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.

Read the entire court ruling here.

LINK

That's ridiculous. They are doing too many c-sections nowadays, and the mother did nothing wrong in refusing one.

That's so dumb

No no, fucc no!!!!  I cannot believe this!

i hope she gets her kid back

WOW unbelievable

Originally posted by JasmineE02 I sense that there is probably more to the story....

+1

"the mother had been in psychiatric care for twelve years prior to the birth."

After reading the baby eater thread...This should of been a reason to take the child if they felt it was in any real danger. The C-section reasoning seems like a scapegoat excuse because they didn't have enough evidence or support.

Sad.

wow..I don't even know what to say about that one

Originally posted by Dakotablu Crazy

Originally posted by CLCNY20 Originally posted by JasmineE02 I sense that there is probably more to the story....   This   Cuz if that were me and my baby story, that hospital would be in flames, and I'd be filmed on the local news standing in front of the burning building with the used match held up to make it clear.

Looks like the baby was taken away because mom was unstable. Not "only" because she refused the C-Section. Both parents appear to have a history of mental instability.  I think the right decision was made to remove the baby. HOWEVER, I do not believe that it should have been a permanent removal and that she should lose all of her parental rights.  She should be monitored to see if her mental condition is improving.

I'd love to hear more details on this case though, to see what course of action was taken before the decision to permanently remove the child was  made.


Edited by hennypenny - 27 Jul 2009 at 10:01pm