Hashkafah.com: British Court Says Woman isn't Smart Enough to be a Mom - Hashkafah.com

[...]

24-year-old Rachel has lost custody of her three-year-old daughter, Baby K, because social workers in Nottingham, England, have determined that she is "too stupid" to care for her child. Baby K, who was 13 weeks premature and had serious health issues, has been in foster care since leaving the hospital as an infant. The toddler is now on the verge of adoption and Rachel (whose last name is being withheld for legal reasons) has had her visitations reduced to one 90-minute period each month. If the adoption goes through, Rachel's contact will be even further limited. "If she's adopted," Rachel tells the "Daily Mail," "I've been told I won't be allowed any contact with her, apart from sending her one letter or card a year, and I won't be able to use the word daughter or mother in them. So what will I be to her? A pen pal?"

Rachel's IQ, according to tests done last year, is 71; the average adult IQ falls between 90 and 109. A psychiatrist hired by Rachel concluded that "There was no evidence of any disturbances in her thought perception. Her moods were appropriate. Rachel did not show any evidence of abnormal mental preoccupation. She was well orientated and her cognitive functions were intact." A court-appointed psychologist, on the other hand, determined that Rachel's intellect would cause a "high level of risk to the child." The court also claims that Rachel has "learning difficulties" that make it impossible for her to appropriately care for Baby K.

Rachel is understandably angry about the court's decision; she told the "Daily Mail" that intelligence should not be a measure of successful parenting. "When I walk around Nottingham, I see other mothers who are no better or more clever than me and they still have their children. Why? I see drug addicts and prostitutes who are allowed to keep their kids. They should be targeting parents who hurt their children, not someone who has never harmed a child in her life."

Rachel became pregnant at 19, and didn't know she was expecting until she was 27 weeks along. Then she became ill and went to the hospital, where she gave birth. Baby K weighed less than two pounds and had serious health issues; she required two surgeries, one on her heart and another on her bowel. The baby still has breathing problems and developmental delays related to her prematurity.

Rachel became pregnant at 19, and didn't know she was expecting until she was 27 weeks along. Then she became ill and went to the hospital, where she gave birth. Baby K weighed less than two pounds and had serious health issues; she required two surgeries, one on her heart and another on her bowel. The baby still has breathing problems and developmental delays related to her prematurity.

And here's where the story gets murky: Rachel claims that she stayed with her baby while she was in hospital, but social workers say the opposite, reporting that the young mother only rarely visited. Rachel says that she was prepared to bring the baby home at six months, having purchased all the equipment that the social workers advised (two cribs, for example, and a specific stroller) but that when she came to get her daughter, she was instead asked to sign consent forms to put the baby in foster care.

It's hard to tell who is in the right here -- the "Daily Mail's" reporter describes Rachel as "confrontational" and "argumentative," and adding that "in truth, she is not the most sympathetic of characters, her voice steadily rising as she angrily dismisses the 'mad' social workers and lawyers involved in her case as the real 'idiots' or 'bimbos'." But Rachel's story raises an interesting question: Are smarter parents really better parents? What does IQ have to do with the ability to raise a healthy, happy child?


Rachel, above, could lose her child because social workers don't think she is smart enough to raise her. Image: Jenny Goodall, Daily Mail / ZUMA Press

Read in full

What are your opinions on the above?

My opinion is that you should never believe an article published in the Daily Mail, especially where social services are concerned.

I think if the story has any truth it's awful.

I don't see how IQ could be the sole factor in a case like this. If she is capable of providing for the child's needs, she should be allowed to keep her child. Practically speaking you have to be pretty stupid to score that low, though. I wonder what a score like that means in terms of daily functioning.

An IQ below 70 is (I believe) officially mentally retarded/developmentally delayed.
It's hard to say that someone "shouldn't" have kids, but to give you an example, I know a parent I believe has a borderline IQ like that and has a daughter and she has done things like: allow the child to ride the subway alone when she wasn't old enough to know how - she got lost and was found miles and miles away only hours later, the mother isn't really able to always manage daily tasks for herself and the child such as cleaning, keeping adequate food in the house, making sure the child is getting adequate medical care, etc. (and this child has some medical needs). For example, sometimes this mother does not seem to be able to manage making sure that her child's prescriptions don't run out - they are always running out of prescriptions and then having to scramble to get refills and then the child misses a few days of medicine (which isn't healthy for her), etc.
I think a mother with an IQ at that level might need some support in caring for her child - a worker coming into the home helping with some daily tasks, monitoring things like the medicine of the child, etc. I wouldn't say the child should be taken away outright, though, although there is some risk in that situation for sure.

Shoshi, on Jun 8 2009, 08:14 AM, said:

I know parents like that who have normal or even above-average IQ's.
I'm not sure if being scatter-brained, disorganized and irresponsible correlates well with one's score on an IQ test.

Jeanette, on Jun 8 2009, 08:26 AM, said:

Well, most parents with high IQ's don't allow their children to ride the subway until the children are able to do so without getting lost. Actually, any of these acts are grounds for ACS stepping in to take the child (regardless of the parents' IQ): physical neglect, medical neglect, nutritional neglect, etc.

From the look of it, the girl just called up the Mail and gave her side. Social Services did not and can't. It's just a way for the Mail to do another "heartless social workers" post.

I suspect there's more going on. The Official Solicitor refused to represent her.

NY-LON, on Jun 8 2009, 08:39 AM, said:

I agree (and hope so).

I have to say I am very conflicted. Absolutely opposed to the State taking people's children, but not in favor of significantly impaired people having and raising children either. I am very curious how a person with such a low IQ functions on a daily basis. I have a hard time believing the child would be raised well. Even if the mother is able to care for the child in a way such that it is not physically endangered, I am hardpressed to believe the child will be taught many of the basics of how to live responsibly as an adult (who will teach the child about finances, decision-making, social interaction, etc...).

It is also likely that a child whose mother has an IQ of 71 will not be so smart himself. A less than normal adult caring for a less than normal child might be a recipe for trouble.

TheDuncePolice, on Jun 7 2009, 11:43 PM, said:

What is the IQ of the average adult blonde?

Social services all over Britain are still reeling from the Baby P(eter) affair, where a 17 month old toddler was tortured to death by his stepfather and the family lodger, the mother not doing anything to stop it, despite about 37 visits from the Social Services; they failed to notice obvious signs of abuse. Now they are being over careful to avoid another such scenario.

Bezalel, on Jun 8 2009, 09:46 AM, said:

.

Very Lucky Guy, on Jun 8 2009, 08:31 AM, said:

It is. I know more than one person with a low IQ who is raising children and they are a sorry sight.

Bezalel, on Jun 8 2009, 09:46 AM, said:

147.

lyric, on Jun 8 2009, 10:15 AM, said:

Do you have a link to the story?