Jump to content
Due to the significant updates that have taken place, you now need to login with your display name or e-mail address, NOT your login name. ×
Due to posts that are 5+ years old being rebuilt, some of the older BBCodes may not have converted properly but still be in the post. Most posts are unaffected but some using what was our custom BBCode (like [spoiler]) will be a bit broken. ×
michel555555

mother deemed too stupid to keep child

Recommended Posts

looking through the forums today and i was surprised that no one posted a story about this.

 

 

 

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6396039.ece

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5417283/Social-services-in-Nottingham-claim-mother-is-too-stupid-to-bring-up-child.html

 

Second article is better but still not much information if anyone has a better one can you please post it.

 

 

 

So what does tip it think? should a government have the right to take away children from parents who they think are not inteligent enough to care for them. And what exactly determins if a mother is unfit to raise her own children.

 

 

 

I disagree with this and hope that is gets overturned because how can you base the ability of a person to raise a child based on IQ? And the fact that the questions that were used to determin if she was mentally fit enough had nothing to do with raising a child but were about who wrote mcbeth and other things that were not relevant, although most people would get that question should it be used to determin if someone is fit enough to raise a child?


michel555555.png

[spoiler=click you know you wanna]
Me behave? Seriously? As a child I saw Tarzan almost naked, Cinderella arrived home from a party after midnight, Pinocchio told lies, Aladin was a thief, Batman drove over 200 miles an hour, Snow White lived in a house with seven men, Popeye smoked a pipe and had tattoos, Pac man ran around to digital music while eating pills that enhanced his performance, and Shaggy and Scooby were mystery solving hippies who always had the munchies. The fault is not mine! if you had this childhood and loved it put this in your signature!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IQ tests are biased, so they shouldn't determine wether or not she should be able to keep her child based on that, and unless she's a complete moron who can barely take care of herself, The government doesn't have the right to take her kid away.

 

I didn't read the article though, so. scrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

If that is the case then shouldn't that have a nurse help her with that stuff or something? I feel that they should have done that instead of taking the baby away, ease her into a daily routine.


rc1tzc.png

☢ CAUTION ☢ CAUTION ☢ CAUTION ☢ CAUTION ☢

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they should be allowed to do that; however if the child is legitimately in danger due to the mother's lack of "cleverness" then they may have no other choice.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like there's some important information missing from the story. What initially caused officials to decide she wasn't intelligent enough? Was she acting like a raving lunatic or something? I know she took an IQ test, but what prompted the test in the first place?


Pixeloaded.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From that article, I dont see how they found her mentally incopetant. While the actual concept of protecting a child if there parents were too dumb(I mean just above mentally [developmentally delayed]ed); it sure seems that they overstepped there bounds here. Someone should be getting a letter telling them to resign or being fired after her appeal.


awteno.jpg

Orthodoxy is unconciousness

the only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the most ironic thing is that she probably had to have a "professional" write her statements that were included in the article.


[size="5"][font="Georgia"][b]Staking:[/b][/font][font="Palatino Linotype"][color="#FF0000"][/color][color="#FFFF00"][/color][color="#00FF00"] 4+ mil[/color][/font]
[font="Georgia"][b]Current Status:[/b][/font][font="Palatino Linotype"][color="#FF0000"][/color][color="#0000FF"] Training defense [/color][/font][/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She named her daughter, "K"?

 

#-o

 

 

 

They have no right to do this. Unless she actually has no capability to raise the child, then it's hers to keep.

 

 

 

the most ironic thing is that she probably had to have a "professional" write her statements that were included in the article.

 

Maybe you should have a professional teach you about basic sentence capitalization?


[English translation needed]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She named her daughter, "K"?

 

 

 

I think they are using that to hide the child's name. After all, the article said they were only giving the mother's first name for privacy reasons; it wouldnt be a surprise if they abbreviated the babies.


awteno.jpg

Orthodoxy is unconciousness

the only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like unless she actually has a mental hadnicap, they have no right to take her child.

