A few days ago, a young mother posted an emotional story on TikTok; her child was taken into state care right after birth. The young mother did not get even a few days to spend with the child, nor did she properly get the opportunity to name the child and participate in that joy. She expressed the anguish of having that infant separated from her mother before the umbilical cord even fell off.

As this issue went viral on social media, questions are being raised regarding the reason why the child had to be taken into state care. Criticism has been directed at how the Gender Ministry acted in this matter, based on the account published by the mother.

The ministry has not yet spoken officially regarding how the infant came to be taken into state care.

However, the Child and Family Protection Service has sent a letter to the family regarding the reason why it had to act in that manner. According to that letter, the child was taken because concerns regarding protection had been submitted to that agency.

The letter stated that the environment where the mother, who had the child out of wedlock, lives, her mental condition, the disability in her hand, and the lack of anyone in the family to care for her were the reasons why the child had to be taken into state care.

As the 25-year-old youth from a northern island told "Mihaaru News", the child delivered via emergency C-section on the 5th of this month fell seriously ill and was also treated in the NICU. However, as soon as the child was discharged from there on the 7th after saying the child had recovered, the child was taken into state care and brought to Male' on a night flight.

"Because the baby passed stool in the womb, the child had to be delivered via emergency C-section. The child obtained in so much pain was separated like that," the mother said.

She said the child was taken against her will. She alleged that at the very last moment, without even giving the child into her hands to hold, they took the child away.

"The caseworker assigned to me said they wouldn't take the child against my wishes. Then when I said if you are taking the baby, take me along with the child, they said there is no reason to take me. That they are taking the baby. Even when I refused that, they left with the child," she said, describing how things happened.

She said that even through the pain of the C-section, she begged them not to take the child and followed after them.

"While I was crying and begging for a chance, when they came to the hospital and took my child, I could not even walk properly. After having a C-section, my stomach hurts as much as anyone else's would. But still, I got up however I could, dragged both feet, and went after them crying," she said.

While the child was temporarily taken without a court order, the child's mother says they informed one of her younger siblings that the child has now been handed over to another family. She said they stated that the child will not be returned anymore, but that she will be allowed to meet the child.

However, it has not yet been confirmed whether the child was handed over to another family.

According to the letter sent to the family by the Child and Family Protection Service, currently operating under the Health Ministry, the female child, who was not even registered at the time, was taken into state care because concerns regarding the child's protection had been submitted to the agency.

According to information gathered by the service regarding the matter, the child's mother is diagnosed with a mental illness termed "mild intellectual disability and depressive episode." The notice sent to the family stated that she had suicidal ideation and had previously, as well as after becoming pregnant, attempted self-harm.

Despite what was in the notice, the woman said she had not committed such an act while pregnant. However, she said the anxiety that the child might be taken into state care was in her heart even during pregnancy.

According to the notice sent to the family, as she is a person with a congenital physical disability in her hand, she cannot perform any work with her right hand. And among the reasons why the child was taken, the notice mentioned that it was noted she lives alone in a house and that there is no one from within or outside the family to assist her.

Although she has a disability in her hand, she said that even when she lived in Male' previously, she had looked after children in homes. She explained that she fed those children, dressed them up, and even took them out for walks in the evening.

"I do not consider having a disability in my hand a reason why I cannot take care of that child. Even though the hand is bent, I can move my hand. I used to babysit before as well. Then they say I live alone in a house and there is no one to care for me. Today when I called them again, they said the place I live in is dirty too," the woman, who was still in the hospital after the C-section, said.

"They allegedly went to the place where I live; from eight months of pregnancy I was very sick, and I frequently had to come to this hospital in emergency to seek treatment. At that moment, a place where someone lives alone will be dirty,"

Due to such reasons, taking into consideration the information received by the Child Protection Service, the service's notice stated that keeping the child under her care is believed not to be the safest option for the child or in the best interest of the child at this moment.

Although the service said so, the child's mother says that having an impairment in her hand is not a reason she cannot look after her child. She also said she is not someone who has ever harmed a child to date.

She questions what kind of emergency or danger existed for a child under hospital care after birth to be taken into state care and removed.

She said authorities did not come to check on her condition during pregnancy. She questioned why, if she was such a dangerous person, they did not come to check on the condition of the child during that time.

"Gender did not come to check the condition I was in while I was pregnant. If I were such a dangerous person, why didn't they come to check my condition during pregnancy? They were on watch waiting for the day I would give birth just to take away that child,"

As soon as the child was taken into state care, many people in the comments on that post raised the question of what the threshold is for a child to be taken into state care. Concerns were expressed stating that if that child had to be taken, there are many children who ought to be taken in that manner.

While statistics from health agencies make clear that mental illness is something many people in the Maldives endure, some expressed the opinion that many such people are raising their children well. If so, questions were raised whether it is fair if a person's mental illness becomes the excuse given to take their child into state care.

Others expressed anger, stating that there are many parents who do not send their children to school and do not look into how their children are doing, questioning why state care is not invoked to protect those children's rights.

"On the third day after birth, before the umbilical cord even fell off, Gender took this child. In this society, while there are women who abandon children on the street, and people who openly use vulgar language with children, they don't touch their children. How many women are there who go live with children and speak indecently 24 hours a day?" one person wrote.

While disagreement has arisen among many people regarding this matter, Article 16 of the Child Rights Protection Act states that taking into account the best interest of the child, a child shall not be separated from their parents against the wishes of the child and the child's parents, unless the most beneficial course for the child's best interest is separation from their parents as provided by law.

Article 18 of the same Act also states that a disability of a child's parents is not a valid reason to separate the child from their parents, unless it is the course most beneficial to the best interest of the child.

"I might go crazy lying here like this. Will Gender take responsibility for the harm caused to my soul? They just stay issuing statements blaming one another," she said, expressing discontent.

According to the regulations on fostering children taken into state care, in situations where a child is temporarily entrusted to another party, if there is no one from the family to take charge of the child, or if entrusting the child's care to a family member is reasonably believed based on valid grounds to potentially prejudice the child's best interest, the child may be temporarily fostered as specified in Article 99 of the Child Rights Protection Act instead of entrusting the child's care to a family member.

That article states that if the state finds that a child brought into state care is a child whose care cannot be re-entrusted to their parents or another family member, the state has the discretion to submit to court to entrust the child to another party for fostering.

To temporarily foster a child, authorization from the Foster Panel is unnecessary, based on advice from the Child and Family Protection Service head and two Case Management supervisors. Article 99 of the Child Rights Protection Act requires a court order for fostering, necessitating an application to the court.

Through the process of obtaining a court order, the biological parents' input regarding fostering the child and the reasons why the child cannot be entrusted to the parents must be stated. However, in this case, the mother's input through court has not yet been taken.

If an application for fostering is submitted to court, according to the Child Rights Protection Act, a hearing must be held within 60 days of receiving that application, and a decision must be made regarding that application.

In this issue, many people's concern is that the mother was determined to have neglected the child without giving her the opportunity to care for the child. And while a mother wants to care for her child, people are requesting the state to clarify whether doing things in this manner is the fairest course.