• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Refuse a c-section, have your baby taken away

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
there has got to be more to this story :???:

A baby girl has been kept away from her mother for almost five years after she refused to sign a form consenting to a Caesarean section - even though she did not end up needing to have the operation.

The extraordinary case began after staff at a New Jersey hospital claimed that refusal to give permission for the procedure amounted to child abuse.

The agonising decision triggered a protracted legal battle which has led to the mother being separated from her child for five years.

'Despite the medical opinion that the foetus demonstrated signs of distress and that the procedure was necessary to avoid imminent danger to the foetus, the child was born by vaginal delivery without incident.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366791/Baby-girl-kept-away-mother-5-years-refusing-sign-C-section-form.html#ixzz1GoWb5BEE
 

Mike

Well-known member
No Caesarean needed here.

And an incident about a questionable delivery:
Scranton woman hides heroin, money, loose change in herself
The Times-Tribune (Scranton PA) | 3/17/2011 | DENIS J. O'MALLEY

After crashing her car Sunday, police said a Scranton woman suspected of burglarizing the Dunmore Inn was found to have a sizeable stash of drugs and money hidden in an unlikely location.

According to a criminal complaint:

Dunmore police Officer Anthony Cali asked Scranton police Officer Nancy Baumann to detain Karin Mackaliunas, 27, 1609 Mulberry St., at the scene of a crash at the North Seventh Avenue off-ramp Sunday evening.

After her car was towed, Ms. Mackaliunas was ready to leave the scene of the crash when Officer Cali contacted Officer Baumann and asked for Ms. Mackaliunas to be detained because she was suspected of stealing items from the inn.

After searching her for weapons, Officer Baumann found three bags of heroin in Ms. Mackaliunas' jacket.

But as the officer drove her to Scranton police headquarters to charge her for drug possession, Officer Baumann noticed Ms. Mackaliunas fidgeting in the backseat of the cruiser.

After a struggle with Officer Baumann during a more thorough search at headquarters, Ms. Mackaliunas asked to speak with Sergeant Michael Mayer and told him she had hidden more heroin in her vagina.

A search of Ms. Mackaliunas by a doctor at Community Medical Center turned up 54 bags of heroin, 31 empty bags used to package heroin, 8.5 prescription pills and $51.22.

Ms. Mackaliunas was charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia and two counts of possession of a controlled substance.
 

jingo2

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
there has got to be more to this story :???:

A baby girl has been kept away from her mother for almost five years after she refused to sign a form consenting to a Caesarean section - even though she did not end up needing to have the operation.

The extraordinary case began after staff at a New Jersey hospital claimed that refusal to give permission for the procedure amounted to child abuse.

The agonising decision triggered a protracted legal battle which has led to the mother being separated from her child for five years.

'Despite the medical opinion that the foetus demonstrated signs of distress and that the procedure was necessary to avoid imminent danger to the foetus, the child was born by vaginal delivery without incident.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366791/Baby-girl-kept-away-mother-5-years-refusing-sign-C-section-form.html#ixzz1GoWb5BEE


Would it not behoove you to do more research before you throw up half truths, rumor speculated crap to this bunch of people??
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
hypocritexposer said:
there has got to be more to this story :???:

A baby girl has been kept away from her mother for almost five years after she refused to sign a form consenting to a Caesarean section - even though she did not end up needing to have the operation.

The extraordinary case began after staff at a New Jersey hospital claimed that refusal to give permission for the procedure amounted to child abuse.

The agonising decision triggered a protracted legal battle which has led to the mother being separated from her child for five years.

'Despite the medical opinion that the foetus demonstrated signs of distress and that the procedure was necessary to avoid imminent danger to the foetus, the child was born by vaginal delivery without incident.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366791/Baby-girl-kept-away-mother-5-years-refusing-sign-C-section-form.html#ixzz1GoWb5BEE


Would it not behoove you to do more research before you throw up half truths, rumor speculated crap to this bunch of people??


what makes you think I didn't do further research before I posted this?
 

jingo2

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
jingo2 said:
hypocritexposer said:
there has got to be more to this story :???:


Would it not behoove you to do more research before you throw up half truths, rumor speculated crap to this bunch of people??


what makes you think I didn't do further research before I posted this?