 

 

 

They may suggest or provide alternate care for her though, if they want. As long as she can keep her child.


In Soviet Russia, glass eats OTers.

 

Alansson Alansson, woo woo woo!

Pink owns yes, just like you!

GOOOOOOOOOO ALAN! WOO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The child should be taken away if the mother doesn't have the capacity to care for it.

 

 

 

I can't really judge whether that's the case from one news story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A poster "to" stupid to spell "too".

 

 

 

I think the child has rights over the mother. What's more important ? The mother and her (in)ability to take care of her child or the child's life ? To me the saftery of the child takes precedence over the mothers whim.

 

 

 

It's simple, if you do not have the ability to raise and sustain a person in this world, you have NO RIGHT to take care of them. It is in both partie's interest to do so.

 

 

 

They have no right to do this. Unless she actually has no capability to raise the child, then it's hers to keep.

 

 

 

What ?

 

 

 

You are making no sense.

 

 

 

Options

 

 

 

1.) She has the ability to raise the child thus she has the right to raise the child

 

2.) She does not have the ability to raise the child thus she is not allowed to raise the child

 

3.) She does not have the ability to raise the child thus she is allowed to raise the child

 

4.) She has the ability to raise the child and is denied that right. [For no apparent reason]

 

 

 

To me, 1 and 2 seem the most logical whereas 3 is plain idiotic. 4 has no relevance.

 

 

 

then it's hers to keep

 

 

 

What do you mean by this, Robert ?

 

 

 

You seem confused. Or you're looking for a fight. Either way, explain please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She named her daughter, "K"?

 

#-o

 

 

 

 

What is wrong with that? I have a friend named Kay, sounds the same and I never thought anything of it.

 

 

 

Anyways, that's a terrible thing to do unless the kid would suffer from it then I can understand why they would take action such as this.


aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayl4.png

Quit. PM me if you play The Conduit to exchange friend codes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, aren't there far worse parents still in ownership of their children. Really, come on.

 

 

 

Plus I didn't see any reason why.


"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the heck? The government is really damn useless these days. Too stupid to instruct a lawyer? Too stupid to keep a child? There are really people with <100 I.Q out there with happy, lovely children and these pick a woman who is perfectly capable of taking care of a child? I mean, it's perfectly understandable if the mother is poor or something but intelligence should not be any form of issue.

 

What is the world coming to :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

She named her daughter, "K"?

 

Isn't that the name of one of the babies afflicted with anencephaly(sp?) and died like, 14 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She named her daughter, "K"?

 

#-o

 

 

 

 

What is wrong with that? I have a friend named Kay, sounds the same and I never thought anything of it.

 

 

 

Robert was commenting on the fact that the OP of the quote had no idea that "K" was a real name, but instead given by the paper to ensure anonymity.

 

 

 

Goddamnit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A poster "to" stupid to spell "too".

 

 

 

I think the child has rights over the mother. What's more important ? The mother and her (in)ability to take care of her child or the child's life ? To me the saftery of the child takes precedence over the mothers whim.

 

 

 

It's simple, if you do not have the ability to raise and sustain a person in this world, you have NO RIGHT to take care of them. It is in both partie's interest to do so.

 

 

 

They have no right to do this. Unless she actually has no capability to raise the child, then it's hers to keep.

 

 

 

What ?

 

 

 

You are making no sense.

 

 

 

Options

 

 

 

1.) She has the ability to raise the child thus she has the right to raise the child

 

2.) She does not have the ability to raise the child thus she is not allowed to raise the child

 

3.) She does not have the ability to raise the child thus she is allowed to raise the child

 

4.) She has the ability to raise the child and is denied that right. [For no apparant reason]

 

 

 

To me, 1 and 2 seem the most logical whereas 3 is plain idiotic. 4 has no relevance.

 

 

 

then it's hers to keep

 

 

 

What do you mean by this, Robert ?

