Shocking.

[IrnBruTheNoo]

Hard to believe that a couple who are doing a good job raising their DC are being slated like this...

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kerry-mcdougall-dumb-married-mum-2799857

My eyes are wide open. They are certainly open enough not to believe the shit some papers come out with

Is there a minimum level of intelligence required to bring up children.
Which child is in better hands :

1. A child brought up by two high earning parents who are always working to 7 pm. They never see their children so buy expensive presents , and are too tired and stressed to show affection.

1. parents who despite moderate learning difficulties, though have good family back up show total devotion and love for their children.

There might not be an objective minimum level of intelligence required to raise a child (and nor should there be), especially as support can make a big difference, BUT there is a point where very low intelligence will prevent someone being able to parent alone without a lot of support and help, and another level where someone cannot parent at all even with very extensive support. At point care could be legitimately considered or might be necessary

My DD2 has a learning disability and brain damage caused by alcohol exposure in utero. The reality is that if she were to become pregnant now, she would not be able to parent safely alone, she would either need to live with me and have us co-parenting to a certain extent, or live in some kind of supported accomodation with daily visits from me for several hours a day and other support services in place. Otherwise she would not manage to keep the child safe or meet it's needs. If she didn't have me and she got pregnant, the baby would most likely need to go into care and probably be adopted, and that's a hard thing to say but it's true.

When I was in hospital just having had one of my children, there was someone in the ward, who had obvious learning difficulties. [She had a partner, not sure on his level of difficulty, if any, and her immediate family didnt seem to have any as far as I could tell].

But one evening, she had the curtains round her bed. Dont know why. Perhaps she had been feeding or needed some privacy, or the nursees had done something, and forgotten to put the curtains back to mormal.
And everyone in the ward heard the baby cry for 2 hours.
With hindsight, one of us should have done something sooner. We were expecting a nurse to do something, but nothign happened for 2 hours.
Eventually I thougt that I had better do something. I gingerly pulled the curtains back, and there was mum, sitting on the end of the bed, with the crying baby in her arms. I was shocked and surprised. Presumably mum had been sitting there like that for hours.
I asked the mum whether she wanted a nurses help and she said yes.
And so I told a nurse and got the mum some help.

But I have puzzled and thought about that mum and baby ever since.

We have had mnothers jailed on the evidence of experts about Munchausen By Proxy in our courts.

I believe in a free press unrestrained to report on what they feel is right and to highlight what they believe is injustice and I support MPs like John Hemming to do the very important job of standing up for ordinary citizens in our Parliament and to use the great system of Parliamentary Privilege to bring forward what might otherwise remain hidden from the public.

If we had a freer and more open press and if we had more brave MPs like John Hemming then maybe Gordon Brown would never have had to apologise for the child migration policy that went on for years in this country, and which must have been known about by many senior people and government departments and legal professionals and judges, before Gordon brown was even an MP.

"Prime Minister Gordon Brown has apologised for the UK's role in sending more than 130,000 children to former colonies where many suffered abuse.

He expressed regret for the "misguided" Child Migrant Programme, telling the Commons he was "truly sorry"."

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8531664.stm

"Regarded as a test case in Scots law, the landmark legal action challenges the controversial theory of Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP), which she believes has resulted in thousands of parents being wrongly accused of child abuse.

"My son was only six months old. I'll never forget the day they took him away," said "Judith".

"I wrapped him in a blanket, gave him a kiss and handed him over to the social worker. He was three years old by the time we got him back."

She was accused of attempted murder, her two children were taken into care and she launched what was to become a long court battle.

Her nightmare began in September 1993, when her son stopped breathing and was rushed to Glasgow's Royal Hospital for Sick Children. Over the next few months, he suffered from vomiting and interrupted breathing. She said he was a victim not of violence, but of problems relating to Cisapride, a drug that has since been withdrawn in the UK.

After her children were placed with foster carers, a family court ruled that "on the balance of probabilities" she was responsible for the attacks. However, no criminal charges were brought and after two years both her son and daughter were returned home."

www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/d-day-for-mother-s-12-year-child-abuse-fight-1-722679

On another thread, cant be bothered to find it, it was established by a family court lawyer I think, that in 50% of cases judges throw his work out of the window as it were. For being wrong presumably?

