Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK

Bike Shops Coaches Fitters Race Calendar NEW Running Stores Stack & Reach Training Log Triathlon Clubs
		MAIN INDEX	RULES & LEGEND	LOG IN

Search for (options)

Newsletter Signup

Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room:
Yet Another Chestnut From the UK

1 2

View All

chainpin

Jun 1, 09 8:57

Post #1 of 26 (478 views)

Yet Another Chestnut From the UK	Can't Post

The theater of the absurd:

<! -- Start Body of Page --> June 01, 2009 Court: Mom Too Dumb to Raise Daughter
(Nottingham, England) A mother known as Rachel is fighting to keep her daughter after a court ruled that she was not "clever enough" to look after the child.

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 is appealing to the EU Court of Human Rights.

Message to the Brits: You are totally screwed.

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

MJuric

Jun 1, 09 9:13

Post #2 of 26 (449 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [chainpin] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I'm not following. Reading the story I didn't see any background reasoning on how or why they determined she was incapable of raising the child.

I'd be interested in hearing what trigger the process in the first place. Typically people don't even attempt to start those types of proceedings without some reasoning. In the US parental rights are ridiculously guarded even beyond the absurd. Probably to avoid something like this. OTOH we have A LOT of situations where the child should be removed but is not.

~Matt

chainpin

Jun 1, 09 9:23

Post #3 of 26 (440 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [MJuric] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To:

This is the type of bullshit that occurs in a Totalitarian society. According to the Times article she is smart enough to follow the complexity of the legal process, but not to care for her child:

"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. "

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

MJuric

Jun 1, 09 9:30

Post #4 of 26 (435 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [chainpin] [In reply to]	Can't Post

This is the type of bullshit that occurs in a Totalitarian society.

I guess my point is I don't see someone at the hospital just out of the blue saying "Nah she's not smart enough to raise a kid" and start this kind of proceeding. Something somewhere ahd to happen to get someone motivated enough to do so. Maybe that was she failed to fill out the crossword puzzle properly, came in for prenatal care stoned or something more diabolical like someone is trying to make cash off the adoption. I have no idea except people typically don't do things like this unless there is some motivation and there is no mention of motivation in the story, that I saw anyway.

~Matt

last tri in 83

Jun 1, 09 9:40

Post #5 of 26 (419 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [chainpin] [In reply to]	Can't Post

We need this program where I live. At least 50% of the population is too stupid for kids. Example:
Dad allegedly forces tattoo on son, 7 Thursday, April 23, 2009

FRESNO, Calif. (KABC) -- Police in Fresno are looking for a father who they say held down his 7-year-old son so another man could tattoo the child.
The child was tattooed on his belly with a dog paw, symbolizing Fresno's largest criminal street gang, the Bulldogs.
His mother reported the incident to police.
The boy's father, 26-year-old Enrique Gonzalez, faces six charges including mayhem, child abuse, false imprisonment, battery, participating in a criminal street gang and committing a crime for the benefit of a gang, and the tattoo artist has also been arrested.

_____________________________________________
No one appreciates my humor anymore. --Sphere

jkca1

Jun 1, 09 9:42

Post #6 of 26 (415 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [last tri in 83] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Just another example of why we need the death penalty expanded. What an ahole to do this to a child.

"They are all crooks, both sides of the aisle."

Locke

Jun 1, 09 9:51

Post #7 of 26 (404 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [last tri in 83] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To:

The boy's father, 26-year-old Enrique Gonzalez, faces six charges including mayhem, child abuse, false imprisonment, battery, participating in a criminal street gang and committing a crime for the benefit of a gang, and the tattoo artist has also been arrested.

I never knew mayhem was an actual crime. I would think that if I ever twist off and have to go to jail, I would want it to be for running amok and general mayhem.

Perhaps my affinity for Beavis and Butthead is surfacing, but MAYHEM sounds kickass.

"My only words of wisdom are just, radio edit" - Kid Rock

squid

Jun 1, 09 10:00

Post #8 of 26 (397 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [MJuric] [In reply to]	Can't Post

people typically don't do things like this unless there is some motivation

I do some work in the child welfare/ foster care system in KY. unfortunately I've seen it happen way too often. I've actually heard a CASA worker say a child should not be returned to her father because he was a man. I've seen some astounding abuses of power by child welfare folks

MJuric

Jun 1, 09 10:10

Post #9 of 26 (390 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [squid] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I've actually heard a CASA worker say a child should not be returned to her father because he was a man.

Yes but at this point the child has already been taken away. In most cases it's VERY difficult, at least in the US, to even get child services even involved.