 

 

 

You seem confused. Or you're looking for a fight. Either way, explain please.

 

 

 

Don't insult people's spelling when you can't spell yourself. It's "apparent", not "apparant".

 

 

 

I fail to see how his statement was irrelevant. He was merely stating his opinion.

 

 

 

edit: This:

 

 

 

 

Um, aren't there far worse parents still in ownership of their children. Really, come on.

 

 

 

Plus I didn't see any reason why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[hide=Lets play "Spot the spelling mistake" -- exclusivley for the [bleep]wit above me]A poster "to" stupid to spell "too".

 

 

 

I think the child has rights over the mther. What's more improtent ? The mother and her (in)ability to take care of her child or the child's life ? To me the saftery of the child takes preceedence over the mothers whim.

 

 

 

It's simple, if you do not have the ability to raise and sustain a person in this world, you have NO RIGHT to take care of them. It is in both partie's interest to do so.

 

 

 

They have no right to do this. Unless she actually has no capabillity to raise the cljid, then it's hers to kep.

 

 

 

What ?

 

 

 

You are mkaing no sence.

 

 

 

Options

 

 

 

1.) She has the ability to raise the child thus she has the right to raise the child

 

2.) She does not have the abillity to raise the child thus she is not alowed to raise the child

 

3.) She does not have the abilty to raise the child thus she is alowwed to raise the child

 

4.) She has the ability to raise the child and is denied that right. [For no apparent reason]

 

 

 

To me, 1 and 2 seem the most logical whereas 3 is plain idiotic. 4 has no relevance.

 

 

 

then it's hers to keep

 

 

 

What do you mean by this, Robert ?

 

 

 

You seem confosed. Or you're looking for a fight. Either way, explane plees.[/hide]

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

 

::'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Am Sam.... Hollywood did a good job of explaining this scenario :lol:


Masta Chef

archsupportei2.png

 

Drops-- Dragon: Medium(2),Spear(1),Legs(2),Skirt(1)

Pharaoh's Scepter(1)

Barrows items(10 total)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another case of the government sticking their nose in places where it doesn't belong. If you want to make IQ tests to see if someone is a fit parent, then why not IQ tests for cops, teachers, doctors, politicians or anyone else who has major responsibilities?

 

 

 

I'd rather have a stupid parent that loved me be my guardian than a genius who I have no real emotional connection with. That emotional connection is far more important than intelligence when it comes to family relations.

 

 

 

PS: I don't see why they didn't just make her have mandatory health checkups or something like that to ensure the mother's doing her job right and let her have custody. That's a lot more fair than assuming she's gonna neglect the baby or whatever they're assuming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a lot of people don't take into account is

 

 

 

First of all, there'd have to be a reason the IQ test was required, I've never heard of a person being told to sit one out of the blue, meaning this woman must appear incapable of childcare to the authorities.

 

 

 

Second of all, the article seems pretty biased against the council, meaning there's most likely a lot of information portraying both sides of the argument missing.

 

 

 

Edit: Wait a minute, this was written by a woman, it's in the women section of the site, no matter how credible the Times is, this is a load of biased bollox Imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They have no right to do this. Unless she actually has no capability to raise the child, then it's hers to keep.

 

 

 

Incorrect wording. Unless.

 

 

 

Unless in this context means, that A will only be carried out if B is fulfilled before hand. So to take care of the child she has to be stupid.

 

 

 

Also, "it's" ? :lol:

 

 

 

Slightly cold and impersonal Robert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She named her daughter, "K"?

 

Usually if there under 16/18 legally they cannot be named. Its a rather apalling thing to do, the only reason I could think of them taking it (sorry, her) away is if the mother does have normal IQ, BUT has a different sense of belive in raising a child. My cousin (sadly) is one of the few idiots who goto such stupid measures saying "its good for the baby" when its not. Commonly this involves not feeding the baby/child correctly.


Popoto.~<3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.