Mother 'too stupid' to keep child

[Guest Bilo]

Mother ‘too stupid’ to keep child

Daniel Foggo

A MOTHER is taking her fight to the European Court of Human Rights after she was forbidden from seeing her three-year-old daughter because she is not “clever enough” to look after her.

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 said last night: “I have been totally let down by the system. All I want is to care for my daughter but the council and the court are determined not to let me.

“The court here has now ordered that my contact with my daughter must be reduced from every fortnight until in three months’ time it will all be over and I will never see her again.”

Rachel has now lodged an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights, which has the power to stop the child being given to another family. She has also applied for a judicial review of the adoption order.

Her attempts to fight Nottingham city council’s adoption of her daughter have been hampered because her case was taken over by the official solicitor, the government-funded lawyer who acts for those unable to represent themselves. He was brought in to represent Rachel’s interests because she was judged to be intellectually incapable of instructing her own solicitor. He declined to contest the council’s adoption application, despite her wish to do so.

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.

John Hemming, Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, who is campaigning on Rachel’s behalf, said: “The way Rachel has been treated is appalling. She has been swept aside by a system that seems more interested in securing a child for adoption than preserving a natural family unit.”

Would like to hear people's thoughts on this one, personally I always feel that the best place for a child is with its mother but that needs to be balanced with the mother's ability to look after the child.

[C-man]

Would like to hear people's thoughts on this one, personally I always feel that the best place for a child is with its mother but that needs to be balanced with the mother's ability to look after the child.

Talk about sitting on the fence!

You have to feel sorry for the mother. Any other child and it would be fine. You see 15 year olds with less brain cells than their babies who get to keep theirs, so this ruling is pretty ridiculous. Would it not be better to get someone to help the mother, rather than getting parents to adopt the child, or is that too much of a complex suggestion for these people?

[Guest Bilo]

Talk about sitting on the fence!

You have to feel sorry for the mother. Any other child and it would be fine. You see 15 year olds with less brain cells than their babies who get to keep theirs, so this ruling is pretty ridiculous. Would it not be better to get someone to help the mother, rather than getting parents to adopt the child, or is that too much of a complex suggestion for these people?

It is a compllicated issue, but I would lean towards the first half of my quote and say the child should be with her mother. As you say, the authorities would be better served giving the mother the assistance they seem to feel she needs rather than take the child from her. The chances are that the authorities will lose the case at the European Court, rendering everything they've done pointless and costing the taxpayer a huge amount of money.

[Guest]

The welfare of the child is paramount in all cases. We aren't in possession of all of the facts, so it is hard to comment on whether the court is right or not.

For example, there was a case earlier in the year where a woman was convicted for leaving her children unattended. She was vilified in the media, both locally and nationally. Based on their reporting, it was justified. However, since then, I have been privy to certain information regarding the case, which I can't broadcast, and both the sentence and the public outrage are not justified in any way.

What I am trying to say is that on the face of things, it does look harsh for this woman, but there may be a perfectly legitimate reason for the courts to deny her access, and I wouldn't like to get off the fence without knowing the full facts.

The family court system is changing, and reporting restrictions have technically been lifted, but I doubt that we'll see all of the facts emerging in such instances.

Given the mismanagement seen by Haringey and their child protection system, if you leave kids with the parents you're wrong, and if you take them away from potential harm, you're wrong. It is a very tricky area.

[StanSP]

It's a bit unfair to be honest. A child learns to grow up best when it is around the mother.

But if the mother's intelligence prevents her from giving the child the best upbringing possible then maybe it's for the best. After all, we don't want another repeat of the Baby P incident.

[Guest]

Talk about sitting on the fence!

You have to feel sorry for the mother. Any other child and it would be fine. You see 15 year olds with less brain cells than their babies who get to keep theirs, so this ruling is pretty ridiculous. Would it not be better to get someone to help the mother, rather than getting parents to adopt the child, or is that too much of a complex suggestion for these people?

If I remember rightly, the courts can appoint someone to help parent(s). Like I posted above though, we don't know the full facts, and there are restrictions on what can and can't be reported. I will certainly be keeping an eye out for this, as I want to practice in family law when qualified.

[Bellend Sebastian]

Did anyone see her interviewed on the telly? She's undoubtedly not the sharpest tool in the box, but then again she's not the only thicko wandering about with kids in tow and I'm sure there are a lot worse than her, and she didn't seem like an unpleasant person, although it's obviously hard to tell.

The authorities must be really worried about her to be proposing doing something so drastic, so maybe there's more to it than meets the eye

[Munzie]

Stupid mother from Nottingham...Nuff said!

[Corky]

The authorities must be really worried about her to be proposing doing something so drastic, so maybe there's more to it than meets the eye

That's a good point.

