Not intelligent enough to marry- ss at it again

[atlantis]

Social workers banned a young woman from her own wedding in an extraordinary row over whether she is bright enough to get married.
Kerry Robertson, who has mild learning difficulties, was told her wedding was being halted just 48 hours before she was to walk up the aisle with fiance Mark McDougall.
Miss Robertson, 17, had bought her wedding dress and the couple had booked the church ceremony, bought the rings and organised a reception to be held last Saturday.

But two days before they were due to say their vows in front of 20 guests, social services told the bride-to-be that she would have to cancel the big day because she 'did not understand the implications of getting married'.
Yesterday, Miss Robertson, who is five months pregnant, said the decision was cruel.
She said: 'I am still so upset about everything. I know what marriage is. It is when two folks want to spend the rest of their lives together. I love Mark and I want to get married to him.'

Miss Robertson, of Dunfermline, Fife, has been in the care of her grandmother since she was nine months old after her parents were unable to look after her, with her welfare overseen by social workers at Fife council.
In January this year, she met Mr McDougall, a 25-year-old artist from Arbroath. When Miss Robertson became pregnant, they began making wedding plans.

Mr McDougall said their nightmare began last Thursday when two social workers arrived at the flat they have shared for the past four months.

He said: 'We were about to go out and make final arrangements for our wedding when we heard a frantic rapping at the door.

'When we opened it, two social workers burst in and told us that the marriage was illegal because Kerry has learning difficulties and did not possess the capacity to make such a decision.

'Kerry burst into tears. 'But despite arguing with the social workers that we loved one another and didn't want our baby to be born to unmarried parents, they wouldn't budge.'

Under Scottish law, a registrar may refuse to marry a couple if he believes one or both the parties lack the mental capacity to understand what the institution of marriage is about.

In a highly unusual step, the registrar at Dunfermline Register Office refused to sanction the marriage after Fife council wrote a letter of objection.

Mr McDougall claims Miss Robertson's learning difficulties are not severe. 'It's true she is not very academic,' he said. 'But she is nowhere near as stupid as social services are making out.
'She is a loving caring person. She can also read and write, although not very well, and was going to college to catch up.
'I didn't even know she had learning difficulties until we'd been dating for two months.
'At that time, social services said they were pleased we were together and seemed supportive.
'For the first time in her life Kerry was truly happy so we cannot understand what all the fuss is about.'

The couple are concerned that their unborn baby, a boy they have already named Ben, could be taken away if Fife council judges Miss Robertson unable to care for him.
She now faces a psychologist's assessment to determine if she is too unintelligent to get married.
Mr McDougall said: 'We are both going to fight this all the way. We feel the fact we want to get married should be encouraged, not forbidden.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212867/Youre-intelligent-marry-bride-told.html

What's the betting they are setting her up with the psych evaluation to take the baby away and not allowing her to marry will make it easier for them.

You don't think it's slagging someone off to automatically assume that SS is in the right, hercules, and she is too unintelligent to marry?

You don't think they were right about Fran Lyon, too, or all the other people, including one member of this board, who had their kids taken off them for flimsy reasons?

I am not assuming anything. What is true is this is only one side of the story.

I am completely against the idea of anyone being too unintelligent to marry. I can't say more without giving away some of my anonimity. (sp)

expatinscotland Sat 12-Sep-09 09:38:48 Add a message | Report post | Contact poster

"And why does there have to be more to this than reported? Because people don't want to believe that people with LD and other disabilities aren't treated like second-class citizens by SS?"

I can assure you that I have absolutely no difficulty in believing that disabled people are treated like second class citizens.

Doesn't mean I am prepared to make my mind up on any one case until I have heard both sides of the matter. Does that amount to slagging anyone off?

I'm certainly not assuming that SS are automatically in the right, but the Daily Mail is not a paper famous for its balanced reporting. And the social services will (very properly) not be able to put their side of the story.

And I fail to see why it is "slagging off" (what an awful phrase that it) to think that it is POSSIBLE that this young woman may have been/is being exploited. I would be very concerned it my dd was in a sexual relationship with a man 8 years her senior while she was a young teenager - and that is without her being particularly vulnerable.

It does when you assume the other side of the story is somehow acting correctly because it can't possibly be a case of the authorities systematically discriminating against adults with learning or other disabilities.

'I would be very concerned it my dd was in a sexual relationship with a man 8 years her senior while she was a young teenager - and that is without her being particularly vulnerable. '

I was involved sexually with a 23-year-old man when I was 16.

My first cousin became pregnant to a 22-year-old man when she was 16 and married him. She's 32 now. Still married to him. Has two children now.

16 is the age of consent for a reason, whether you agree with it or not is neither here nor there.

Oh, and she's 17.

expat - noone is assuming they're right. We are fully aware that people with learning disabilties and/or are treated like second class citizens. That doesn't mean the daily mail is showing the whole story.

I did not assume the other side is acting correctly. My whole point is that there may well be another side to the story- that doesn't amount to saying that the other side has got to be right. We just can't know.

I do believe there is discrimination against people with learning difficulties. But that does not mean that every single sw in every single dealing they have with every single person with learning difficulties can have no other agenda than discrimination.

It may well be that this is a case of discrimination. But we can't know that yet.

