Mother deemed "too stupid" to keep child

Current Events International Politics
1

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_an…icle6396039.ece

"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”.

Sounds to me like someone really wants that child, and to hell with the mothers capacity, ability and rights. Welcome to the Peoples State of England

2

This is par for the course with what has been going on in the People’s State of the UK lately.

3

I would love to hear the full story on that. There must be more.

4

If she were actually mentally unstable or severely stupid (Lets say she has a 90 IQ) then she isn’t fit to raise children. The psychiatrist’s contradictory statements seem like the smoking gun against that though. I’d like to know that psychiatrist’s credentials and why the court rejected his opinion.

5

From reading the news articles, it seems that the first psychiatrist was assigned by Social Services, and that person said she was too stupid and had learning disabilities. The other guy was a second opinion person who disagreed and said she was fine. I think the reason the court didn’t do anything was because her state assigned lawyer (she was deemed too stupid to pick her own counsel ?!?) didn’t want to appeal to the court’s opinion. This stinks to high heaven of big government gone wild… It’s disgusting and sad.

6

If she were actually mentally unstable or severely stupid (Lets say she has a 90 IQ) then she isn’t fit to raise children. The psychiatrist’s contradictory statements seem like the smoking gun against that though. I’d like to know that psychiatrist’s credentials and why the court rejected his opinion.

I agree! What we need are laws that require all prospective parents to be screened for mental stability and IQ.

In fact, parents should be screened for mental stability and IQ on a quarterly basis.

Actually, everyone should be screened for mental stability and IQ on a routine basis, perhaps twice a year or more; think what a wonderful world it would be, even if we don’t know much about history.

However, I’m entirely opposed to big government!

7

I assume you’re being sarcastic. Would you think it would be fine for someone who couldn’t take care of themselves to take care of a miniature human being with little to no reasoning or physical ability? Or how about a sociopath, who might use their children as some sick form of entertainment? You don’t have an inalienable right to be a parent.

8

I assume you’re being sarcastic. Would you think it would be fine for someone who couldn’t take care of themselves to take care of a miniature human being with little to no reasoning or physical ability? Or how about a sociopath, who might use their children as some sick form of entertainment? You don’t have an inalienable right to be a parent.

Sarcastic? I beg your pardon.

I’ve never really liked miniature human beings. I’m actually quite opposed to them and their creation. I think that creating miniature human beings is abusive. It reminds me of foot-binding. Or the children raised inside of a vase in order to impart the form of the vase upon them. Horrible. Absolutely should not be done. There’s no inalienable right to create miniature human beings.

If a sociopath uses their children as some sick form of entertainment, they should suffer the consequences. Of course, this applies to individuals who have an IQ of less than average equally as well. (I’m willing to go with what you suggested, an IQ of 90.) Neither sociopaths nor the below average in intelligence should use their children for sick entertainment. (We can discuss the non-mentally-unstable and those of average, well above IQ 90, or above intelligence perhaps later. Initially, my view is that they should not be using their children for sick entertainment either; only healthy entertainment.)

Sociopaths and those with less than average IQs should only use their children for healthy entertainment. I’m absolutely against the use of children for any sick form of entertainment. Let me be absolutely clear.

We desperately need mental health screening and IQ testing on a regular basis for all people. Think of all the grief, the suffering and mayhem we could spare humanity.

We all have an inalienable right to be free from the violation of our rights by the mentally unstable, including sociopaths, and those of less than average IQ. If a person has an average IQ, or at least better than 90, and if they are mentally stable, then the presumption should be that they have inalienable rights. Still, they too should respect individual rights.

9

Sarcastic? I beg your pardon.

I’ve never really liked miniature human beings. I’m actually quite opposed to them and their creation. I think that creating miniature human beings is abusive. It reminds me of foot-binding. Or the children raised inside of a vase in order to impart the form of the vase upon them. Horrible. Absolutely should not be done. There’s no inalienable right to create miniature human beings.

If a sociopath uses their children as some sick form of entertainment, they should suffer the consequences. Of course, this applies to individuals who have an IQ of less than average equally as well. (I’m willing to go with what you suggested, an IQ of 90.) Neither sociopaths nor the below average in intelligence should use their children for sick entertainment. (We can discuss the non-mentally-unstable and those of average, well above IQ 90, or above intelligence perhaps later. Initially, my view is that they should not be using their children for sick entertainment either; only healthy entertainment.)

