Jump to content

Welcome to Rune Tips, the first ever RuneScape help site. We aim to offer skill guides, quest guides, maps, calculators, informative databases, tips, and much more to help you get the most from the Massive Online Adventure Game, RuneScape, by Jagex Ltd © 2009.

Report Ad

Welcome to Forum.Tip.It
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

mother deemed too stupid to keep child


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#21
i_love_burritos
[ Display Name History ]

i_love_burritos

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:31-December 08
  • Joined:22 September 2007
  • RuneScape Status:None
Lets just drop it after this post - ok ?

#22
Zierro
[ Display Name History ]

Zierro

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 8,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A peninsula
  • Joined:24 August 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None
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.

#23
RichieMcD
[ Display Name History ]

RichieMcD

    Hobgoblin Killer

  • Members
  • 1,549 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Dublin, Ireland
  • Joined:8 June 2007
  • RuneScape Status:None
  • RSN:Cptn Krank
  • Clan:TSG
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.

#24
i_love_burritos
[ Display Name History ]

i_love_burritos

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:31-December 08
  • Joined:22 September 2007
  • RuneScape Status:None

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.

#25
Tim
[ Display Name History ]

Tim

    Eternal Session of Sound

  • Members
  • 8,846 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Joined:12 November 2006
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

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


#26
Lenin64
[ Display Name History ]

Lenin64

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 7,249 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hunting the murderous seabeast
  • Joined:3 May 2007
  • RuneScape Status:None

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.


No. It means that unless she is stupid, she can keep it. Meaning as long as she's not stupid, she can keep it.
Posted Image
Command the Murderous Chalices! Drink ye harpooners! drink and swear, ye men that man the deathful whaleboat's bow- Death to Moby Dick!
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!
Posted Image

#27
i_love_burritos
[ Display Name History ]

i_love_burritos

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:31-December 08
  • Joined:22 September 2007
  • RuneScape Status:None


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.


No. It means that unless she is stupid, she can keep it. Meaning as long as she's not stupid, she can keep it.




Argh. I see. [bleep]ing commas.

#28
Zierro
[ Display Name History ]

Zierro

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 8,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A peninsula
  • Joined:24 August 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None
Wow, that "unless" thing is blowing my mind. I think it can go both ways.

#29
Smapla
[ Display Name History ]

Smapla

    Demon Vanquisher

  • Members
  • 2,498 posts
  • Joined:12 July 2005
can you guys just... i don't know, shut the hell up?



derailing topics to have your egotistical battles where all you do is try to prove eachothers grammar to be incorrect in a feeble attempt to gain credibility really detracts from the board.
Posted Image

#30
assassin_696
[ Display Name History ]

assassin_696

    The Karma Police

  • Members
  • 6,963 posts
  • Location:Out of the blue and into the black
  • Joined:21 January 2005
While it's hard to speak too confidently about this case without knowing the details I know enough about this kind of thing to know that the courts always (and rightly so) put the child's best interests first, and almost always the child's best interests is to stay with their natural mother. It's normally quite an exceptional case when the child is taken away from the parents.



This case sounds a little bit unusual since the mother seems passingly capable, but I suspect the media stories will heavily be biased against "the government" when in reality it was the judge's decision.
"Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"

#31
Zierro
[ Display Name History ]

Zierro

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 8,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A peninsula
  • Joined:24 August 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None

can you guys just... i don't know, shut the hell up?



derailing topics to have your egotistical battles where all you do is try to prove eachothers grammar to be incorrect in a feeble attempt to gain credibility really detracts from the board.




Yeah, being a hypocrite is much better. :thumbup:

#32
Housepig
[ Display Name History ]

Housepig

    Unicorn Horn

  • Members
  • 159 posts
  • Location:Mum's basement. Duh.
  • Joined:12 November 2008
  • RSN:Pig House
Just another chance for the media to snipe at the government; you have to consider these things without emotion. It's highly unlikely that a decision like this would have been made without sufficient reason, and while I sympathize with the emotional side of the affair, I don't see why a mother incapable of raising a child should be allowed to do so. Her argument that she has some kind of 'right' to do so holds no water--it's ridiculous how she makes out that the government are denying her her child out pure malice.



