Star Hobson’s mother

[HermioneWeasley]

I read as an incidental comment that she had an IQ of 70. This doesn’t seem to have been taken into account by social services in terms of her needing more support or being vulnerable. Does anyone know what would normally happen? It seems like a very significant factor which should have had social services on alert.

@stingofthebutterfly

I think they'll appeal her sentence and use this tbh. Coupled with the DV issues, I'm sure her lawyer (and many others, myself included) feel that her sentence should have been reflective of culpability category B, and it wasn't, the judge used category A. I don't even think she should have been found guilty of causing or allowing, tbh. Cruelty, yes, but I don't think that she caused, nor allowed Star's death. I genuinely think she was too cognitively impaired to appreciate that Brockhill was capable of killing Star.

I hope they appeal and her sentence is increased.

The 'average' IQ range is between 85 and 110.

An IQ of 70 is significantly and noticeably below normal.

In the film, Tom Hanks' fictional character, Forrest Gump, was deemed to have an IQ of 75. Hanks went to a lot of trouble to ensure he was accurate in the portrayal.

An IQ of 70, would mean an 'academic' level of a 7 or 8 year old.

Well if my child had a low IQ/learning difficulties and had a baby, I'd be making sure they were looking after the baby properly, not going out on the piss with them every weekend 🤷🏼‍♀️
Having a low IQ doesn't make someone cruel or turn a blind eye to their child being injured.

I think the bigger issue is that, apparently, social services decided to buy the line that the family were just making trouble by reporting abuse as they disapproved of the same sex relationship. There have been other cases like this, where proper investigations are not carried out because social workers treated a case differently because of the protected characteristics of the person the complaint was made about. Victoria Climbie's social worker said she did not act on punishments that would have caused her concern in a white British family because she put it down to cultural differences, .I read a case where a social worker admitted she ignored signs within a same sex male relationship, where they fostered boys, because they were same sex, even though she would have been concerned in a heterosexual relationship (they were abusing the boys in their care).
When it comes to safeguarding no group should have protected or privileged status.

Though on reflection, if social workers knew of the mothers' low IQ they perhaps should have been alert to the possibility of this being an abusive relationship, especially with allegations of abuse. If the partner had been a man maybe they would have been looking into this more closely.

@blacktreegreysky

Though on reflection, if social workers knew of the mothers' low IQ they perhaps should have been alert to the possibility of this being an abusive relationship, especially with allegations of abuse. If the partner had been a man maybe they would have been looking into this more closely.

Honestly it just sounds like the social workers didn’t have the capacity to look closely. The department was hugely understaffed, it had been consistently found to be inadequate over several years, lots of workers were agency temps and social workers often had caseloads 2 or 3 times what would be considered “safe”.

Everyone involved knew the service wasn’t safe or adequate. It’s amazing anyone was still showing up to work at all.

There will be lots more cases like this - in social services and others like maternity services and health & care that are now routinely operating on unsafe staffing levels.

Social services were contacted time and time again a set of grandparents looked after star for a while .her "vulnerability" isn't a get out for the child's murder of course she Is responsible and accountable.

And UK had no difficulties convicting the 10 year olds who murdered James Bulger for murder.

FS wasn't found not guilty of the murder charge because she had a low IQ. She was found not guiilty because the evidence pointed to SB as having delivered the blow that killed Star.

She was found guilty of allowing the death and her IQ was argued as a mitigating factor not to try and get her off.

And all of those people saying your children will never hurt anyone - can I borrow your crystal ball I could use a lottery win this weekend.

@ozanj No, none of the culpability categories have anything to do with removing children. That's SS decision at the time. Category A assumes she was a rational person of normal intelligence, was well aware of her actions and not subjected to a coercive relationship. DV and learning difficulties come into category C. On balance, her lawyer determined category B was appropriate. This has a maximum sentence of 8 years, and a starting point of 5 years.

I don't think her sentence is correct, when following the guidelines, but obviously I didn't witness the whole trial. I can only go by what I've read. I'm sure it'll be grounds for appeal though.

That's not to say that I don't think she should be punished for what she's done.

@xxxGirlCrushxxx

I have no idea what my IQ is! Do you know yours?

How does it matter?

70 is very low, SEN level.

I definitely didn’t mean to imply that a low IQ means someone is cruel or abusive, my thinking was definitely about it making someone vulnerable and possibly an easy target for a cruel and abusive person. You’d think that in the context of abuse allegations, it would be an additional risk for SS to consider. Agree with the poster who said it also wasn’t properly investigated because they used homophobia as a shield.

Horrifying case.

@MichelleScarn

By googling, it suggests a mental age of about 12.

My 5 yo would know its not right to purposely hurt or be cruel to someone in the way Star Hobsons mother behaved.

But your 5yo would not be held equally responsible if an adult had lead them to hurt another child.

I’d be surprised if she went through school without anyone knowing she had a low IQ and her needing additional support so it would have been recorded somewhere. A sibling has similar and it was always known, he receives disability allowance.

I don't think it means much overall ,my youngest son has severe autism and learning disabilities ,his IQ was never tested but he will always need 1:1 24 hour care
My oldest son had his IQ tested at primary school ,as he had a lot of issues ,it came out at 75 ,he's now 15 he's not academic ,but he's really matured ,we have a lot of chats about his thoughts and beleiifs etc ,and he most definitely knows right from wrong ,he's very mature and very age appropriate ,his Iq only appears to affect him on an academic level ,he will most definitely be able to hold down a job ,live independently ,have a relationship etc .

