British Court Says Woman Isn't Smart Enough To Be A Mom

[Kor37 9]

British Court Says Woman isn't Smart Enough to be a Mom

by Susan Wagner Jun 4th 2009 2:00PM

 

Rachel, above, could lose her child because social workers don't think she is smart enough to raise her. Image: Jenny Goodall, Daily Mail / ZUMA Press

Parenting is all about feeling dumb -- every time you forget where your car keys are or leave the house without enough diapers or completely space out on a date with friends, you wind up questioning your intelligence. We might joke about how giving birth gives us "Mommy Brain" and lowers our IQ, but for one British mother, the idea of being a dumb mom isn't funny.

 

24-year-old Rachel has lost custody of her three-year-old daughter, Baby K, because social workers in Nottingham, England, have determined that she is "too stupid" to care for her child. Baby K, who was 13 weeks premature and had serious health issues, has been in foster care since leaving the hospital as an infant. The toddler is now on the verge of adoption and Rachel (whose last name is being withheld for legal reasons) has had her visitations reduced to one 90-minute period each month. If the adoption goes through, Rachel's contact will be even further limited. "If she's adopted," Rachel tells the "Daily Mail," "I've been told I won't be allowed any contact with her, apart from sending her one letter or card a year, and I won't be able to use the word daughter or mother in them. So what will I be to her? A pen pal?"

 

 

Rachel's IQ, according to tests done last year, is 71; the average adult IQ falls between 90 and 109. A psychiatrist hired by Rachel concluded that "There was no evidence of any disturbances in her thought perception. Her moods were appropriate. Rachel did not show any evidence of abnormal mental preoccupation. She was well orientated and her cognitive functions were intact." A court-appointed psychologist, on the other hand, determined that Rachel's intellect would cause a "high level of risk to the child." The court also claims that Rachel has "learning difficulties" that make it impossible for her to appropriately care for Baby K.

 

Rachel is understandably angry about the court's decision; she told the "Daily Mail" that intelligence should not be a measure of successful parenting. "When I walk around Nottingham, I see other mothers who are no better or more clever than me and they still have their children. Why? I see drug addicts and prostitutes who are allowed to keep their kids. They should be targeting parents who hurt their children, not someone who has never harmed a child in her life."

 

Rachel became pregnant at 19, and didn't know she was expecting until she was 27 weeks along. Then she became ill and went to the hospital, where she gave birth. Baby K weighed less than two pounds and had serious health issues; she required two surgeries, one on her heart and another on her bowel. The baby still has breathing problems and developmental delays related to her prematurity.

 

And here's where the story gets murky: Rachel claims that she stayed with her baby while she was in hospital, but social workers say the opposite, reporting that the young mother only rarely visited. Rachel says that she was prepared to bring the baby home at six months, having purchased all the equipment that the social workers advised (two cribs, for example, and a specific stroller) but that when she came to get her daughter, she was instead asked to sign consent forms to put the baby in foster care.

 

We need more rulings like this.....

[Theunicornhunter 2]

As usual we could probably use some more info - but in general I have to disagree - an IQ test shouldn't be the basis of losing a child as long as you're functional. If there were specific instances where her learning disability had endangered the child - that would make a diffference. But just looking at a test score and denying someone their parental rights - a lot of total loser parents have average or higher IQs.

 

Now, if the primary factor was abandonment - that too would be a different story.

[ensign_beedrill 0]

I see other mothers who are no better or more clever than me

 

Oh no, she used the wrong pronoun! Take her baby away!

 

I agree that more information is needed. But I think if you love your kid, and are able to provide for them and are up for the responsibility and can handle it, that should be enough. You shouldn't have to pass an IQ test. There are parents out there who don't deserve their children, and if this lady's only crime is having a lower than average IQ, she's not one of them.

 

Now if she really did just leave the kid at the hospital without being there and if there are other things going on, I would understand.

Edited June 5, 2009 by ensign_beedrill

[Party Like a Vulcan 0]

Wow.

 

 

Raising a child based on IQ. That sucks. I feel so bad for both of them. This is such a shame. Sure, the woman may have needed help in raising her, but to take her away? Horrible. Just sad really. ;_;

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

There are parents out there who don't deserve this children,

 

Oh no, ensign_beedrill used the wrong pronoun while saying someone else used the wrong pronoun!

[RikerChick 5]

We need more children taken away from their parents? Are you kidding me Kor? Unbelievable.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

We need more children taken away from their parents? Are you kidding me Kor? Unbelievable.

I don't believe that the government has any business deciding who should be a parent and who shouldn't. The only instances where the government should be involved (in my opinion) is in the cases of child abuse. By child abuse I mean sexual abuse, physical abuse (beatings not spankings) and things like that.

 

The next thing you know the government will be deciding when a person can have a child, what sex it should be (abort the incorrect sex) and how many they're allowed to have (abort excess children or take them away and give them to someone else).

