Disabled pregnant friend, AIBU?

[FacebookStoleMyLife]

Please help! My friend has just discovered she is pregnant. She has a learning disability serious enough that she needs a carer. She is kind and sweet and a joy to be around but she isn't able to cope on her own (she needs help with anything financial, buying food etc). She can't cope with any loud noises, she has to leave the room. She struggles as well with any problems, she will get upset and repeat herself, asking the same question over and over until someone helps her. However she is so excited at the thought of being a mum.

Her partner has no disability but is convinced she'll learn how to look after the baby and he can carry on with his life and work as normal. I want to shake him.

I am terrified that she has no idea of what being a parent really means and nor does her partner. So, am I being unreasonable to be really scared for her and the baby, and honestly think this is a bad idea? Anyone been in a similar situation? What help will they get in terms of care? Will her partner be expected to stay home to care for the baby? Will they be given childcare to cover the hours her partner is at work (this is what they think will happen).
Thank you all in advance.

She has a loving and supportive partner and is excited about becoming a mother. She also has support from carers and a social worker. I know you are worried about your friend but it doesn't sound like the disaster you think it is. I really hope it works out for your friend and her little one.

The threshold for mental capacity to consent to sex has been subject to a number of court rulings in recent years. There's a good summary here [http://thesmallplaces.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/framing-test-of-capacity-to-consent-to.html The Small Places blog]] if anyone is particularly interested.

The top and bottom of it though is that even if on the balance of probability it's felt that someone may lack the capacity to consent to sex there are limited circumstances where professionals could actively intervene to prevent the sex from happening without depriving them of their liberty, and this would need agreement from a court. To take it that far as a social care professional you would have to be extremely concerned about the possible risk of harm in comparison to the alternative.

It is extremely naive for people to take the view that people with LD are somehow asexual by nature of having an LD. Most have sexual needs in just the same way as any other person in their community. Indeed at one point a significant proportion of my caseload as an LD social worker was managing issues caused by complex sexual relationships between a particular group of young adults with LDs in the local community.

Equally a man having a sexual relationship with a woman with a LD is not necessarily a predator.

If the OPs friend has support already in place then the OP probably doesn't actually have to call anyone, it will probably already being dealt with down the normal professional channels.

When my DS was a baby there was a young woman who attended one of the baby groups I used to go to. She had some mild learning disabilities which meant that her levels of understanding were greatly impaired. She too used to think her baby was naughty, deliberately troublesome, and she failed to interact with the baby i.e. to play with her etc, and the reason she attended the group was because of SS involvement and their concern over the impact her lack of interaction with the baby had on the baby’s progress. She also, I learned later, had an abusive partner.

I bumped into her in the park about six months later and it transpired her baby had been removed and was living with family where she was thriving. I learned later that all support available had been given to her to help her to raise her baby, but that unfortunately she just didn’t have what it took, added to the fact she had an abusive partner who she refused to leave, and SS had no option but to remove the baby. Unfortunately however it was predominantly because of her LD’s that they were involved, the partner was just secondary to that.

We of course have no idea what this woman’s level of understanding is. But if she has carers, then clearly she does have some profound needs, and as the OP states that it is LD’s she has rather than physical disabilities it does unfortunately follow that those needs do involve her levels of understanding.

Getting a full-time carer is virtually impossible. If she had a support worker only these would presumably be paid for through direct payments but a full-time carer is something which would need to be granted through the involvement of SS etc and is extremely rare unless the need is incredibly severe.

thesmallplaces.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/framing-test-of-capacity-to-consent-to.html

Sorry, a link that works would be better!

”She has a loving and supportive partner and is excited about becoming a mother. She also has support from carers and a social worker. I know you are worried about your friend but it doesn't sound like the disaster you think it is. I really hope it works out for your friend and her little one.” but the disaster may not come in the form of the OP calling to request some intervention, however if the support the woman already has in place has taken steps to intervene and the baby is removed or her ability to parent is called into question it will presumably be a disaster for her given she is currently excited about being pregnant.

What support is there in place for people with LD’s who do end up having their babies removed and raised either by family or put up for adoption? Is there support in place to help them come to terms with their loss when to them they were excited about becoming mothers only to have those babies removed?

Unfortunately, there seems to be little support available, certainly not enough, due to constant cuts.

This situation reminded me of a couple of articles the guardian published a while back.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/11/austerity-policy-blamed-record-numbers-children-taken-into-care

amp.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/17/how-stop-record-numbers-children-care-help-mothers

"Her partner has no disability but is convinced she'll learn how to look after the baby and he can carry on with his life and work as normal."

He doesn't sound like a very supportive partner to me, though perhaps he'll wise up when the baby arrives.

Lover there is virtually no formal support afterwards sadly. If the lady has support workers (usually on not much more than minimum wage) then they would essentially be expected to support them emotionally.

I think there is probably a view from the health professionals that it's 'social services responsibility' children's services have little more to do with the parents once a final decision has been made to adopt and adult services have huge caseloads and can't be involved on a day to day level with their services users unless they are in crisis.

