Talk

Advanced search

woman dubbed not bright enough to marry having baby removed at birth...what do you think?

(236 Posts)
thesecondcoming Sun 18-Oct-09 19:28:52

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sarah293 Sun 18-Oct-09 19:35:18

Message withdrawn

TotalChaos Sun 18-Oct-09 19:43:41

the poor poor lady sad

Callisto Sun 18-Oct-09 19:47:08

I remember this from a few weeks ago too. I think there is an awful lot not being said about the whole thing, but I remember at the time thinking (and posting probably) that she wasn't being allowed to get married so that SS would have an easier job taking her baby away when it is born. So it suprises me not at all that this is the outcome. I feel very sorry for the father as well as the mother.

edam Sun 18-Oct-09 19:51:04

Good grief. Poor woman (and father-to-be). Surely preventing her from marrying is a breach of the Human Rights Act (right to family life)? And why take the baby away without giving her and the father a chance?

My sister is an LD nurse and has plenty of tales about health and SS professionals who seem not to understand that her patients are full adult human beings who have a right to be treated with the same respect as anyone else.

edam Sun 18-Oct-09 19:51:36

Hope someone tells the poor girl about John Hemmings, btw.

I would say there was certainly more to this story. I would hazard a guess that ss and GM share PR of Kerry, as she is not yet 18, so therefore they didnt give permission for wedding, therefore illegal.
As for the baby, they make it sound like they will remove the baby and that will be it, I have never heard that to be true. SS have to give evidence to courts to remove babies at all, and then more evidence to suggest adoption.
Either way, if father put his name in, they would HAVE to agree to assess him, unless they already have evidence to say it would be unsafe.

Cometrickortreatingwithme Sun 18-Oct-09 19:54:38

Link here.

WartoScreamo Sun 18-Oct-09 19:56:19

I know when I had dd there was a woman with severe learning difficulties. We both spent several weeks on the ante natal ward together. I have to say that having some knowledge of her (and her partner - who seemed an agressive bully), I did worry for the future of their baby.

In that particular case, I would probably think that an early adoption was a good thing - though hate myself for thinking it. Every case should be judged individually I think. Some parents might cope fine with a little bit of help. Others not sadly.

sarah293 Sun 18-Oct-09 19:58:32

Message withdrawn

edam Sun 18-Oct-09 19:59:00

There very probably is more to the story but equally it's entirely possible that SS are hostile towards the father. I know of a case where SS insisted a young woman with LDs went into a mother and baby home - the SW stated quite plainly among colleagues this was an attempt to dissuade the father from involvement. He was said to be 'over-involved' as he visited his partner and baby every day in hospital.

Prejudice against people with LDs is still rampant, sadly, even amongst health and social care professionals.

abra1d Sun 18-Oct-09 20:01:43

What a very, very sad story.

I think we do need more mother and baby homes.

Callisto Sun 18-Oct-09 20:05:04

How can a father be 'over-involved' ffs?

edam Sun 18-Oct-09 20:07:27

Quite, Callisto - horrifying comment.

A lot of people have a problem with people with learning disabilities having a sex life.

Mother and baby home not actually required here where the mother father is a competent adult (unless SS know something to his discredit).

ImSoNotTelling Sun 18-Oct-09 20:13:19

There must be more to this though surely? As on the face of it, it's so completely and utterly wrong.

bigstripeytiger Sun 18-Oct-09 20:18:09

We only have one side of the story here.

Social services always try to place the baby with a relative if possible, and the father of the baby being unmarried would not be a bar to him being considered for care of the baby.

thesecondcoming Sun 18-Oct-09 20:32:45

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeninGhoul Sun 18-Oct-09 20:44:00

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeninGhoul Sun 18-Oct-09 20:46:56

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

without saying too much, i have worked with paretns with LD before and certainly here if its not a clear cut case we will use a certain house we have in the area. You can have 2 families staying for 6-12 weeks and they are observed nearly all the time, but if seem to be doing well, less so. Its hard to keep a pretence all day

Pixel Sun 18-Oct-09 22:03:46

This is so awful.sad Having learning difficulties ^isn't a crime^ but she is being punished anyway. How dare SS ruin what should be a happy time for her like this, when she has done nothing wrong and they have no evidence that she will not be able to cope with her baby. FGS, how many highly educated, capable women struggle in the first weeks with a new baby?

Spero Sun 18-Oct-09 22:09:25

I've said it many times before, but sadly, it looks as though it bears repeating.

Social Services CANNOT just 'take babies away'.

If they think a child should be in care, and the parents disagree it has to go TO A COURT.

the mother gets a lawyer, paid for by the state. The father gets a lawyer, paid for by the state. The child gets a lawyer, paid for by the state.

The judge has to make a decision which is in line with domestic and international law and whic is very very clear that the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration and that the courts do not indulge in social engineering. If the natural parents are 'good enough' they are the ones to raise their child.

this is a story in the Mirror. My guess would be there is about 90% of the backstory which you are not being told because that wouldn't make a very interesting bit of tabloid frothing would it?

memorylapse Sun 18-Oct-09 22:11:10

Im quite horrified by this story..what this young woman needs , is support to bring up her child, not having her baby taken away from hersad

Spero Sun 18-Oct-09 22:16:33

Dear Memorylapse and what if the support she needs is 24/7 for the next 18 years? Are you going to pay for that?

Spero Sun 18-Oct-09 22:23:46

It's funny; only a few months ago I was dead against opening up the family courts because I thought it was important that children were protected from having their very diry family laundry washed in public.

But after this, the nth thread along the lines of 'I read it in the Sun and its shocking' I have totally changed my mind and I now think it is absolutely essential that the family courts are open to all and sundry so you can actually see for yourself the impact of really awful parenting on children and you will accept that these are not decisions taken lightly or maliciously.

seiously, if I could get permission to bring a lay observer into court with me, how many of you would come? Or is it just easier and to read something in a newspaper and just accept it?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now