You plainly state there is more to the story.............
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
hypocritexposer said:
jingo2 said:
Would it not behoove you to do more research before you throw up half truths, rumor speculated crap to this bunch of people??


what makes you think I didn't do further research before I posted this?

You plainly state there is more to the story.............


Is that what you read? Because it is not what I wrote.

"there has got to be more to this story :???: "


I fully expect more information to come out in the near future, but there is not much available at this point.

I'll keep you informed Jingo2.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Defendants V.M. and B.G. appeal from the judgment of the Family Part which found that they abused and neglected their child, J.M.G.   As a result of these findings, J.M.G. was placed in the custody and care of plaintiff Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS).  At a permanency hearing the judge approved DYFS's plan for termination of parental rights.

Where we part company is his discussion of whether V.M.'s refusal to consent to a cesarean section (c-section) can, as a matter of law, be considered an element of abuse and neglect.   On the record before us, we do not agree that the issue need be decided.

Defendants V.M. and B.G. are the biological parents of J.M.G., born on April 16, 2006.   During her hospitalization in anticipation of J.M.G.'s delivery, V.M. demonstrated combative and erratic behavior including a refusal to consent to a cesarean section (c-section) 1

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 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.

These are the relevant facts adduced at the trial.   On April 16, 2006, V.M. and B.G., who have been married since 1995, went to Saint Barnabas Hospital after V.M., pregnant with her first child, experienced contractions.   V.M. presented as a forty-two-year-old woman who was thirty-five weeks pregnant and in labor.

 V.M., who is college educated but has not been gainfully employed since a workplace accident in 1993, consented to the administration of intravenous fluids, antibiotics, oxygen, fetal heart rate monitoring, an episiotomy 3 and an epidural anesthetic.   She refused to consent to any other invasive treatment, however, including a c-section or fetal scalp stimulation.   Hospital personnel explained the potentially dire consequences of not allowing a c-section in the event of fetal distress, but V.M. remained adamant in her refusal.

When Dr. Mansuria stressed the need for V.M. to consent to a c-section, V.M. stated that she understood the 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 c-section.   At no time did anyone seek judicial intervention or the appointment of a special medical guardian.

Despite being slightly premature, J.M.G. was in good medical condition upon her vaginal delivery.  

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.  

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.

  J.M.G. was discharged from the hospital on April 24, 2006, and placed in foster care.

After the judge reviewed the medical records of V.M.'s erratic behavior, he commented that V.M. appeared to care about having a healthy baby;  nevertheless, he determined that she was “negligent” in not acceding to the doctors' requests and found that J.M.G. was an abused or neglected child under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4).

At the March 19, 2007 permanency hearing, J.M.G.'s foster mother offered that V.M. and B.G. visited the child once every two weeks.   She noted that they always brought shopping bags full of supplies for the baby, and they always listened to the foster mother and followed her suggestions.   She opined that they would be wonderful parents

I now address the significant issue raised by the unique facts of this case-whether V.M.'s refusal to consent to the c-section may be considered in determining the issue of abuse and neglect.   The positions of the parties are simply stated.   V.M. asserts that she had a fundamental right to refuse medical treatment during pregnancy, even at the risk of death to herself or the fetus.   The law guardian, on behalf of the child and relying on New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. L.V., 382 N.J.Super. 582, 889 A.2d 1153 (Ch.Div.2005), contends that a finding of abuse and neglect can only be based on a child's experiences after birth.   He further contends that V.M. had a constitutional right to control her own body and to avoid unwanted medical procedures..

There is no allegation that J.M.G. was actually harmed by her parents.   Rather, the judge's finding was based solely on the imminent danger of harm presented by V.M.'s actions and mental condition.