Do you work for him, or have connections with him in any way, claig?

Actually, now I come to remember, you once said that you shout for the common man, even though they may be in the wrong? Or something like that?

No offence, but this thread isn't about John Hemming. Don't even know who he is!

'Do you work for him, or have connections with him in any way, claig?'

Not at all.

'you once said that you shout for the common man, even though they may be in the wrong?'

No, I never sad that. I support what I believe is right, not anything that I think is wrong. That's why i do not support New Labour.

However, I believe that John Hemming is doing a great service to the country and the people, even if he may get some things wrong and I don't know whether he does or not since I don't follow that closely enough, because he is challenging the justice system and asking them to justify some of their decisions.

Good point IrnBru. Especially as it is your thread!

Trouble is we never know all the facts.

I agree though, that on the face of it, they are not being treated well.

Worries me. I have mild learning difficulties (dyspraxia, probable Aspergers and ADHD) and would love to have children one day. I know I could cope with the right level of support. Ironically I have cared for children for years through voluntary work, have babysat etc, and never had any complaints.. Yet I'd be terrified of having children in case something like this happened.

Bloody hell, stop pushing your agenda about John Hemming. Start your own thread please, claig. John Hemming is not even directly involved with the case in Scotland I'm referring to!

If he had something to do with, I'd understand why you're raising his name in relation to it.

Do you work for John Hemming per chance??

Sorry x posted with Golddigger

John Hemming is a LibDem MP. I don't even vote LibDem, but that doesn't mean that I don't admire what he does and think he is one of teh best MPs in Parliament.

"On another thread, cant be bothered to find it, it was established by a family court lawyer I think, that in 50% of cases judges throw his work out of the window as it were."

But don't you think that there can be miscarriages of justice? Don't you think that sometimes innocent people are locked up or children are removed from their parents unjustly?

"Bloody hell, stop pushing your agenda about John Hemming. Start your own thread please, claig. John Hemming is not even directly involved with the case in Scotland I'm referring to!

If he had something to do with, I'd understand why you're raising his name in relation to it."

Why don't you inform yourself and read the thread and what I posted about it way up the thread before starting on about agendas?

An article from 2010 says that John Hemming was helping the couple

"LibDem MP John Hemming, who has been supporting the couple, said: ‘There is no evidence that Mark and Kerry cannot be good parents and I just hope that the Irish authorities can resolve this as quickly as possible.’ "

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245190/Mother-clever-raise-child-baby-removed-social-workers-running-away.html

shouldnthavesaid I can see why you would be upset by this report, I was upset as my middle son has learning difficulties. I think as much as possible you have to assume that we don't know the whole truth.

If it is as basic as it sounds it is a bloody travesty and I can't believe there isn't more of an outcry.

Fair do's, I'm in the wrong for not reading that part claig.

Sorry

No problem, I've made mistakes not reading threads loads of times myself

This thread seems to have moved faster than I anticipated. Didn't think it would interest many.

I think most of do agree though that there's more to this story that we're lead to believe. There has to be.

There is probably more to it on all sides. That is why I personally do not normally comment much on threads like these.

If they are capable, which they maybe are, then lets hope for the right outcome.

I have been in touch with Mark and Kerry for some time.

This is another case about capacity
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2148069/Mother-24-fled-Spain-social-services-ruled-unfit-bring-child-allowed-daughter.html

Here is another interesting case (not learning difficulties)
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1434.html

The weird thing about the article is that the SS and LA and police as quoted all sounded v restrained.

To Claig's point, there are four possible outcomes:

1. Miscarriages of justice (ie children unjustly removed)
2. Protection failures (ie children who are not removed and are harmed by their parents)
3. Successful non-interventions (ie children who are not removed and are not harmed by their parents)
4. Successful interventions (ie children who are removed and are saved from harm by their parents)

Some problems:
1 and 2 receive media attention, 3 and 4 do not
1 and 4 are not easily distinguishable. A successful intervention can look like a miscarriage of justice, especially if the evidence is treated partially (as newspapers are able to do but as courts are not supposed to)
3 can be come 2 at any point, but not vice versa
1 and 2 are very rare compared to 3 and 4, but the risk factors for 1 and 2 are quite common.
It's a shitty, invidious task to get right, and the constant risk of pillory is not one I could cope with.