Daughter kept away 5 years because mother wouldn't sign c-section consent

There is more. For example, the doctor wasn’t trying to perform a C-section. He was trying to get her consent to allow a c-section if it became necessary. Such consent is gotten ahead of time because in an emergency, the mother may be unable to give consent.

She had a right to refuse consent, of course, and doing so wouldn’t be “child abuse”, but it’s wrong to argue as some here are that the doctor mistakenly claimed a c-section was “necessary” and was going to perform one.

The court records indicate there were other things the woman did during this time that led to the conclusion that she shouldn’t have her child. I’m still looking for a link to the court record that isn’t embeded in someone’s blog.

Interestingly, this story was big at Huffington Post in 2009, and at DailyKos in 2010, and is getting circulation this week.

I find it curious that this happened in 2006, and I can’t find any real mention of it before the appeals court ruling; I would expect to read about their fight from some local papers back in 2006. Of course, local papers aren’t as easy to search for on google.

The baby didn’t sign the consent? That’s what the reporter reported.

Thanks, I thought there must be more to the story, but the article was short on real info.

After spending two weeks in the hospital with our preemie baby I have a deeper respect for OB doctors and nurses. Some of the mothers were rather...unhygenic(?)...and you couldn't pay me enough to deliver them.

“I am very confused with this one. Technically, this woman could have aborted her baby and that is “choice”. She wants to deliver naturally and refused a C-section and that makes it abuse?”

Makes one’s head spin doesn’t it?
If I remember correctly - it has been suggested that pregnant women who are spotted smoking and drinking should be reported and have their newborns taken away due to abuse.
So...to harm the baby is bad. To kill it is okee dokee.

Here is a link to a pdf of the appeals court ruling. Remember though that an appeals court will list "facts" based on what was decided as facts in the court case, which may not always match what really happened.

Here, I'll grab a few snippets, with explanations based on my reading of the entire section. For purposes of this comment, assume I'm arguing for the hospital, and therefore against the woman: Superior Court ruling:

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 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.
...
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 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."

V.M. was released from the hospital on April 18. Her child was still in the hospital because the child was premature. So they wouldn't have brought the child home with them. A court date was set for two days later:

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.

So the mother and father didn't go to the 1st court hearing, which possibly would have settled the matter so they could take their child home on the 24th. The did attend the next hearing, May 9th. At that hearing she told the judge about her 12 years of prior psychiatric care, and the judge told her if her records backed up her story, she'd get her child. But the records did not back up her assertion. Picking up from that point:

At the fact-finding hearing, V.M. informed the judge that she had had a wonderful prenatal experience. 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. Even though she was in extreme pain, it took the anesthesiologist several hours before administering an epidural. The first time he tried, the nurses were pushing her back and forth so violently that he could not administer the injection. Dr. Kurani was called at V.M.'s request to deal with the inappropriate behavior of the nursing staff.

This is key. We are all here arguing that she lost her child because she refused a c-section. But in a court hearing, she argued that she had consented to the c-section. Now, I understand the argument that the hospital pushes c-sections. But I don't understand why a hospital would claim a woman refused a c-section if they had a form signed from her consenting. So, I believe she was not truthful at this court hearing.

Which if true, means in her first couple of court dates, she skipped the first, and then misled the court about her psychiatric care and lied about what happened at the hospital.

Those are the kinds of things that make it hard to get a court to believe you are fit to have a baby.

The court dates continued:

The judge stated that J.M.G. would be returned to B.G. if certain conditions were met: B.G. receives a psychological evaluation within the next week; the evaluator concludes that the child would be in no danger with B.G.; V.M. is not in the home; and a mechanism is in place for monitoring V.M.'s visits.
At the compliance review hearing of September 15, 2006, it became clear that the plan suggested at the fact-finding hearing had gone awry. Attempts to obtain psychological/psychiatric evaluations of V.M. and B.G. proved unsuccessful, as had efforts to provide V.M. with parenting classes.
The judge expressed his frustration, observing that he "wanted desperately to reunify this family," but the parents were "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." He also expressed concern that no psychiatrists would undertake the evaluation if they thought they would be sued, to which V.M. responded, "[t]hat's your problem." When V.M. was asked if she would waive her right to sue psychiatrists, she replied, "[n]o way." As a result, the judge ordered that a psychiatrist be appointed who would have the same immunity as the court.

The court record is one of non-compliance and non-cooperation.

One final quote from the opinion:

The Supreme Court has spoken forcefully that a court need not wait until a child is actually harmed by parental inattention or neglect before it acts in the welfare of such child. In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365, 383 (1999). We are satisfied and as I shall discuss, infra, the findings as to V.M.'s mental health and its impact on J.M.G. support a finding of neglect. As to the finding of abuse and neglect as well as the use and consideration of records from St. Barnabas, Dr. Seltzer and Dr. Shnaidman, we conclude that V.M.'s arguments are without merit

Now, having posted several items which give better background and explain that, in my opinion, this case is NOT about a woman who failed to allow a c-section being forced upon her, but rather is a much more complicated set of facts, I can give my opinion on the matter. I did this research because I thought it crazy that a family could lose their kid for 5 years simply for refusing a c-section — and the record shows that it was, in fact, crazy to think that.

So, my opinion? It’s the same as it is in most of these CPS cases — CPS is out to take children first, and ask questions later. And as a quote from the appeals court shows, the courts are on board in this: “The Supreme Court has spoken forcefully that a court need not wait until a child is actually harmed by parental inattention or neglect before it acts in the welfare of such child.”

I reject this argument. I know, “it’s for the children”. But we always ignore the harm to children of taking them from the parents. Instead, courts and the CPS act as if removal is a “neutral” act which freezes the “status quo” until the facts can be acertained. It is this ignorant argument that allows them to take children when there is no evidence of abuse, because obviously if there is some “probability” of abuse, and no harm in taking the child, taking the child lowers that probability.

But in fact, it is trumatic to separate a child from it’s mother and father, critically so when they have bonded, but also in cases like this, where the baby is removed before really getting to know it’s parents.

The idea that a person who has had psychiatric care is unfit is dangerous, because it would push people to avoid treatment lest they get labelled. And while I blame the parents for their actions with the court, and therefore understand the court rulings, its the CPS taking the child that forced the parents to have to go to court.

If I had my way, the CPS would have to go to court first, and prove there was real neglect or harm, before a child could be taken. YES, this would mean children could get harmed. But if you take kids that shouldn’t be taken, THEY are harmed. And I’d rather a few children harmed by abusive parents, than a much higher number harmed by the state that I’m responsible for.

In other words, I as a citizen elect the representatives that pass the laws that govern the state. If that state abuses children by taking them from good parents, I’m responsible for that harm. There are bad people, and they do bad things, and children suffer — but I don’t want to protect them at the cost of harming thousands of other children by state action.

“Technically, this woman could have aborted her baby and that is “choice”.”

Yes, a mother can have a “choice” in killing the baby before its birth; but, these days a mother can’t have a “choice” in what to feed the child or what school she wants the child to go to. There are more and more federal and state government edicts these days telling everyone what to do. But, that same government fights to keep the “choice” to kill the unborn in place. In other words, if you don’t kill the baby before birth, you are then forbidden to ever let the child have a donut with even a trace of transfats!

This world is so screwed up!

You are so right! Once you “choose” to deliver then everything afterwards is up for scrutiny. Teach your children biblical principles? Then you are a bad parent. Teach your children about real U.S. History? Bad parent. Give you child a donut or a CANDY BAR then you are a bad parent. We are becoming a nation of controlled zombies IMHO.