Just like any other postpartum woman they could seek support for low mood etc from their GP but this would require them to recognise that they needed this support.

I always remember a midwife contacting me a month or so after one of my service users had given birth (and had the child removed) and telling me that I needed to remind the service user to do her pelvic floor exercises. I passed this on to the support workers but that's genuinely the most follow up I've ever been aware of from a health professional for a list partum woman in any of the similar cases I've dealt with over the years.

And herein lies a huge part of the issue. People here are saying that the OP and others are being judgemental, that the woman has support in place as she already has carers and social workers because of her own difficulties and as such they will be involved and therefore there’s no need for the OP to call them.

Yet if the mum’s difficulties are as profound as the OP states in that she needs full-time carers and the partner is refusing or unable to support her there is a very real possibility, likelihood even, that this baby is going to be removed and she, a vulnerable woman who is currently excited about the prospect of being pregnant is going to be left alone to deal with the aftermath if that happens.

So while the OP’s avenues towards intervention may seem somewhat misguided and to some even judgemental, her concerns are very much valid in terms of the wellbeing of her friend if the right support cannot be put in place for her be that through professional channels or a kick up the partner’s arse.

It’s all very well for people on here to accuse others of being disablist if they express concerns over someone’s ability to parent with profound needs, however it is a fact that many children of parents with severe to even mild LD’s are removed on a fairly regular basis. That fact can’t just be ignored because people don’t want to hear it.

I'm still failing to see the comparison, zzzzz. The only reason that Aboriginal Australians were considered unfit to be parents was because of sheer prejudice, not because of any actual issues that may impair their ability to parent. Of course on an individual level there may be some who weren't fit parents, just as white Australians may be unfit to parent for a variety of reasons, but there's nothing inherent about being Aboriginal that I'm aware of, which means that one is highly unlikely to be able to raise children.

Now, people with LDs are certainly individuals and many might be able to raise children with varying levels of support and they should be given that support, though sadly it's all too likely that they won't, but equally there are a considerable number, especially in the moderate to severe range who really could not raise a child even with support, because of the effects of their particularly LD. It's about so much more than literacy and numeracy for some.

I really can see few comparisons with your average Aboriginal Australian parent there.

In practical terms, if the resources to help the mum cope simply aren't there, then what?

She may well be able to learn how to manage, but it's not possible to leave a newborn with her until she manages as sadly any mistake can have catastrophic consequences.

It's one of the reasons the austerity measures are a load of bull- if people receive help preemptively and before they've hit rock bottom, then there's a better chance that the child won't need to go in care. Which will save money on courts, fostering and further issues that arise for adults that grew up in the care system. Not to mention how much heartache it would prevent.

No you really can’t make the comparison to the stolen generation, and tbh to do so is deeply offensive to that generation.

The fact here is that there are people who, because of their disabilities, cannot effectively look after a child. It may not be nice to hear, but it’s reality.

That doesn’t in any way compare to removing the children from people due to the colour of their skin.

No you still can’t make that comparison because the assumption that aboriginal children would be better raised in white families was an assumption based on prejudice alone. It is a fact that some people are incapable of being able to manage the needs of a baby due to the profound nature of their disability.

To compare the two is deeply offensive.

Disabled people can and do make excellent parents.

Mentally disabled people? Who need carers because they don't have sufficient capacity to look after themselves adequately?

I’m more concerned about how she fell pregnant to start with. If her disabilities are that severe, does she even have the cognitive abilities to understand sex and pregnancy? You say her partner is NT, sounds like he’s taken advantage of a vulnerable woman from how I’m reading it.

Yes that was exactly my first thought too.

If you’re worried about the child’s saftey then you should inform social services of the situation. They are qualified to make the correct evaluation x

I can’t see your parallel here either zzzz. Are you saying that inadequate parenting is a culture we’re all misunderstanding? Children aren’t removed “because their parents have LDs.” They are removed from a variety of circumstances and situations because they are at risk of serious harm. Each case is judged individually and that’s as it should be. The needs of the child are put first. That’s not at all the philiosophy that underlined the Stolen Generation, or other equally distressing mass removals from First Nation peoples in other countries around the world. It is taking action when a child is physically at risk in scenarios which not many people could argue were examples of “cultural differences.” We aren’t othering when we do that: we are doing the right thing by children in the real world.

In this scenario there likely is a positive way forward but the support needs to be getting sorted now.

@hatgirl Thank you for your sensible and well-informed posts. A big relief on what is mostly a thread of hysteria. Of course people with an LD can be a good parent, of course they can consent to sex and of course they have sexual feelings. That's not to say that applies to ALL people with LDs - it's a spectrum - but nobody on this thread is qualified to say whether it does or doesn't apply to OP's friend.

If someone is unable to look after themselves especially in areas one might reasonably conclude are pretty essential for any sort of quality of life, then I don't think it's too far stretch to suggest that they shouldn't have children. Your friend sounds like more of the luckier of those individuals through the sheer support of a professional and personal network. But that is not the case for everyone.

The concern raised about her is that she doesn’t have the life skills to parent effectively? Many people don’t sadly, some with lds, some without.