 

Maybe they will even come up with a program that will carry out post birth abortions on blind or deaf children or children with other disabilities. Think Stephen Hawking would make it past birth in that kind of society?

[Bethlehem 7]

Way more info needed to make this call. I am thinking Kor is being sarcastic in that comment not advocating it.

[ensign_beedrill 0]

There are parents out there who don't deserve this children,

 

Oh no, ensign_beedrill used the wrong pronoun while saying someone else used the wrong pronoun!

 

Oh, no! I can never be a mother!

 

Maybe they will even come up with a program that will carry out post birth abortions on blind or deaf children or children with other disabilities. Think Stephen Hawking would make it past birth in that kind of society?

 

I see where you're going, but I couldn't see a day when this would ever be acceptable in our society. No matter where one stands on the abortion issue, I would hope that all would agree that killing a child who has already been born is murder.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I see where you're going, but I couldn't see a day when this would ever be acceptable in our society. No matter where one stands on the abortion issue, I would hope that all would agree that killing a child who has already been born is murder.

 

It's actually already happened (many years ago in Nazi Germany). Of course I don't want a debate on abortion or things of that sort, that's what Kronos is for. I just don't believe that governments should be involved in this aspect of a persons life.

[MrPsychic 1]

We need more children taken away from their parents? Are you kidding me Kor? Unbelievable.

Would you rather wait til something happens, like the children are abused, neglected, or worse? Then, would you give them another chance, and another, to try and get better, while the kids are still suffering?

[VaBeachGuy 12]

We need more children taken away from their parents? Are you kidding me Kor? Unbelievable.

Would you rather wait til something happens, like the children are abused, neglected, or worse? Then, would you give them another chance, and another, to try and get better, while the kids are still suffering?

Who determines what "abuse" and "neglect" are though? Suppose the government considers it "abuse" to make your kids attend church on Sunday and takes them away from their parents in order to prevent that "abuse"? Suppose the government considers it "neglect" to not have a Television in the childs bedroom? Again, take them away to prevent that "neglect"?

 

As for waiting till "something happens", yes. Wait till something happens. Who's to say that something "WILL" happen? Who's to say that a family won't be a loving family? Should people be locked up because they might rob a bank or should we wait till they actually do rob a bank?

 

I know it may seem wrong to say "Wait for a child to be abused to do something" but if you're talking about a situation where there is no evidence of abuse or neglect, just the thought that there is a possibility that it might be something that could happen then how on earth could anyone say "take that child away from their mother/father because there is some possibility that something MIGHT happen.

 

No, that's not how it should work. It doesn't "take a village" to raise a child (as some idiot politician once stated). It takes a family. If no crime is committed then the government has no business sticking their noses into the situation.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

We need more children taken away from their parents? Are you kidding me Kor? Unbelievable.

Would you rather wait til something happens, like the children are abused, neglected, or worse? Then, would you give them another chance, and another, to try and get better, while the kids are still suffering?

Yes, I would rather wait until something happens. The alternative is to punish the would-be parents before they have done anything wrong if things even go that far.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

We need more children taken away from their parents? Are you kidding me Kor? Unbelievable.

Would you rather wait til something happens, like the children are abused, neglected, or worse? Then, would you give them another chance, and another, to try and get better, while the kids are still suffering?

 

Are you suggesting people should have their children taken away because someone thinks they "might" be abusive some time in the future. There's a chance anyone "might" do something wrong sometime - no one would ever be a parent in that case.

 

 

No, that's not how it should work. It doesn't "take a village" to raise a child (as some idiot politician once stated). It takes a family.

This is a bit off topic but this was actually an African proverb and I believe in the basic principle. No, it doesn't mean the state supercedes the parents' primary responsibility to care for children but it does mean all adults have a responsibility to make the world safe for children.

 

I would hope that all would agree that killing a child who has already been born is murder

They started with the elderly and the terminally ill - they call it euthanasia. Some even claim the high road of "preventing suffering" although I read that in countries where it is regularly practiced the main concern was not spending all the parents money on medical bills so there'd be no inheritance. The reason they call it a slippery slope is because once you start down it gets easier and easier. You say it's wrong to kill a baby once it's born - but what about while in the birth canal - again, once you start down the path where do find the logic to draw a line? Obviously with the number of babies abandoned in trash cans, roadsides etc it's not clear to some people that there's a line between before birth and after birth when it's okay to kill.

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

This one has me torn, admittedly. I'm long since unfamiliar with IQ gradations, but almost 20 below normal... she sounds like she's on the lower cusp of even being functional.

 

But to confiscate? That isn't right either.

 

But worst of all, I feel bad for the child. Born roughly two months early, under two pounds birthweight, one parent retarded... anyone's guess how smart the father is.... poor Baby K is going to have one hell of a life.