ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th March 2010, 09:44 AM   #1
Einzig
Scholar
 
Einzig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 88
Child taken away from low IQ parents

http://tinyurl.com/yz43ssp

Two mentally challenged parents were to be given their newborn baby after it stayed a day longer in the hospital for checkups. The next day however they get to hear that they will not be given their child because they are seen as unfit parents. Besides the inhumanity to lie to them after the child already was born, where should the line be made to interfere whether people will probably be good parents? So far they have gone without extra health services for looking after themselves and there is no mention of aggressive behavior.
The parents only think it would be nice to get extra help to look after the baby.

From what I read in the media, normally children are only taken away when there has been proof they have abused their children. Isn't it hypocrite that aggressive people and those that binge drink and smoke heavily do not get the general advice from the government to not have children, but as this article states the mentally retarded do?
Einzig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 09:52 AM   #2
Simon39759
Master Poster
 
Simon39759's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,285
I would like to have a bit of corroborative evidence before I get myself too worked-up...

But, yes, it would be shocking and disgusting.
Handicapped or not, the parents appear able to take care of themselves independently. There is no indication that they had any troubles going through the procedures for the pre-natal care and such.
So, it seems that their handicap does not interfere very significantly to their independence and there is no suggestion that taking care of the baby would be any problem, especially if a little bit of support is offered.

At this point, it seems like a human right issue. I hope the couple appeal, at the worse, I am fairly convinced the European human right court will support them...
Simon39759 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 09:56 AM   #3
Cavemonster
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,232
The article is pretty skimpy on details, it doesn't even include any attempt to contact authorities for a statement.

There isn't enough information here to form an opinion on the case.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 06:23 PM   #4
Einzig
Scholar
 
Einzig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 88
I found the follow up of this story, the original is here

This is the corrected Google translation text.
May 2009 'After waiting six months, the mentally challenged couple may take care of their baby.

"He's finally home," said mother Miranda.
[..Description of the parents handling the baby lovingly..]
Their son was, within one day after his birth on October 2008 in the hospital, already placed in a foster home in Amerongen. At the intercession of the Council for Child Protection, the Arnhem court agreed with the abduction. There were doubts about the parental skills of the parents.
Henk and Miranda are allowed by an interim ruling by the Arnhem Court, by way of test, to try to take care of the baby. This is because the foster family have quit being a foster family by May 1st and a new foster home could not yet be found.

Coincidentally, the organization "MEE 's Heeren Loo"[*], for people with intellectual disabilities is located several hundred meters from the home of Henk and Miranda. The parents receive 24-hour care from them. Hendrikus will go in a nursery three days a week. In his bedroom is a webcam, making sure that even at night he can be monitored. Their family supports the three with care too.

In August 2009 the court decides whether Hendrikus may remain permanently with his parents. Henk and Miranda have confidence in the future. Henk: "At least we now have the chance to prove ourselves."

The Council for Child Protection would have preferred that the new study on the parents' [abilities] was completed. '

[* This 'MEE' organization is the one that contacted the Council to state their concern on the skills of the parents, while giving them the impression before that they agreed they were fit to be parents and promised to help in the first place. The source of this article is also found on their website]



The newest July 2009 article in short states that they may keep the baby, but will continue to be under Child Protection supervision until October 14th 2009.
Einzig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 06:34 PM   #5
INRM
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,505
If the parent's are not unfit, why are they taking away their kids?
INRM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 07:02 PM   #6
Einzig
Scholar
 
Einzig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 88
Originally Posted by INRM View Post
If the parent's are not unfit, why are they taking away their kids?
Because they are mentally challenged and are so "a risk".
My argument is that if they can take care for themselves, they are fit enough.
Einzig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 07:59 PM   #7
Cylinder
Philosopher
 
Cylinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,472
Originally Posted by Einzig View Post
My argument is that if they can take care for themselves, they are fit enough.
Could not disagree more. Taking care of a child requires (among other things) a good bit of abstract thinking. That's why 8-year-olds are generally pretty good at taking care of themselves but would not be fit to care for an infant.
__________________
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm
Cylinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 08:08 PM   #8
GreyICE
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 7,149
Originally Posted by Einzig View Post
The newest July 2009 article in short states that they may keep the baby, but will continue to be under Child Protection supervision until October 14th 2009.
This seems reasonable to me. I dunno if its a case of authorities changing their mind after reasonable people object, or a case of the media changing its story after reasonable people point out its wrong, but w/e.
GreyICE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 08:30 PM   #9
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 8,815
They should've given them a Cabbage Patch Doll. If the parents figure out it's not real in 10 days, then they get their kid. Problem solved. Goddamn I'm a ****in' jenius.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 10:49 PM   #10
Andrew Wiggin
Master Poster
 
Andrew Wiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,914
Originally Posted by Einzig View Post
Because they are mentally challenged and are so "a risk".
My argument is that if they can take care for themselves, they are fit enough.