The unique problem here is that much of V.M.'s erratic behavior occurred before J.M.G.'s birth, while V.M. was still pregnant.  N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(b) defines “child” simply as “any child alleged to have been abused or neglected.”   Nothing in the statute or the attendant legislative history suggests that the Legislature intended that the provisions of the Act should apply to a fetus.9

The decision to undergo an invasive procedure such as a c-section belongs uniquely to the prospective mother after consultation with her physicians.   To allow such a decision to factor into potential charges of abuse or neglect requires a prospective mother to subjugate her personal decision to a governmental agency's statutory interpretation creating a scenario that was neither contemplated nor incorporated within the four corners of the relevant statutory language.   Her decision on matters as critical as this invasive procedure must be made without interference or threat.   V.M.'s decision to forego a c-section had no place in these proceedings.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1152604.html

while the whole legal brief is complicated.. it appears that she was charged and convicted of child abuse and neglect of a child she gave birth to but never was able to be with, and lost custody of her child based on a legal right to refuse invasive treatment..

a complicated case... yes.. but she was clearly convicted of a crime she could never have committed.

The New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification
in February 2010, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in
June 2010.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol341/81-112.pdf

to save yourslef some reading time, start on page 18 analysis:
the State’s argument
centered on V.M.’s psychiatric history and her vehement attempts to
make independent medical decisions, using those as a rationale to challenge both V.M.’s competency to make the c-section decision and, ultimately, her competency as a mother. The fact that V.M. was right—that is, that she did not need a c-section to have a safe, healthy birth—was seemingly of no consequence.

The justification for “punishing”133 women like V.M. for their lawful
medical decisions rests on even shakier legal ground, as the underlying criminal violations are not present. More importantly, V.M.’s decision to refuse medical intervention is a constitutionally protected one.

The time period at issue in V.M.’s case was April 16, 2006 (when
V.M. entered the hospital) through April 20, 2006 (when the initial hearing
was held). J.M.G. was not in her mother’s custody between April 17th and
20th.143 Thus, the only day at issue during the abuse and neglect hearing was April 16—that is, the day V.M. was in labor and delivering J.M.G.

Women in labor already face intense pressure to be “compliant” patients
throughout the birth process, and, increasingly, compliance seems to
mean agreeing to medical interventions. One way to guarantee such compliance
is to allow the specter of child welfare proceedings to enter the delivery
room. A woman who knows that her refusal to consent to medical interventions during labor and delivery—or her decision to give birth at home or in a birthing center—could result in an abuse or neglect investigation or a finding of neglect, is surely not acting without coercion

CONCLUSION
In New Jersey v. V.M., the trial court explicitly relied on a pregnant
woman’s refusal to consent to a c-section to support a finding of child abuse and neglect, despite the fact that the child was born healthy through a vaginal delivery.

liberals seems to think they can always make better decisions, and when proved wrong, they use every means available to avenge their decision..
 

Steve

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
Would it not behoove you to do more research before you throw up half truths, rumor speculated crap to this bunch of people??

I did a bit of research,.. even posted the links... read every page of the court decisions..

the woman.. VM was convicted of neglect and abuse, she was placed on a registry so if she ever has another child they will just take the child again,

she was convicted of a crime. and she lost her child because of the conviction. even when no crime was ever committed..

all I can say after reading the facts is we have one hell of a bunch of stupid self righteous liberals up here..
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Steve said:
if she ever has another child they will just take the child again,

..

What a STUIPD court decision then....why not force her to be sterilized and not put ANOTHER life in danger????
 

Steve

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
Steve said:
if she ever has another child they will just take the child again,

..

What a STUIPD court decision then....why not force her to be sterilized and not put ANOTHER life in danger????


who's life was endanger?

Do you understand that they took her first child away at birth for no reason?

forced sterilization for being guilty of saying no to an invasive procedure she didn't need?

why not just shoot her.. ?

(so much for compassion)
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Steve said:
jingo2 said:
Steve said:
if she ever has another child they will just take the child again,

..

What a STUIPD court decision then....why not force her to be sterilized and not put ANOTHER life in danger????


who's life was endanger?

Do you understand that they took her first child away at birth for no reason?

forced sterilization for being guilty of saying no to an invasive procedure she didn't need?

why not just shoot her.. ?

(so much for compassion)[/quote]

Or common sense! But who expects lolo=jimgo=lulu=allie to show either
:wink:
 
Top