There are many horror stories, as with any system, with things going horribly wrong and children being taken away unjustifiably, but in almost every case I've heard of there was a "Starting point". Kid came to school with a bruise, no shoes, something.

My wife works with child maternal health for the country and is almost in daily contact with DCFS and other state agencies that deal with these things. It's almost impossible to get them to react in many cases, especially now that the have laid off a ton of people.

I'm not saying it would never happen here, but it would be extremely odd for it to happen and more than likely something got the ball rolling in the first place.

~Matt

Just Old Again

Jun 1, 09 11:04

Post #10 of 26 (360 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [Locke] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I'm going to go for premeditated mopery.
-----------------------------------
Ken Lehner

"We are on our last bag of Life" - the wife

chainpin

Jun 1, 09 12:40

Post #11 of 26 (336 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [chainpin] [In reply to]	Can't Post

So, since we know that there are many stupid people with children, what should we do?

Do we make every parent take an IQ test when their children are born so that we can see if they make the cut?

Maybe we take a more extreme route--it's against the law to have kids unless your IQ is above X.

I will follow this UK story as it develops, as it is great sport watching a society being rightly punished for electing fucktards into office.

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

AlanShearer

Jun 1, 09 12:53

Post #12 of 26 (328 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [MJuric] [In reply to]	Can't Post

We're currently fostering a child, and there's a possibility that we may end up adopting or at least becomming legal guardians. A lot depends on what happens with the mother over the next several months. Throughout the process, we've been nothing but impressed with the diligence and professionalism of the social workers we've dealt with, especially considering the case loads they carry. Nothing like the stereotype. On the few occasions I've expressed this opinion to them, they've "corrected" me with some of the nightmare stories we all hear. As a general rule, however, it appears pretty difficult to get your child taken away and put into the system, but once there, a case can take a life of it's own.

MJuric

Jun 1, 09 12:58

Post #13 of 26 (321 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [AlanShearer] [In reply to]	Can't Post

As a general rule, however, it appears pretty difficult to get your child taken away and put into the system, but once there, a case can take a life of it's own.

I think this is an accurate statement. My wife and I have quite a bit of experiance with the courts and their VERY staunch support of parental rights even under some pretty harsh conditions. It is extremely difficult to get parental rights terminated and unless there are pretty severe criminal charges or the parent is out and out missing in action for VERY long periods of time it's pretty much impossible to do.

There are far more cases were the child should have been removed and parental rights terminated but weren't and the child is harmed or even killed than the opposite.

~Matt

MJuric

Jun 1, 09 13:01

Post #14 of 26 (317 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [chainpin] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I don't understand the concept of "Not smart enough to be a parent". Unless you are simply to low of an IQ to take care of yourself I don't see "Parenting" as a "High IQ" job. High patience, High understanding, High Tolerance sure, high IQ not so much.

Many "intelligent" and successful people are rotten parents and shouldn't have kids, while many "Not to bright" and "Barely making it financially" families do VERY well when it comes to raising children.

~Matt

chainpin

Jun 1, 09 13:06

Post #15 of 26 (313 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [MJuric] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To:

Agreed, which is why the UK case is so patently absurd.

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

AlanShearer

Jun 1, 09 13:08

Post #16 of 26 (308 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [MJuric] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I also think this varies from state to state, and in California, from county to county. And as I mentioned, even within a county, each case varies depending on a number of factors, including the various people assigned to handle it.

When I say it's generally difficult for the county to step in and remove a child from his or her parents, that's an entirely different issue from terminating parental rights. I think most children who are placed in the system are eventually reunited with their parents. Since the courts are extremely reluctant to terminate parental rights, they will allow a case to proceed for years, often giving the parent numerous chances to get his/her/their lives in order. It may be a different story if there's someone (especially a relative) available and willing to adopt or become a legal guardian. It's also a different story if the child is young -- under 3 years old. The county does not like keeping an infant or toddler in the system for too long, as the older the child gets, the more difficult it is to adopt out. So with a very young child, the parent may get less of a chance, and courts are more willing to terminate parental rights.

MJuric

Jun 1, 09 13:19

Post #17 of 26 (301 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [AlanShearer] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I also think this varies from state to state, and in California, from county to county.

Also varies from day to day week to week etc. I believe it was Cook (Chicago) county that just had something like 25-50% of the DCFS workers laid off due to lack of funds from the state. When things like that happen peoples case loads double and only the worst cases get any attention at all.

When I say it's generally difficult for the county to step in and remove a child from his or her parents, that's an entirely different issue from terminating parental rights.

