Ok - no answers?

 

*hard hat on*

 

If this situation has never arisen before and there are no procedures in place to accommodate it, then I agree with what has been done, as harsh as that is.

 

When established routines are broken without planning, mistakes and accidents can happen and things go wrong.When dealing with a group, it is difficult to make exceptions.

 

Additionally, to circumvent the rules/laws creates a precedent. Whilst this woman's situation is likely to be genuine, there may be people in the future who use it to their advantage and do use it or similar scenarios as a means to escape into society before processing. After all, the assylum seekers are known to do some pretty desperate things to even get here in the first place.

 

The child is getting good medical care and is safe, the parents and family are being housed/contained according to the established rules and procedures.

 

Maybe bonding is an issue, I can't comment on that, but I do know that this situation is a lot better for that child than if his mum had never made it here in the first place.

 

The situation is not ideal for anyone, perhaps in time the procedures etc may change to reflect this, but for now I feel that "appalling is a little dramatic", I was expecting to see squalid living conditions etc, and this is ok.

 

---

@my*mum wrote:

Also, if this baby was born in the Mater Hospital INSIDE Australia, isn't that baby now an Australian Citizen?

---

I don't think so, not anymore. They have to be here for 10 years, then they can apply for citizenship. (I think)

This woman, who is seeing her infant for 6 hours a day - she isn't being denied access to him, also has 2 other small children. Children who have been through circumstances none of us would ever want for our own families. The sort of things which you will find in the history of a patient with deep seated anxiety disorders and everyone bangs on about how the mother should be spending all her time with an infant who wouldn't know if she were, ignoring the comfort that having their mother with them must give the other children who have just had another move into a strange environment.

---

@azureline** wrote:

---

@my*mum wrote:

Is anybody able to tell me how long this lady has been at Nauru and if this is the first time that a situation such as this has occurred?

 

I'd really kind of like some perspective before i comment.

---

you could google it. It is my understanding she was taken to Nauru in late September. Apparently it is a first time .

---

Thank you.

 

So this lady was in a Malaysian detention centre, seeking assylum, because she was afraid for her safety and her life and she became pregnant (3 times) each time never knowing what fate she or her unborn faced? Never knowing what kind of future they (including the mother) would have?

So was this the same Government who is making businesses pay women to be able to stay home with their child because 'bonding between mother and baby is important'?

To think it  acceptable wouldn't we have to deny that we have knowledge of all the benefits

 

and importance of parental/baby bonding? 

 

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

To think it  acceptable wouldn't we have to deny that we have knowledge of all the benefits

 

and importance of parental/baby bonding? 

 

---

Why is this bonding so important?

 

Has there been qa detrimental effect on those from past generations who did not experience this 24/7 bonding?

 

Are these children who have had the benefit of bonding somehow better than their predecessors?

Does it comply with International Human Right? International rights of a child ?

She was in fear of her life prior to going to Malaysia?

and only 3 children in 7 years................ would you suggest she practices safe sex? as she no doubt has no access to contraception.................

10 years is a long time.

How many generations were born into the whole hospital/nursery thing?

One of mine, the rest were with me.

My parents were born at home.