary C sections.

[AspenRose]

21. I read in an article recently one of the reasons for the rise in C sections

are OB's fear of malpractice suits

[SoCalDem]

22. and many like the total control that a section gives them

and of course they make more too:(

A woman I knew had a section scheduled for May, and she got a call from the doctor, saying they thought she was "further along" than originally predicted, so they wanted to reschedule for 3 weeks earlier.

This was back before ultrasounds, so she had nothing but the doctor's expertise to go on.. She had it early, and the baby ( a little girl) weight 3lb.8oz. Everything worked out ok, and the baby was okay. I think she stayed in the hospital for a few weeks until she hit 4lb..

Two weeks after her section, when she went to see the doctor post-op, the receptionist told her that he was
out of town".. Further sleuthing turned up this.. He has won a trip to Hawaii for 3 weeks in May, and had "rescheduled " 3 other planned sections.

They sued, and did get some money, but it was in no way compensation for the risk he put their child in.She was such a nervous wreck about her daughter's weight, that she was unable to nurse..(and the fact that the baby stayed behind for 2 weeks)

[Crunchy Frog]

23. It's an entire culture of unnecessary intervention.

Read Jennifer Block's "Pushed". http://www.amazon.com/Pushed-Painful-Childbirth-Modern-Maternity/dp/0738210730

Blaming malpractice suits is a cop out IMO.

[Jennicut]

24. Very weird. My first daughter was over 9 pounds and lets just say

it was rough going for awhile. Turns out I was a diabetic and didn't know it and my baby had gotten big, though not 10 to 12 pounds as some can get. Thankfully, I had a great Dr. that I trusted and liked. She did not want to have to go the C-section route unless the baby was in danger. I never needed one and the baby got stuck for a few seconds (nearly giving my husband a heart attack) but everything turned out okay.
I would not refuse it if the Dr. I had been seeing for 9 months told me I needed it. But neither would she not the hospital staff at Midstate (in CT) have acted unreasonable either. Sounds like the woman and the staff were all a bit nutty.