Sociopaths and those with less than average IQs should only use their children for healthy entertainment. I’m absolutely against the use of children for any sick form of entertainment. Let me be absolutely clear.

We desperately need mental health screening and IQ testing on a regular basis for all people. Think of all the grief, the suffering and mayhem we could spare humanity.

We all have an inalienable right to be free from the violation of our rights by the mentally unstable, including sociopaths, and those of less than average IQ. If a person has an average IQ, or at least better than 90, and if they are mentally stable, then the presumption should be that they have inalienable rights. Still, they too should respect individual rights.

Unless I’m missing some joke here. How did we get by before we had persons doing all this testing? Not only did we get by, we became strong. Also who would be most likely dong the tests and deciding who is fit? Hint; those who you would trust for that are too busy being productive and those who aren’t too busy being productive, well, would you want them making the decisions on who is smart or stupid or fit? Think: public schools, Social Security, Veterans Administration, EPA, Federal Reserve and now Government Motors. ACORN Community Reinvestment Act, CNN, UC/Berkely, Peoples’ Republic of Masstwochitts… I daresay they would first ask who you voted for and if it isn’t “Every Democrate past, present and future”…well who knows where you’ll be sent to be “upgraded”. Or, they would ask you to name the president and 3 Senators and if you could, you’d be scheduled for “DMA recycling”. Perhaps they may ask you to name the three branches of government and if you said Executive, Legislative and Judicial’ the would decide that your carbon footprint is a size 9EEE and therefore you’re a dnagerous pollutant and terminate you under the Pending Clean Air Act of 2017 Part F Section 53 #4 “…Shall be retroactive to 1258 CE”. Who knows? Besides which anyone who’d trust these individuals to determine what is child abuse hasn’t read ANTHEM or “The Comprachicos”.

Do you really want to go there?

After we started doing all this testing, well… If I told you how post 1970 Earth human types are listed in the Galactic Zoopaedia, you would not like me.

Don’t Worry, this is all a bad sci-fi story, right?.. I said RIGHT?!?..

Dammit Jim: I’m a doctor not a Cummunity Organizer.

10

Unless I’m missing some joke here.

Sometimes sarcasm is hard to detect on the internet, but I’m going to make a wild guess and say you are indeed missing the joke.

11

Sometimes sarcasm is hard to detect on the internet, but I’m going to make a wild guess and say you are indeed missing the joke.

Oh, I dunno. check my last two remarks and see how thick I laid it on.

I think we’re all in the hospital with severely dilocated hips here.

The scary thing is that in all this sarcasm there is an element of truth that makes the joke hard to find. It is true that the state has the right to act against provably unfit parents. This was usually done by the locality or the State and it was; a) reluctantly and :lol: only after the facts were established. Now it seems that those in charge are practically creating the whole thing out of whole cloth to get their hands on kids under the Jesuit maxim of “Give me a child for the first seven years and after that you can do what you want with him”. The net result is that it’s nervouse time for everyone.

12

We desperately need mental health screening and IQ testing on a regular basis for all people. Think of all the grief, the suffering and mayhem we could spare humanity.

I disagree. What we desperately need is more sarcastic bits ran into the ground, whenever we don’t have a serious explanation for some moral right we claim out of the blue.

If someone is incapable of raising their children, they don’t have the right to keep them until they screw up. And an extremely low IQ is an excellent indicator to whether someone is able or not to raise a child, since people use their rational faculty for everything, including raising children.

However, I’m entirely opposed to big government!

The adjectives small and big are not an intelligent way to describe what a proper government should be. You should instead talk about what is the proper role of government, and be opposed to the government violating individual rights.

13

The adjectives small and big are not an intelligent way to describe what a proper government should be. You should instead talk about what is the proper role of government, and be opposed to the government violating individual rights.

You’re the first perso I’ve seen put it in those terms. and they are the correct terms.

However, in doing its proper mission, government would be much smaller than it is, but that would be an effect not a cause.

THis also bring up another bugaboo from 30 years back.

The ccnservatives would constantly complain about government inefficiency, which to be sure was and still is a scandal. However their main complaint was not thr role, but the inefficiency. I used to say “You would not like it if the government were simply more ‘efficient’. Would you like the EPa or the IRS to be more efficient at regulating your life or taking your money? Efficiency is not the issue, although a government limited to its proper function would be more efficient. But to just make what we have more efficient for the sake of efficiency would cause no end of grief”.

You have properly focused on the role and scope of government and not the size. Government ought be as big and efficient as it needs to be to do its proper job and no more so.