From the sound of it, the parents recieve 24 hour a day care from a nearby organization.

A
__________________
"Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the
world." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled,
the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in
them?' " - H. G. Wells
Andrew Wiggin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 10:58 PM   #11
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,148
[quote=Simon39759;5723889]
Handicapped or not, the parents appear able to take care of themselves independently[quote]

They both work in a sheltered workshop. That is far from being able to take care of themselves independently. I don't see how people who need that level of support are able to adequately care for a baby.
The baby's needs should take precedence over the parents'.
kerikiwi is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2010, 11:10 PM   #12
quadraginta
What was the question?
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 9,909
Quote:
Henk and Miranda are allowed by an interim ruling by the Arnhem Court, by way of test, to try to take care of the baby. This is because the foster family have quit being a foster family by May 1st and a new foster home could not yet be found.

If they weren't fit to take care of the child when a foster family was handy, how did they suddenly become more fit when one was not as conveniently at hand?

Is child endangerment a relative value, dependent on what this court finds expedient?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2010, 01:46 AM   #13
MikeMangum
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,856
Originally Posted by Einzig View Post
Two mentally challenged parents were to be given their newborn baby after it stayed a day longer in the hospital for checkups....

Heck, that's nothing. I'll have to find a link later and post it, but I recently (within the past few months) read a story about 2 parents from Scotland who were told that their baby would taken from them when it was born because the mother had a learning disability. Not mental retardation; a learning disability. The couple moved to Ireland, thinking that they would be able to keep their baby that way...but when it was born, Irish authorities gave it to Scotland. The article included quotes from the mother, who seemed like a normal person to me.

Ahh, found the link:
Quote:
A couple who fled to Ireland after social workers threatened to remove their baby at birth have had the newborn snatched after all.
Kerry Robertson, 17, who has mild learning difficulties, and Mark McDougall, 25, went on the run after British social services said she was not clever enough to raise a child.

But just four days after Ben was born, Irish social workers marched into the maternity ward and forced them to hand him over.
That's why I believe the government should not be able to take anyone's child away unless the person has been convicted of a crime of abuse or neglect.
__________________
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
-- Henry A. Waxman, U.S. Congressman (D-CA)
MikeMangum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2010, 01:58 AM   #14
Delscottio
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 810
Originally Posted by MikeMangum View Post
snip
Ahh, found the link:


That's why I believe the government should not be able to take anyone's child away unless the person has been convicted of a crime of abuse or neglect.

How do you know they haven't?

Something has alerted social services to this couple and a mild learning disability generally isn't something they get that involved with. As always one side of the story can be peddled with out fear of contradiction because of confidentiality. I put my mortgage on the fact that there is something else that has led to the removal of the child.
Delscottio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2010, 02:55 AM   #15
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,808
Originally Posted by Einzig View Post
Because they are mentally challenged and are so "a risk".
My argument is that if they can take care for themselves, they are fit enough.
I am not sure that is true, and it seems unclear exactly how independent the parents are as well. Enzig's second set of articles, it seems that the parents live near and get care from an organization.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2010, 03:00 AM   #16
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,808
Originally Posted by MikeMangum View Post
That's why I believe the government should not be able to take anyone's child away unless the person has been convicted of a crime of abuse or neglect.
If the parents can't take care of themselves, and they seem to be less than totally independent, even in the first article they don't have jobs that are not specifically designed to be had by mentally disabled. Why would you assume that they can care for someone else?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2010, 03:00 AM   #17
Lothian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 10,366
If they took children away from low IQ parents I can think of a number of places that would turn into Vulgaria.
__________________
.
.
.
.
.
.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2010, 04:31 AM   #18
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 36,156
Originally Posted by Einzig View Post
Because they are mentally challenged and are so "a risk".
My argument is that if they can take care for themselves, they are fit enough.
It is really hard to say either way without more details.

The level of care for oneself, vaies considerably and there are different ways of judging it. Many people 'live independantly' but have someone to manage their money and other people who take them shopping and check on the condition of their apartment on a regular basis.

Then there is the issue of the 'level of functioning' and which areas of functioning it impacts. many adults withd evelopmental disabilites are very capable of raising children,, and they do so rather well. They may not be able to help with the homework but they are still great parents.

I unfortunately knew a woman who had had a stroke in her twenties and it impacted her cognitive functioning, she was able to care for herself but she was unable to make reasonable judgements regarding the welfare of her child, so she lost custody. It was sad, she was very capable in some ways, but just could not make those 'reasonable' judgements. And that is the common standard here in the US, 'is it what a reasonable person would do'.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2010, 04:34 AM   #19
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 36,156
Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin View Post
From the sound of it, the parents recieve 24 hour a day care from a nearby organization.