[davieG]

There was report yesterday where a mother was said to be a mile away shopping while her 4 & 5 year old were left on the beach which was subject to tidal drifts they where rescued by lifeboats with the water lapping around their necks.

Again those are the facts as reported, it also doesn't mention where the Dad was.

[Jon the Hat]

The authorities must be really worried about her to be proposing doing something so drastic, so maybe there's more to it than meets the eye

You would think so but sadly that has not always turned out to be the case. Social workers are as prone as anyone to making judgements based on less than all the facts, and once made they are hard to change.

[Bryn]

There MUST be some reason why they took her child, they don't just take children like that willy nilly.

[DB11]

I saw the woman get interviewed. She was very stupid and her English was like, well, worse than a French person trying to learn English

[davieG]

I saw the woman get interviewed. She was very stupid and her English was like, well, worse than a French person trying to learn English

Did they ask her what the difference between a Carpenter and a carpet fitter was?

[Bellend Sebastian]

You would think so but sadly that has not always turned out to be the case. Social workers are as prone as anyone to making judgements based on less than all the facts, and once made they are hard to change.

One of my colleagues has to deal with social services quite a lot and frankly some of the stuff they come out with is outrageous. That said, it's a pretty unenviable job in a lot of ways. No-one's going to thank you for taking someone's kids off them, but if you don't and something goes wrong, a la Victoria Climbie, Baby Peter etc, everyone goes mental.

It's not a job I'd want to do

[Lovejoy]

There was report yesterday where a mother was said to be a mile away shopping while her 4 & 5 year old were left on the beach which was subject to tidal drifts they where rescued by lifeboats with the water lapping around their necks.

Again those are the facts as reported, it also doesn't mention where the Dad was.

I thought kids these days don't have dads? Just loads of "uncles" ?

[Finnegan]

Talk about sitting on the fence!

You have to feel sorry for the mother. Any other child and it would be fine. You see 15 year olds with less brain cells than their babies who get to keep theirs, so this ruling is pretty ridiculous. Would it not be better to get someone to help the mother, rather than getting parents to adopt the child, or is that too much of a complex suggestion for these people?

Is it too soon for a Jade Goody comment?

[Guest Bilo]

Is it too soon for a Jade Goody comment?

Hell, knock youself out.

[BoneDog]

This is absolutely bang out of order. There are allsorts of low-life who are known (by police and social workers) to treat their kids like shit all the time and they get to keep the kids. This woman has done nothing wrong at all but they snatch her kid away from her before they even leave hospital just because she is deemed a bit 'thick'.

I was fuming when I seen it on Central News last night. Plain wrong and this countries authorities are nearly as low as can be. They don't give a shit about much, just talk alot about making things better while 90% of time making things worse.

[davieG]

This is absolutely bang out of order. There are allsorts of low-life who are known (by police and social workers) to treat their kids like shit all the time and they get to keep the kids. This woman has done nothing wrong at all but they snatch her kid away from her before they even leave hospital just because she is deemed a bit 'thick'.

I was fuming when I seen it on Central News last night. Plain wrong and this countries authorities are nearly as low as can be. They don't give a shit about much, just talk alot about making things better while 90% of time making things worse.

The problem is as someone said earlier they are under enormous pressure, due to recent events to take the hard line, it was only a few years ago when the reverse was happening they were taking a more 'benefit of the doubt' approach something went wrong somewhere and the media, followed by the public in a frenzied attack on Social Workers called for a stricter approach - this is probably the result.

Social Services are continually swinging from one approach to the other at the behest of the media and public, as in many cases we reap what we sow!

[Jon the Hat]

The problem is as someone said earlier they are under enormous pressure, due to recent events to take the hard line, it was only a few years ago when the reverse was happening they were taking a more 'benefit of the doubt' approach something went wrong somewhere and the media, followed by the public in a frenzied attack on Social Workers called for a stricter approach - this is probably the result.

Social Services are continually swinging from one approach to the other at the behest of the media and public, as in many cases we reap what we sow!

That said social services have a history of considering speculation and proposition as fact whilst ignoring clear evidence. They are quite happy to rely on expert evidence, sometimes based on only what said expert has read about the case, to prejudge people, whilst at the same time ignoring clear physical evidence of abuse elsewhere.

[Head Honcho]

One of my colleagues has to deal with social services quite a lot and frankly some of the stuff they come out with is outrageous. That said, it's a pretty unenviable job in a lot of ways. No-one's going to thank you for taking someone's kids off them, but if you don't and something goes wrong, a la Victoria Climbie, Baby Peter etc, everyone goes mental.

It's not a job I'd want to do

They are paid a lot more then most servicemen and no one is forcing them to do the job.

