It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Mom Refuses C-Section, Baby Taken Away

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:19 AM

Court Ruling

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.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by checkers]

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:22 AM
reply to post by checkers

The link is bringing up a blank page. I'd really like to read what the article has to say before commenting but since I can't all I can say is OMG!

There has to be more to it than simply acting erratically during labor and refusing a Cesaerian Birth (which is much more dangerous for the mother and baby)!

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:24 AM
Edit: Link was corrected by the OP.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Oscitate]

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:26 AM
yeah link doesnt work but that is shocking..she has the right to consent or not, and as the baby was born without incident she was right to refuse unnescerary surgery

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:40 AM
Unless there was more evidence against her that the baby would not be taken care of or she was a drunk or druggie she needs to sue the corrupt state of NJ

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:43 AM
the lady was "under psychiatric care for 12 years" prior to this. so, read between the lines a little here and i think it's easier to see what happened. you can read teh full court case, it's linked from the site.

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:50 AM
Not only she have a history of being mentally disturbed she also is 18 and has 4 kids already. That's not against the law but I wonder how long until people start making remarks about her becoming an "OctoMOM".

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:51 AM
I am sure many people will be outraged because I say this, but I think they made the absolute right desicion when they took the baby away from her. To refuse a C-section when your baby's life may be in danger is both cruel and stupid and a clear signal that this mother probably won't care much about her child's welfare in the future either.

And before you start attacking me, I think I have the right to speak my mind about this. My first child, my daughter, was born after an emergency C-section. She may have survived, and may also have come through it without severe brain damage being born the natural way, but there was just no way in hell anyone was going to take that chance. Just to be willing to take such a chance is pure insanity.

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:06 AM
Bringing a kid into life on Earth is taking a even bigger chance.

There is a 100% chance the kid will die and be treated like crap within the next 150years.

If you think for one moment the medical establishment has any authority to do crap like this, you are a very good little slave.

Go take your H1N1 vaccine without question and let natural selection take its toll, so that us Smart Liberty loving people can inherit the Earth.


posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:07 AM
reply to post by ziggystar60

It seems like you are contradicting yourself there a little??? You were in a similar cituation and you did the c-section? the results were devistating?? But somehow you think they should take this womans child away for refusing??? I realy dont get your logic????


posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by ziggystar60

I agree 100%.

The lady was obviously mentally ill, what sane mother wouldn't consent to an emergency cesarean?

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:18 AM
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!

Hi, I am sorry if my reply was not clear. I am Norwegian, I guess language sometimes is a barrier.

Yes, I did of course do the C-section, and my daughter was born healthy. Today she is studying at a university in England with excellent results, she has been rewarded hard to get scholarships because of her results, and she also speaks five languages. (She is obviously much better at this language thing than her mother!)

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:29 AM
reply to post by ziggystar60

ok I see now Sorry for any offence...


posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:30 AM
I have been reading the court transcript of the decision and there are a couple of things that immediately pop out at me. Firstly, there is mention of the refusal of the C-section as well as a refusal of 'fetal scalp stimulation'. There is an admission that the child was born without problems. There are references to other problems, including 12 years prior of psychiatric treatment for PTSD, and to 'erratic and problematic' behavior at the hospital. This behavior is not specified. At best a description of any woman in the pain of labor is described.

I read this story as a dire warning: beware your health care. In this case, it is obvious that the procedures were ultimately not needed, but due to a hospital record opinion of uncooperative, a history of PTSD treatment, and a push by the local authorities, a woman's most precious possession is being stripped from her... indeed, 'possession' can only be used in the sense that one possesses their very flesh, for the bond between a woman and a child is not unlike the bond between her and a part of her own body.

Next time you find yourself at a doctor's office, sit quietly and do exactly as you are told. Apparently his word is law, and we are all subjects of the doctors.

Well, except for a few rednecks.


posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:55 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

As a poster pointed out above, her refusal to accept a C-section potentially may have resulted in fetal brain damage or death. If she is actually as disturbed as she is being described, she may not be mentally competent to make decisons on the child's behalf. At worst the doctor may have been trying to ward off a very expensive lawsuit, this is the reason why more practicing OB/GYNs are quitting medicine that any other group. My former gynecologist, who is nationally known for her work in insurance reform, has discussed her plans to quit because of the high volume of lawsuits in that field.

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:17 AM
Im trying to read the court case. It is very long - but some things that jump out at me....

It seems the child was removed not really for the c-section refusal but for the psychiatric state of her life:

One of the doctor's opinion:

Dr. Shnaidman concluded that J.M.G. would not be safe in
V.M. and B.G.'s care. She stated that it would be dangerous and
reckless to return the child to them, because "[t]hese are
parents who live in a world that has nothing to do with the
world that we live in. And anything could happen there at any
time and there's no way to predict it." Her written report
concluded that "[w]ithout appropriate psychiatric treatment,
including aggressive psychopharmacological intervention, neither
[V.M.] nor [B.G.] presents as a fit parent at this time."

