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 psychiatrist?s 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 expert?s 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, Rachel?s 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 Down?s 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?