Absolutely agree, was just using it as an example. Generally the more emphasis that is put on parental rights in general the more difficult it is to take any such action against the parents. If it's next to impossible to terminate parental rights it's usually pretty hard to take away the kids for any reason and even under poor conditions the kids usually end up back with the parents as you stated.

they will allow a case to proceed for years, often giving the parent numerous chances to get his/her/their lives in order. It may be a different story if there's someone (especially a relative) available and willing to adopt or become a legal guardian.

In our case it was around 6 years and the child we were "Guardians" for was a great niece. The courts were very reluctant to sever parental rights of the mother despite pretty severe conditions. In fact I'm not sure the court would have ever done it had it not been for the death of the biological mother.

The rights of the father were severed mostly because he was not in the picture at all and during the proceedings could not be located.

~Matt

The Lorax

Jun 1, 09 14:55

Post #18 of 26 (277 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [chainpin] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Anyone else think we're only getting half the story? The mother has an IQ of 71. The baby was born prematurely with severe health problems and required multiple surgeries. During this time the mother only visited the baby for a couple of hours a day. It was at this point that social workers determined that she may be not be able to care for the child and requested a psychological evaluation. That independent evaluation determined that she was incapable of taking care of the child. Her family appealed and had a second evaluation carried out that said she was capable. The court decided to go with their own psychologist rather than the families'.

I don't see any reason for the Brits to be screwed. Seems like they are taking care of their kids.

unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothings going to get better. its not.

Andrewmc

Jun 1, 09 15:14

Post #19 of 26 (265 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [chainpin] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I do not know about this, if I were to hazard a guess, this http://www.independent.co.uk/...-baby-p-1020487.html may well have something to do with the decision.

I can not remember all the details, I'd suggest you read the article, but the over reactive jurists may be responding to the fact that Baby P was seen 2 days before he died by a MD, had a broken back but it went undetected. Had fnger nails pulled out by one of the mothers boy friends and was essentially used as a punching bag for his very short life.

MJuric

Jun 1, 09 15:59

Post #20 of 26 (255 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [The Lorax] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Anyone else think we're only getting half the story?

That was kinda my point. I don't see agencies, at least in the Us, taking steps like this without some serious cause. Can't speak for the UK, but here they almost always error on the side of the parents and it takes a pretty serious case before the appropriate agencies step in.

OTOH there are always cases of people over stepping their authority.

~Matt

squid

Jun 2, 09 6:28

Post #21 of 26 (213 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [MJuric] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I've worked in the field for over 10 years. Believe me, they don't always give a family a fair shake, especially if they are from a low socio-economic group and don't have the means of defending themselves. When I started this work I had the belief that if parents were innocent they had nothing to worry about- wrong. In the case I mentioned, the state worker, who had the nickname of "the Terminator" because she was adept at getting rights terminated, railroaded the family. Don't get me wrong, I know many state workers who are fantastic, however, it's not always a just system and process. Do you know that states get matching federal funds for each child foster child adopted?

Think this is just a few bad apples?

http://kentuckyfosternews.blogspot.com/...ting-spitefully.html

MJuric

Jun 2, 09 9:16

Post #22 of 26 (194 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [squid] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Oh I'm not saying the families always get a fair shake. Like I said in some other post there are always horror stories and situations where people abuse their power or go beyond their authority. We've all seen that at a local as well as serious cases on a national level.

The case in the UK may in fact be nothing more than that.

However for the most part it typically leans the opposite direction with these agencies NOT taking action and there are FAR more horror stories about kids dying, being abused, ignored etc etc than the opposite of them being unjustly taken away.

My other point is that I've yet to see a case where something didn't happen to get the agencies attention in the first place. DCFS or others don't randomly go into the hospital or homes and take children from parents. Even in the unjustified "Horror story" cases something triggers the investigation.

~Matt

cartsman

Jun 3, 09 3:17

Post #23 of 26 (159 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [chainpin] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To:

Message to the Brits: You are totally screwed.

Only if you base the future of our country on one news story. We could certainly do with better leadership, but the good news is that we get to vote the current rabble out within the next year.

In the meantime, the sun's out and we've got a fantastic summer of sport to look forward to (Ashes, Wimbledon, Lions tour...) so things could be worse.

davet

Jun 3, 09 5:53

Post #24 of 26 (149 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [cartsman] [In reply to]	Can't Post

but the good news is that we get to vote the current rabble out within the next year.
------------------------------------------

At the current rate, they will have imploded by the end of the week.

cartsman

Jun 3, 09 7:36

Post #25 of 26 (142 views)

Re: Yet Another Chestnut From the UK [davet] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To:
Fingers crossed...

1 2

View All