They are of course discriminating if the story is as it reads, they haven't even followed their own procedures properly. To say someone isn't intelligent enough to understand marriage they would need to do a mental capacity assessment, they should do this with every decision made on behalf of someone who is considered to 'lack capacity' at any point a decision is being made on their behalf. In practice this doesn't happen with every day decisions but with a major decision like this of course it should. With the MCA assessment you are not allowed to assume that someone who doesn't have capacity in one are lacks capacity in another so if she had been assessed previously for a different issue this finding cannot be transferred to the issue of marriage. Pwld are discriminated against daily, I can only assume that either they were concerned about the vulnerability of the girl and the older man (I know this wouldn't happen with someone without ld but LA's have a duty of care) or the poor girl happens to have a poor social worker who fails to understand the implications of any of the recent adult social care transformations

In the area I live, to come under SS disability (Wales) you need to be diagnosed as having a severe disability- which is

Vat A- either a terminal illness otr one meaning you need constant care with all the activities of daily living; and also a diagnosis that will not improve (tehey use that against us becuase we can't PROVE he wont improve, ds1).

So I'm not oing to comment on the actual couple as there are two many ambiguities BUT

1. I've worked in a unit where a space was converted for two residents (mod LD) to have as a shared unit as they were in a relationship that ahd been proved to be LT. fabulous, care at its best.

1. I am aware of a home start that ahs worked to keep babies with aprents with LD by ploughing support in every day at firsyt, then evry other until it was weekly with extra traininga orund weaning / cooking etc: it worked, and it worked bloody well.

there are options,sometimes it takes someone to make a leqap of faith to take them though.

I don't know what to think about this one because:

"I know what marriage is. It is when two folks want to spend the rest of their lives together."

• er, no... it's actually a legal contract as well.

But then again, if they expect her to understand the implications, they should expect every other person without learning difficulties to as well, which many don't!

They should be supporting her to marry, not forbidding.

expat - so if a dd of yours came home at the age of 16 and told you she was in a sexual relationship with a 24 year old man you'd be completely cool with that would you?

And if your 17 year old told you she was pregnant by ANYBODY - never mind a man 8 years older than her you'd be completely cool with that as well??

I am aware of relationships like this that work - but most don't. And this young woman is particularly vulnerable.

It is ridiculous to say they should be encouraging her to marry without knowing ALL the circumstances.

seeker, it wouldn't matter if i were 'cool' with it or not, she'd be old enough to make that decision legally for herself. there'd be nothing i could do about it.

and, having been in that situation myself, i know how 16-year-olds are.

so yes, i'd rather supportive of her because if i'm not, well, she's going to do it anyway.

it's not ideal for teens to fall pregnant at 17, but it happens.

if the alternative to being 'cool' with it is to lose my daughter, because 16-year-olds can also leave home, then i'd rather be supportive.

The mental capacity act doesnt apply in Scotland. In Scotland that Adults with Incapacity act applies.

Also, generally in Scotland social work have pretty strict criteria for when they will become involved with people with learning disabilities.

The social workers looking after this lady are unlikely to be also involved with placing babies for adoption, so are unlikely to have any ulterior motive for trying to take her baby into care.

As everyone else has said, this is one side of the story.
It may well be that after her capacity has been formally assessed that she is felt able to get married, but if there is significant doubt among the people who know her then its probably sensible to address it before she goes through a potentially invalid ceremony.

What was meant by a 'ploy to get hold of a white baby boy'? Why would SS want a child to support?

Toddler - easier to adopt presumably, or it was years ago.dont know if still the same.

Agree with comment expat made - this is a guy who got his girlfriemd pregnant and didnt run a mile. There are other cases where couples have got together and been supported by SS.

It's impossible to make any judgement about this based on only one half of the story filtered through a Daily Mail journalist.

she can get married if she wants, in Scotland if you are over 16 you can get married, have sex but you can't smoke and drink alcohol . Nice - that makes total sense, like.

and I agree, we're only seeing one side of the story here.

good on her boyfriend for sticking by her through the pregnancy and wanting to share their lives together..not many men do that nowadays.

Ouch about the age gap comments from others on here. There's an 8 and a half year gap between DH and myself (he is the eldest) and we get on fine. There's nothing wrong with their ages.

i live in the SS area for that team . i have had a friend who unfortunatly had dealings with them.
she has five kids , her ex-husband cheated and left her for the ow.
after 2 years of being single she met her ex-P.He ticked all the right boxes , good looking , solvent,had job, good with kids ,and apeared to adore my friend. He moved in with her.
After 6 months friend had new job, ex-p looked after kids , she worked for a few hours at weekend.
She came home to her kids hysterical one day. EX-P had beaten up her 6 yr old daughter, horrifically bitten the childs face. Friend phoned police , had him charged ,(he did get jailed btw), got dd counceling and medical care, and has never ever dated again.
SS was alerted to the horror , and offered support to my friend.
Then they took away her two oldest kids and placed them with her EX-H MOTHER.(he hadnt even seen them since he walked out years before)
The rest of her kids were on the "at- risk" regester.its beyond a joke - she is the most loving supportive mum, she lives for those kids..... but because she was duped by an evil b¬stard she's been through hell with the ss.
there is a little hitler in that department.
The couple in article should have been married , i too think they're just trying to get the baby.... after all they cant get the baby if his dad is married to his mum.... he would have legal rights then .
i hope they get the church wedding done asap!

I don't understand this "they're trying to get the baby" - why? And the father has parental responsibility regardless of whether they marry so long as he is named on the birth certificate doesn't he?

should also add that friends dd is now a healthy happy teenager , and has turned out to be a loving kind girl, just like her mum.
friend has a troubled relationship with her two oldest kids, who were told by ex-mil that she didnt want them/didnt love them... they are both in early twenties now....
SS removed the at risk status after a long hard battle , friend had to "prove" that no risk was posed to kids . ex-p was banged up (was freind that reported it), restraining orders and all that didnt seem "proof enough" at the time, a course of parenting classes and frequent visits (once every 6 months for years) did the trick though

limonchilk - i suppose its because the ss in theory can take the baby as soon as its born , if mother is married then father has rights as soon as baby is born , otherwise its only after they regester the baby.(or name him on birth certificate to be more accurate).