Until we rid a social service system where failure is continually met with a "Lets hope we can learn from our mistakes" attitude nothing will change.

[davieG]

That said social services have a history of considering speculation and proposition as fact whilst ignoring clear evidence. They are quite happy to rely on expert evidence, sometimes based on only what said expert has read about the case, to prejudge people, whilst at the same time ignoring clear physical evidence of abuse elsewhere.

I think you fall into the same trap as the media, why is the physical abuse so clear and yet other 'expert' evidence is wrong.

I had a friend who married a girl who already had two young children, after he married and moved in with her they suffered a number of broken bones - here was a guy taking on two children that weren't his and was seen as clear evidence of physical abuse. there was coincidently a number oh his profile media case of a similar nature. He was order by social services to leave the house and court proceedings against him were started, he was cast out into the community and as the public got to hear of it was verbally abused.

Later it was found, as they continued to suffer broken bones to have brittle bones.

Pressure from the media had caused the SS to overlook one crucial piece of timing that of the two children reaching toddler stage at the same time as he moved in.

He was in the end completely exonerated but there are, because of the over-zealous ill, thought out, clumsily investigated actions by a pressurised SS taking the obvious cause still people who shun him and believe him to be guilty and he still suffers to this day.

Physical abuse is not always so clear.

[skinnydipper]

There's some pisspoor journalism in that article which smacks of sensationalism. I'm sure that no one in the court process has described the mother as "too stupid" to provide good enough parenting. The court will have come to its conclusion on the basis of a number of assessments - social work, psychological and that of the children's guardian who is appointed by the court to represent the interests of the child and who often acts as a check and balance against an over zealous approach from social services.

The mother in this case must have significant problems in her functioning, either by way of permanent deficits in her cognitive ability or by fragile mental health that causes periodic impairment that can be so serious that she is, at times, even unable to understand the proceedings.

These sort of characteristics will inevitably affect a parent's ability to provide consistent good enough parenting and there must have been events or circumstances such as non accidental injury or neglect that resulted in the court removing this child from the care of her mother.A court could not approve the plan of adoption unless it was satisfied that the child either had suffered or was likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care given by the parent.

In such circumstances key questions will be

- what type of support is available to assist the parent in the care of the child

-what insight does the parent have in respect of the problems

- does the parent have the motivation and capacity to make the necessary changes

-if the parent is unable to meet the needs of the child are there other family members who are in a position to provide care

It's impossible to tell from that scraggy report if the right decision was taken in this matter but the circumstances of the case do highlight two areas of grave injustice in the system.

Firstly, in cases where the official solicitor is appointed to give instuctions on behalf of a parent who is deemed to have insufficient understanding to conduct the case in their own right that parent is often deprived of opposing the request for adoption as the O.S will take a pragmatic view on the basis of the expert assessments. Thus a parent who understands enough to know that they want their children returned to their care but is assessed as lacking capacity is prevented from advancing that case and testing the expert evidence. In contrast, a parent who just crosses the threshold of having capacity can instuct their lawyers to put whatever case they want. Whereas the O.S is meant to give a voice to the vulnerable it often deprives the most vulnerable individuals of having their views considered.

Secondly, I know not whether this is truly a learning disability case but the fact is that a significant number of children are permanently removed from parents with learning disabilities because those parents are deemed unable to meet the physical and emotional needs of the child as they develop. These people are not mad or bad but due to the failure of our system to provide them with appropriate support e.g accomodation with support services on the model of that provided to the elderly, they are deprived of the opportunity to bring up their own children. In a so-called civilised society that's scandalous.

Rant over

[Ultra]

I know not whether this is truly a learning disability case but the fact is that a significant number of children are permanently removed from parents with learning disabilities because those parents are deemed unable to meet the physical and emotional needs of the child as they develop. These people are not mad or bad but due to the failure of our system to provide them with appropriate support e.g accomodation with support services on the model of that provided to the elderly, they are deprived of the opportunity to bring up their own children. In a so-called civilised society that's scandalous.

Unfortunately, for the past thirty years "society" has decided that it prefers tax cuts to the provision of universal welfare services.

A consequence of this is that local authorities (in this case Nottingham City Council) are faced with horrendously difficult value judgements based on the level of resources available to them. They have considered the reports presented to them and concluded that the best long-term option for the child lies with foster parents.

An understandably emotive report on BBC yesterday suggested the mother would never be allowed to see the child again. If true, that would be incredibly harsh, and not justifiable on the evidence presented to viewers.

But in cases such as this the council, as a corporate parent, has a duty to protect all children in its care. And no member or senior officer of any council wants to suffer the same fate as Haringey after the Baby P case.