I find the whole IQ thing bizarre. Surely the only question should be "was her IQ such that she was not capable of physically and emotionally looking after Star" - for example she was incapable of knowing how to feed / bath/clothe Star so Star was unsafe.
From the few anecdotal things I have seen in the press there are suggestions in my mind at least that say "yes she was incapable". For example some neighbour said she fed Star inappropriate food at a barbeque; and there is a phone video clip of FS asking Star "Do you love your mums? Do you love me?" to which Star eventually replied "Yer". To me that just literally suggests someone so immature that they had absolutely no grasp of what looking after a child involves.
There is talk about her immaturity in the papers - that at 16 and 17 years she was still playing with dolls and a fan of Justin Bieber etc - and to me that just suggests that Star was just a "doll" to her - any actual caring of Star was way more than she was capable of. And Social Services should have recognised that long before Star was killed.

On a separate matter whilst I appreciate the reluctance because of a possible open-the-floodgates for genuinely malicious reporting, i think the whole family court system should be changed so that if blood family members (perhaps with a minimum number - say 5 different family members) get together they can fill out forms and "fast track" court applications themselves (i.e.circumvent social workers if they are not doing their job) to get children removed if they have evidence (photographs and what not) of suspected abuse.

In Arthur LH's case there were several family members who raised the alarm in the same way there was in Star's case. And this fast track idea would be especially helpful if the family members themselves have previously personally looked after the child/had the child living with them (as was the case for both Arthur and Star).

@bubblesbubbles11

I find the whole IQ thing bizarre. Surely the only question should be "was her IQ such that she was not capable of physically and emotionally looking after Star" - for example she was incapable of knowing how to feed / bath/clothe Star so Star was unsafe. From the few anecdotal things I have seen in the press there are suggestions in my mind at least that say "yes she was incapable". For example some neighbour said she fed Star inappropriate food at a barbeque; and there is a phone video clip of FS asking Star "Do you love your mums? Do you love me?" to which Star eventually replied "Yer". To me that just literally suggests someone so immature that they had absolutely no grasp of what looking after a child involves. There is talk about her immaturity in the papers - that at 16 and 17 years she was still playing with dolls and a fan of Justin Bieber etc - and to me that just suggests that Star was just a "doll" to her - any actual caring of Star was way more than she was capable of. And Social Services should have recognised that long before Star was killed.

On a separate matter whilst I appreciate the reluctance because of a possible open-the-floodgates for genuinely malicious reporting, i think the whole family court system should be changed so that if blood family members (perhaps with a minimum number - say 5 different family members) get together they can fill out forms and "fast track" court applications themselves (i.e.circumvent social workers if they are not doing their job) to get children removed if they have evidence (photographs and what not) of suspected abuse.

In Arthur LH's case there were several family members who raised the alarm in the same way there was in Star's case. And this fast track idea would be especially helpful if the family members themselves have previously personally looked after the child/had the child living with them (as was the case for both Arthur and Star).

Yes it's the maturity level as well as iq ,,people with less than average iq,s can be adequate parents if they are mature enough to know how to care for children and keep them safe She was 17 when she had star so very young too , None of these excuse what she did though .

x2boys yes and I don't know for certain but my guess is that of all teenage mums the ones which have the closest knit family support network are the most successful and the ones which do not are the most open to this type of possibility we see in Star's case.

Quite a lot of people have low IQs, but are gentle & good parents. It does mean she was more susceptible to negative influences & hence why her sentence is lower. I know someone with a similar IQ who quite frankly believes anything anyone tells her.

Social Services wouldn't know her IQ as it was tested as part of her defence while she was in custody

Her mum has said numerous times that Smith needed extra support at school, didnt not pass any exams and has never held down a job.
Her mum said Smith was mentally very young and immature, still playing with toys and dolls and listened to tween pop type music.

Smith was also living in supported accomodation, although the level of support was not stated.

I think what happened to that little girl was horrific, I have 2 babies under 2 myself.

however, I think frankie would of been extremely easy to manipulate and evidently was. when asked why she was ringing/sending pictures of star facing the wall to Savannah she replied because she told me to.

Savannah was also physically and mentally abusive to frankie, who was very young when she had star, and comes across like she thought Savannah parenting style was how you looked after a child and believed when savannah told her time and time again that she was naughty.

frankie did ask her once as well what happened to this baby she is covered in bruises, Savannah lied and said she fell over.

it doesn't excuse it at all but frankie was clearly not fit or mature enough to be a mother and it is just sad that the little girl never got to stay with her great grandparents.

"when asked why she was ringing/sending pictures of star facing the wall to Savannah she replied because she told me to."

Personally I feel cynical when I read the above and the other stuff about low IQ.
I am sure I read somewhere that FS herself joined in all the stuff like filming star falling off her highchair and FS called Star "c*nt" etc. You don't do that kind of thing "because you have a low IQ".

I feel like FS's family have really tried to max out on the whole she-is-thick-therefore-was-vulnerable thing and the sentence reflects the fact they were successful at that.

I also think this "sheltered accommodation" thing for young mums is terribly inadequate and often does not work - for example

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9871273/Teen-mother-19-left-starving-baby-11-times-two-months.html

She’s a vile bitch who hurt her baby and let her partner torture and kill her baby. There’s no excuses or reasons. She belongs in hell.

@Bigbum56 you're thinking of the girlfriend savannah