A
Depends on that level of supervison, having an available staff memeber is not always that intense a level of supervision. Often residential facilities have mixed levels of functioning, you can have people who are capable and those who are less capable.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2010, 05:24 AM   #20
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 48,257
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
They should've given them a Cabbage Patch Doll. If the parents figure out it's not real in 10 days, then they get their kid. Problem solved. Goddamn I'm a ****in' jenius.


Am I a bad person for laughing at this?
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2010, 05:44 AM   #21
Einzig
Scholar
 
Einzig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 88
Originally Posted by Cylinder View Post
Could not disagree more. Taking care of a child requires (among other things) a good bit of abstract thinking. That's why 8-year-olds are generally pretty good at taking care of themselves but would not be fit to care for an infant.
How do you define taking care of yourself? What 8-year-olds do is nothing self-sustainable. They live with their parents and are not responsible for anything, but not failing in school.

Many pointed to that the parents get 24-hour assistance.
That is only since the baby was born, before that the article states they received no help. They just contacted this MEE organization to discuss with them if it was a good idea to have the child and raise it. MEE first agreed they were fit, but offered to help to be sure. Then they changed their mind.
Reading the comments, I agree that
Quote:
My argument is that if they can take care for themselves, they are fit enough.
is maybe too straightforward. However, when it comes to rights, we in general do not sanction people that have done nothing wrong, but "could". Nor do we sanction people that have an aggressive nature by taking away their children before any harm has been done or proven. For that matter any parent can consciously abuse their child, we all know that is not rare compared to problems with disabled parents at all.
What I meant was that looking at how they lived (sure they work at a special workplace), getting the help they have now should have been the logical option to begin with. If they are observed to be incapable, they could still have lost custody, just like with any other family.
Einzig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2010, 05:56 AM   #22
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,808
Originally Posted by Einzig View Post
Many pointed to that the parents get 24-hour assistance.
That is only since the baby was born, before that the article states they received no help. They just contacted this MEE organization to discuss with them if it was a good idea to have the child and raise it. MEE first agreed they were fit, but offered to help to be sure. Then they changed their mind.
Given the nature of reporting, and the difficulties in reading computer translated information, I would not be confident at the level of support they received before. They are not independent enough to be in the general work force after all.

They likely received some support, the issue becomes was how much support do they need to lose the label of being independent?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2010, 12:12 PM   #23
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,148
Originally Posted by Delscottio View Post
How do you know they haven't?

Something has alerted social services to this couple and a mild learning disability generally isn't something they get that involved with. As always one side of the story can be peddled with out fear of contradiction because of confidentiality. I put my mortgage on the fact that there is something else that has led to the removal of the child.
The report also uses the terms 'snatched' and 'marched' to give the impression of evil authorities picking on innocent people.
The mother has mild learning difficulties, and the report claims that is the reason the child was removed. I don't believe it.
Alarm bells tend to ring at other facts in the story : a 17 year old girl and a 25 year old father. Reason enough for caution..
All too many dead babies are the offspring of very young parents.
I am much more concerned for the welfare of a baby than the rights of a parent.
kerikiwi is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2010, 12:16 PM   #24
Whiplash
Acting like a maniac
 
Whiplash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post


Am I a bad person for laughing at this?

I'd like to say yes, but the fact that you pause to ask the question is a good sign. Maybe there is hope for you yet.

__________________
Ken Buddha.. a smile, two bangs, and a religion.
On the ricochet.. it's gonna hit you. It's always funny until someone gets hurt.
Whiplash is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2010, 02:16 PM   #25
Delscottio
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 810
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
The report also uses the terms 'snatched' and 'marched' to give the impression of evil authorities picking on innocent people.
The mother has mild learning difficulties, and the report claims that is the reason the child was removed. I don't believe it.
Alarm bells tend to ring at other facts in the story : a 17 year old girl and a 25 year old father. Reason enough for caution..
All too many dead babies are the offspring of very young parents.
I am much more concerned for the welfare of a baby than the rights of a parent.
To be fair it is quite mild for the Daily Mail.....
Delscottio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2010, 03:08 PM   #26
INRM
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,505
But if they're able to raise the child, what's the problem?
INRM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2010, 03:25 PM   #27
quadraginta
What was the question?
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 9,909
Originally Posted by INRM View Post
But if they're able to raise the child, what's the problem?

Apparently they are only unable to raise the child if foster families are available. If the supply of foster families falls below a certain threshold their competence magically improves.

I think the causality of this phenomenon may merit more study.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.