On March 19, 2007, the judge entered an order reflecting
his findings that (1) “t [was] not and will not be safe to
return [J.M.G.] home in the foreseeable future because [of]
mother’s . . . psychiatric condition [and] father’s
unwillingness to accept mother’s psych[iatric] condition"; (2)
DYFS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; and (3)
adoption was an appropriate plan because of V.M.’s psychiatric
condition and non-compliance with treatment and B.G.’s lack of
acceptance. He ordered that J.M.G. remain in placement and that
DYFS find a pre-adoptive home.

A judge may find that a child is abused or neglected, if
DYFS has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the child's
physical, mental or emotional condition has
been impaired or is in imminent danger of
becoming impaired as the result of the
failure of his parent or guardian . . . to
exercise a minimum degree of care (a) in
supplying the child with adequate food,
clothing, shelter, education, medical or
surgical care though financially able to do
so or though offered financial or other
reasonable means to do so, or (b) in
providing the child with proper supervision
or guardianship, by unreasonably inflicting
or allowing to be inflicted harm, or
substantial risk thereof . . . ; or by any
other acts of a similarly serious nature
requiring the aid of the court.
[N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4).]
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
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
26 A-4627-06T4
Legislature intended that the provisions of the Act should apply
to a fetus.9

This woman has severe issues and really is it in the best interest for the baby to be in the care of a woman who needs such psychiatric care? Look at all these crazy women who are killing their children who should have been receiving psychiatric care! Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

I had to have an emergency c-section. I did not want it. In fact, before I had my daughter, I knew I would have problems delivering her, because I got huge and she was pretty big (in utero) - and I'm a pretty small person. I told my doctor I feared she would be too big to delivery naturally and I begged to be induced a little early (which would have been perfectly safe). He said all would be fine, and I would delivery naturally. 4 hrs into labor - she just would not fit - and I had to have the emergency c-section.

I can understand a woman not wanting it. It sucks. Really, it does. But there comes a point where it could be life or death - and under those conditions, many woman can not even think clearly. Especially if one refused an epidural - ouch! That is why this needs to be discussed BEFORE one is knee deep into delivery.

However, this woman has sever mental issues and is obviously impossible to have a logical reasonable discussion with over the care of her children.

I suggest everyone who wants to comment on this issue - start to read the court case. Its long and I am not even finished with it. But it might change your mind on this matter.

[edit on July 28th 2009 by greeneyedleo]

[edit on July 28th 2009 by greeneyedleo]

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:22 AM
Some more about the that apparently she really was within the law to refuse an emergency c-section. Whether this is right or not, it is the law.

I now address the significant issue raised by the unique
facts of this case — whether V.M.'s refusal to consent to the csection
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 (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.

Bolded part my emphasis. This concerns me a bit. What if the mother used drugs and alcohol while pregnant. Would that not be considered abuse and neglect?

Guess not:

However, the judge observed that
it is the attendant suffering to the child,
after birth, that a court must rely on in
making a finding of abuse or neglect under
those circumstances. The mother's decision
to use narcotics or alcohol during her
pregnancy alone is an insufficient basis for
a finding of abuse or neglect.
Id. at 590 (emphasis added).
In K.H.O., the Court held that "[d]rug use during pregnancy, in
and of itself, does not constitute a harm to the child under
N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(1)," even though the Court recognized
that drug use during pregnancy poses serious risks to the
unborn. K.H.O., supra, 161 N.J. at 349-51 (citations omitted).
However, "an infant born addicted to drugs and suffering the
resultant withdrawal symptoms has suffered harm that endangers
her health and development within the meaning of [the statute].

So many issues surrounding this case.

[edit on July 28th 2009 by greeneyedleo]

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:45 AM
Is there any evidence that she has abused or neglected any of her other children? She has a long history of mental illness but have her other children suffered because of it? Was this a pre-emptive strike?

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:46 AM

Originally posted by damwel
Not only she have a history of being mentally disturbed she also is 18 and has 4 kids already. That's not against the law but I wonder how long until people start making remarks about her becoming an "OctoMOM".

According to the actual court document she was 42 and this was her first child...

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:49 AM

Originally posted by JalZhaunlUss
Unless there was more evidence against her that the baby would not be taken care of or she was a drunk or druggie she needs to sue the corrupt state of NJ

Truer words were never written...corrupt... And I find this utterly ridiculous as I know for a fact, I grew up In that lousy state, that they have let scummy, no good crackheads bring their children home and have known the d*** Person was a crackhead, they have let meth/crack addicted babies leave with their lowlife white trash mothers, tha's the worse thing I have ever seen anywhere, yet they will harass loving, caring, nurturing families. I have seen this first hand, I am not kidding, I worked for the state of NJ in the health care field, I know these are facts! Honestly I don't know what's wrong with that place it's not only corrupt, but A*** Backwards!!!!

[edit on 28-7-2009 by ldyserenity]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in