The article happily ommited any details that may have allowed readers to come to an informed and rational judgement, prefering instead to try and provoke an emotional response.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, where does that leave God?

#33
Smapla
[ Display Name History ]

Smapla

    Demon Vanquisher

  • Members
  • 2,498 posts
  • Joined:12 July 2005

can you guys just... i don't know, shut the hell up?



derailing topics to have your egotistical battles where all you do is try to prove eachothers grammar to be incorrect in a feeble attempt to gain credibility really detracts from the board.




Yeah, being a hypocrite is much better. :thumbup:




glad you agree



and .999... still equates to 1.
Posted Image

#34
Zierro
[ Display Name History ]

Zierro

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 8,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A peninsula
  • Joined:24 August 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None
You guys act like the government never makes bad decisions. But I guess you could say that I act like the media never blows things out of proportion. :lol:



glad you agree



and .999... still equates to 1.




You cry about derailing topics, egotistical battles, attempting to gain credibility, and detracting from the board and you're doing it 10 times worse than them. You're bringing up stuff from almost two years ago. Normally I'd insult you, but you're insulting yourself enough.

#35
michel555555
[ Display Name History ]

michel555555

    Varrock Guard

  • Members
  • 1,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:alberta, canada
  • Joined:9 October 2007
  • RuneScape Status:P2P
  • RSN:michel555555
  • Clan:fealty stars

The article happily ommited any details that may have allowed readers to come to an informed and rational judgement, prefering instead to try and provoke an emotional response.




Trying to find a better one but its basically impossible.



http://www.telegraph...g-up-child.html



Only article i can find that actually has new information and that is that the authorities were concerned about the mother not visiting the child enough. If anyone can find a better article can you please help me out.



And whats with all the personal attacks on tip it latly. :thumbdown:

michel555555.png

click you know you wanna

#36
MisterGreen
[ Display Name History ]

MisterGreen

    Unicorn Horn

  • Members
  • 177 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Joined:27 December 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Semi-Retired
I hate articles like this. They never specified on why the mother was unfit to take care of the child. As such, I cannot make a proper judgement on whether the mother was fit to take care of the child or not.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Posted Image

#37
Alg
[ Display Name History ]

Alg

    Troll General

  • Editorial Panel
  • 10,880 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California.
  • Joined:5 August 2006

Officials claim Miss Pullen, a single mother, from Nottingham, lacks the intelligence to cope with the complex medical needs of the child, who was born prematurely.


Well, if that's the case, it may be for the best. It'd probably be better to just give her support in raising the child though. Baby gets care, she gets to at least help give it.

#38
Robert_de_Sable
[ Display Name History ]

Robert_de_Sable

    Dark Wizard Robe

  • Members
  • 943 posts
  • Joined:12 September 2007

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.


Sorry, awkward wording. I mean unless it is physically impossible to properly rear up her child then it is hers to raise.
[English translation needed]

#39
i_love_burritos
[ Display Name History ]

i_love_burritos

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:31-December 08
  • Joined:22 September 2007
  • RuneScape Status:None
I see. Like a gimpy arm.



Gotcha'



;)

#40
Robert_de_Sable
[ Display Name History ]

Robert_de_Sable

    Dark Wizard Robe

  • Members
  • 943 posts
  • Joined:12 September 2007

You guys act like the government never makes bad decisions. But I guess you could say that I act like the media never blows things out of proportion. :lol:



glad you agree



and .999... still equates to 1.




You cry about derailing topics, egotistical battles, attempting to gain credibility, and detracting from the board and you're doing it 10 times worse than them. You're bringing up stuff from almost two years ago. Normally I'd insult you, but you're insulting yourself enough.


=D> =D> =D>

Well said, Zierro.
[English translation needed]




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users