Mother ?too stupid? to keep child

[weflyhigh]

http://women.timesonline.co.uk...ies/article6396039.ece

A MOTHER is taking her fight to the European Court of Human Rights after she was forbidden from seeing her three-year-old daughter because she is not ?clever enough? to look after her.

The woman, who for legal reasons can be identified only by her first name, Rachel, has been told by a family court that her daughter will be placed with adoptive parents within the next three months, and she will then be barred from further contact.

The adoption is going ahead despite the declaration by a psychiatrist that Rachel, 24, has no learning difficulties and ?good literacy and numeracy and [that] her general intellectual abilities appear to be within the normal range?.

Her daughter, K, was born prematurely and officials felt Rachel lacked the intelligence to cope with her complex medical needs Baby K was released from hospital into care and is currently with a foster family. Her health has now improved to the point where she needs little or no day-to-day medical care.


Rachel said last night: ?I have been totally let down by the system. All I want is to care for my daughter but the council and the court are determined not to let me.

?The court here has now ordered that my contact with my daughter must be reduced from every fortnight until in three months? time it will all be over and I will never see her again.?

Rachel has now lodged an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights, which has the power to stop the child being given to another family. She has also applied for a judicial review of the adoption order.

Her attempts to fight Nottingham city council?s adoption of her daughter have been hampered because her case was taken over by the official solicitor, the government-funded lawyer who acts for those unable to represent themselves. He was brought in to represent Rachel?s interests because she was judged to be intellectually incapable of instructing her own solicitor. He declined to contest the council?s adoption application, despite her wish to do so.

After the psychiatrist?s assessment of Rachel, the court has now acknowledged that she does have the mental capacity to keep up with the legal aspects of her situation. It has nevertheless refused her attempts to halt the adoption process.

John Hemming, Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, who is campaigning on Rachel?s behalf, said: ?The way Rachel has been treated is appalling. She has been swept aside by a system that seems more interested in securing a child for adoption than preserving a natural family unit.?

 

[nakedfrog]

There's got to be some details missing here.

 

[S Freud]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
There's got to be some details missing here.

That's what I was thinking. I don't think the judge just looked at her and decided to was stupid and decided to kid would be better off with another family.

 

[phoenix79]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
There's got to be some details missing here.

+1

 

[Chronoshock]

If intelligence was required to keep a child, there wouldn't be nearly enough adoptive parents in the world to take care of them all.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

That F'ed up. Definitely missing some information. This is half the story.

 

[James Bond]

How can they write up this entire story and never mention what makes her so unqualified? What a terrible article.

 

[todpod]

The problem is the system is allowed to release why she is unqualified to keep her kids, so the only side released is the moms. I have met many parents there biggest obstacle is stupidity, they had plenty of love, just could handle parenting.

 

[Maximilian]

Eh i saw her on the news yesterday.... im kinda inclined to agree with the judge, but really theres millions more out there just like her i guess she just got caught out. In fact im amazed that somone had sex with her in the first place.

It was a nurse at some hospital i think that suggested to her superior she wasent smart enough to take care of a kid and it went from there basically.

 

[Barfo]

I bet her name is Samantha.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Ah Europe, so progressive and forward thinking. :disgust:

 

[Pacfanweb]

Details are, the father was 66, she is 24. And her IQ is about 71, which would explain a decent-looking 24-year-old sleeping with a 66-year-old.

 

[jamesbond007]

Originally posted by: Chronoshock
If intelligence was required to keep a child, there wouldn't be nearly enough adoptive parents in the world to take care of them all.

Adoptive nor biological! :Q

My roommate came up with a grand idea: you have to pass an IQ test before you can have or produce kids. This means that both the boys and girls will have an operation when young to make them sterile. When you're 'ready' to have kids, a comprehensive IQ test will be required. If you pass, you get your vasectomy or tubal ligation reversed.

Quite honestly, I have lesser and lesser faith each year as I see kids of various ages and the way they act...but it all comes together when I meet their parents!

 

[AreaCode707]

The kid may have a better life with another set of parents, but isn't that true for nearly all kids in one way or another?

As soon as the courts start making that decision when the child is not actually at risk then you have to deal with the question, "where do you draw the line?" As soon as you draw a line, any line, there will be cases on both sides of the line that should be exceptions (kids that are left with parents that should be removed, kids that are taken when the should have been left) and there's a new set of injustices in the world.

Not to mention that the bickering will begin about where the line should be (is belief in creationism evidence of low enough IQ that kids should be removed? How about being a conservative Muslim who believes women should keep their faces covered; is that abuse? Is being gay depriving the child of both gender roles in their parenting? What about being a single parent?) and there's plenty of room for abuse and, should the government become sufficiently degenerate, allows an easy way of discriminating.

 

[0roo0roo]

former miss howard stern moved to the uk?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
And her IQ is about 71, which would explain a decent-looking 24-year-old sleeping with a 66-year-old.

What if he was filthy rich? Then suddenly he's a sugar daddy instead of a pervert.

 

[0roo0roo]

mildly ridiculous, uk has very generous benefits. many who have child after child..esp the religious get away with living on benefits, so stepping in on this case is rather inconsistent.

 

[iGas]

Pic

Mother fights claims she is 'too stupid' to bring up child

'They stole my little girl,' says mother judged too stupid to care for her baby

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Ah Europe, so progressive and forward thinking. :disgust:

If we could judge an entire continent on a single news story you guys would be fucked. Don't be a douche bag.

 

[Peelback79]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Ah Europe, so progressive and forward thinking. :disgust:

If we could judge an entire continent on a single news story you guys would be fucked. Don't be a douche bag.

Agreed. Stupidity knows no physical or ethnic boundry. However, I agree that there may be more to this story. Time to set up a lawnchair.
\__
/..\

 

[Mo0o]

They dont seem very clear about just how dumb she really is

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
They dont seem very clear about just how dumb she really is

A study last year found that Rachel's IQ was rated at 71 - the IQ of an 'average' adult is 90-109.

 

[0roo0roo]

http://celebrity.rightpundits.com/?p=2403
ownby got an 88, former mrs howard stern.
i want to hear this mother talk....how dumb is she really at 71.

 

[AstroManLuca]

There are a lot of stupid people raising children. Why are they singling her out?

 

[0roo0roo]

more like why are they using iq tests on people