Failed home birth

“She was afraid of the hospital”

According to her ex-partner, the Upper Austrian woman did not want to give birth in hospital

(Bild: Olga Yastremska, New Africa, Africa Studio)

"She was afraid of the hospital" is how the ex-partner (41) explained at the trial against a 38-year-old woman in Wels why the mother of his three children did not have any of them in the delivery room. Everything went smoothly twice, the third birth went wrong and the child is severely affected. This is why the woman now has to stand trial.

"She did everything wrong during the birth, but I don't want her to be punished. I just want her to tell the truth," said the child's father to the police after the fatal home birth, during which his daughter's umbilical cord was cut and she is now disabled as a result. And he stuck to his guns in court. However, the Belgian's testimony at the trial on Monday in Wels was not entirely consistent, as it remained unclear whether the birth of the first child - a son - was actually planned as a home birth, as the delivery room at Grieskirchen Hospital had been inspected beforehand.

According to the father, his ex is said to have shouted at home: "Set up the camera" after the birth had begun. A camera was also seen during the problematic birth of the third daughter. It is undisputed that the birth of the second child was planned as a home birth. However, it is not clear to what extent there was communication with the midwife. "She is afraid of the hospital", testified the child's father and spoke of an unexplained and, for his ex-partner, terrible incident during the birth of their first daughter, who was born to another man.

Questionable notes and camera
The child's father also testified that he had heard his ex tell her mother to "destroy notes" after the birth. He even told the police that she had told her mother to "make everything disappear". However, he did not know what exactly was meant by this. The mother said on the witness stand that she knew nothing about it, only that her daughter had asked her to tidy up the apartment after the birth. She had not seen or put away a camera in the bathroom. "I already had it in my bag for the hospital," the accused interjected. And during a phone call shortly before the birth, her mother had not noticed that the baby was already on the way. Three quarters of an hour later, it was there.

"There were several reasons for induction of labor"
Two doctors and two female doctors from Kepler University Hospital were on the witness stand in front of the baby's father. No one could really remember the patient: "We see more than 20 patients a day," one doctor testified. However, based on the protocols drawn up at the time - there were two turns of the wrongly positioned child, requests to induce labor and refusals by the expectant mother - everyone confirmed that it was deemed medically necessary to induce labor: After the turn, the baby would have been correctly positioned, but afterwards there was a threat of another turn, the calculated due date had already passed, the baby was large.

"Normally there is only ever one reason for an induction, but in this case there were several," says a senior physician. The fact that the expectant mother always spoke out against induction because she had no one to care for the underage children is one of the main points of criticism in the trial - she would only have had her mother "scheduled" for a few days from August 8th. But the baby arrived on August 6. "I wasn't ready until the 8th," the mother testified. Whether she had been on call before then because the calculated due date would have been August 2: "No." She had not known that a home birth had been planned. "I misjudged the situation," says the accused.

"There are only a few minutes left"
An obstetrics expert, primary physician at the Kepler Clinic, could not say with certainty whether the child would have been healthy if the ambulance had been called immediately after the birth started: "It depends on how quickly the ambulance arrives. But if the umbilical cord is cut, there are only a few minutes before damage occurs." But he said that it must not have happened so quickly that there was no opportunity to make a call. Since the primar was involved in filing charges against the defendant, the defense attorney wanted to reject him. However, it was clear that the damage to the child had only occurred during the miscarriage.

A second expert examined the girl and diagnosed severe permanent damage. "Most 14-month-old children at this age can already sit and begin to speak," said the doctor, who was connected via video chat, but the girl was still dependent on tube feeding, had movement disorders in her arms and legs, could not sit and did not show a social smile or seek eye contact during the examination. The doctor was unable to say whether the child might have suffered fewer failures if the rescue chain had been initiated more quickly: "But any reduction in the time with oxygen deprivation is positive." The mother and defendant listened stoically to the explanations, but fought back tears.

Witness missing - adjournment
Another witness, a fireman, who was with the child's father after the birth before the mother and child were rescued - the child was still attached to the umbilical cord but was blue-grey all over due to the lack of oxygen - excused himself from the trial. The trial was therefore adjourned, partly because he also claimed to have seen the camera in the bathroom. The lawyer also asked for three more witnesses, friends of the accused, to testify that no home birth was planned, but a birth in hospital. The trial will continue on November 8.