Another social services story(68 Posts)
THere must be more to this story than we are being told. How could the mother be identified as too 'stupid' to be a parent in the first place, if she has no learning difficulties or SN?
This sort of thing has been going on for years and is the reason DH stopped prosecuting childcare cases. It's an abuse of power.
It is very odd, there is clearly something going on but her qoutes in the papers do not appear to be those of someone with an IQ of 71 IYSWIM. I wonder if they were fed lines r her own words.
I am not sure what to think TBH, some of it seems unreal, some ot it seems to indicate that they have a point.
I think the too stupid thing is just the papers being inflamitory though, which makes me cross. THey are saying she has learning difficulties that mean she cannot look after her child, last time I checked saying someone may have learning difficulties is not the same as calling them stupid.
Nottingham have form on this and were blasted by another judge for treating a mother unfairly - and I think breaking the law by removing a baby without a court order.
Do hope John Hemmings is on the case, as well as being quoted. Her lawyers sound on the ball too.
Quattro, that's fascinating although a shame good people like your dh have to bow out rather than stand a chance of changing the system from within.
My sister is a learning disability nurse and has many, many examples of social workers who are prejudiced against mothers with LDs and discriminate against them. Although there are some good social workers, obviously.
Regardless of the back-story, to over-ride a woman's right to independantly chosen legal representation on the grounds that she is unable to instruct counsel, and for that representative to act against her express wishes, is appalling disenfranchisement.
One article says she has no learning disabilities and the other says she does
Oh hang on there were 2 seperate reports. Ignore that comment.
From the second link, sounds as if claims that she is too thick to care for a child are at best dubious. 'According to a new report by a leading psychiatrist, Rachel is far from deficient. He said she had demonstrated that she has more than an adequate knowledge of court proceedings.
She has good literacy and numeracy and her general intellectual abilities appear to be within normal range, he wrote in a report.
She has no previous history of learning disability or mental illness and did not receive special or remedial education.
Rachel fully understands the nature of the current court proceedings, can retain them, weigh the information and can communicate both verbally and in writing.
The psychiatrists report, ordered by the court last year to assess whether she could continue to represent her case for continuing contact with K, was a reversal of the previous experts opinion.
While it was accepted by the family court as evidence of her legal astuteness, it has cut no ice with the family court judge in respect of her ability to look after her daughter.
In a separate study last year, Rachels overall IQ was rated at 71, although her processing speed was scored higher at 84. She was categorised as border-line, one level below low average intelligence. Someone with Downs syndrome would typically have an IQ of 50-60. The IQ of an average adult is 90-109.
IQ tests are questionable at best and certainly not designed to measure someone's ability to care for a child, FFS!
Where on earth did the idea she was too thick come from?
If she has ever demonstrated that she lacks the intellegence to look after her own child independently, then she needs to be given support in every form possible to help her look after her own child. THAT, should be first and foremost, unless there is neglect, risk of harm involved. If it is a cse that a mother does not have the knowledge or the skills to deal with a difficult situation, teach her, give her the skills, and the support. Where possible a child should not be removed from her parent(s). I have seen cases which involve neglect, drug use and more over years where the adoption has not been this quick, and where the parents have had more rights and the child has stayed in the famiy home. Not saying that is right either, but being 'stupid' does not necessarily make you a bad parent. Clever people can be bad parents too.
Obviously, that is assuming we have the facts here.
Snigger - it's happened before (taking someone's lawyer away because they are 'too thick' and giving them the official solicitor who of course sides with the officials). Appalling.
Shame the disability discrimination act appears not to apply to the actions of SS in child protection cases, or to the courts. Or does it?
it's stories like this that make people panic when there is any involvement of SS in their lives.
kingcanuteiam what would you expect a person with an iq of 71 to say? its a genuine question.
this article has really angered me, and also scared me slightly, edam, you are absolutley right iq tests are designed to test inteligence on maths, english and science not at how well you can change a nappy, feed, put to bed and love a child. (i do know there is much more to parenting than that!)
i too have a low iq, and yes it is an iq of 71, the same as rachel. i am a childminder and on a recent ofsted inspection was graded satisfactory. i'm clever enought to fill out the contracts and child record forms and completly understand what they all say and mean as well as all the other paperwork that goes with the job.
i'd be absolutly heart broken if someone told me that i could not do my job or look after my own children because my iq was close to that of a person with LD.
Even of Rachel has a low IQ, that child has a right to be with her mother!
The social services should be doing everything necessary to allow them to be together, even if it means 24/7 live-in support workers. Adoption should be an absolute last resort (or maybe not appropriate at all) in situations where there is no abuse.
Leon, I am not sure, her quotes are very elequent and well worded, the grammer is good. I didn't really mean the words were wrong someone with an IQ of 71. I am not sure why I worder it that way.
I more meant that her quotes do not come across as being the type of thing someone could be saying that would make SS decide they were not capable because of their IQ IYSWIM
So, if she speaks like that in RL and has the grasp of her situation that those quotes imply she does, how have they managed to come to the conclusion they have? That is why I wondered if the quotes were fed. She comes across (from a very limited source I admit) as being far more intellegent and capable than SS are portraying her.
Sorry if that makes little sense, I am finding it hard to put into words what I am thinking.
She is obviously capable enough to find a solicitor and try to get her daughter back though KingCanute, even despite being screwed over by the "official solicitor".
And IQ tests are so dodgy as to be almost meaningless anyway!
That is what I mean, it just doesn't add up. I can't see, given the little information here, how they managed to come to the conclusion they have.
Perhaps she had help finding the solicitor? But that would indicate (to me) that she is also able to find help if she needs it in other situations too so I can't see that as a negetive... it just doesn't make sense....
kingcanuteiam i see what you mean. i agree that all of this just doesnt make sence
Quite, Kingcanute. But Notts social services have form on behaving unjustly and flouting the rules, as the judge in the other case I mentioned pointed out.
It may be a particular problem with Notts, a particular problem with one SW manager, who knows?
(I don't mean the judge made comments generally about SS, just on the other case he was handling.)
I wonder if this is a matter of malice on behalf of the woman's XP? (Or someone else). Repeated accusations that Rachel is abusing or neglecting her child because she is stupid or mentally ill would have to be investigated even if they were complete bullshit.
SGB, the child has never been home alone with the mother by the looks of things.
Join the discussion
Please login first.