Forced caesarean was 'manifestly' in Alessandra Pacchieri's interest, says judge Her Italian lawyer Stefano Oliva claims that the procedure was carried out prematurely, when she was just 34 weeks pregnant. But the court heard that she was just a day off her due date when the procedure took place in August last year. Ms Pacchieri, 35, from Tuscany can be named openly in the British media for the first time after a High Court judge refused a request from Essex County Council for a blanket ban on anything which could identify her. Her child, who is still in the process of being adopted, cannot be named. The case has thrown the spotlight on the powers of the Court of protection, which sits behind closed doors and can make potentially life and death decisions for people judged not to have the mental capacity. It has also developed into a growing international row with the issue raised by politicians in both Britain and Italy. On Wednesday it emerged that the Italian government is itself poised to step in and has instructed its own legal team for a possible High Court challenge to the original decision for the baby to be adopted. Ms Pacchieri, who suffers a bipolar condition, came to Britain in mid June 2012 for a training course at Stansted airport when she suffered what her legal team insist was a "panic attack" which led to her being sectioned. Ten weeks later, in late August 2012, the local health authority obtained an order enabling doctors to deliver the child by caesarean section while Essex County Council began care proceedings which led to the girl being eventually put up for adoption. Despite a ruling in February that the adoption could go ahead, Ms Pacchieri is still fighting to get her child back and the final decision will now be taken by Britain's most senior family judge, the president of the Family Division, Sir James Munby. After days of controversy over the case, Mr Justice Mostyn, the judge who authorised the forced caesarean, agreed to publish his judgment and a transcript of the short hearing. It shows that the crucial factor was the fear that unless the baby was delivered by caesarean section there was a risk Ms Pacchieri would suffer a rupture. Although the judge had no powers over the baby itself before the birth, he remarked: "I would have thought it was in [Ms Pacchieri's] best interests, that is, her mental health best interests, that her child should be born alive and healthy and that such result should be, if possible achieved, and such risks attendant should be avoided. I think, looked at from her point of view, there is also a significant mental health advantage in her unborn child not being exposed to risk during his or her birth. In those circumstances it seems - and I hope very much that restraint will not be necessary - that the procedure that is proposed is manifestly in her interests. But the papers also disclose that social services actively sought to have police officers on hand to take the girl away at birth. He refused permission because it would be "heavy handed" and distressing to Ms Pacchieri. He also ordered that Ms Pacchieri be kept in the dark about the secret ruling until after the child had been delivered. A statement from North Essex Partnership NHS foundation Trust said: "On this occasion the pregnancy made it very difficult to treat [the mother] as medications would have affected the unborn child. The application for the C-section was made to the Court of Protection by the Obstetricians to ensure the safety and well-being of both mother and baby.