Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Not intelligent enough to marry- ss at it again

93 replies

atlantis · 12/09/2009 00:33

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.

OP posts:
limonchik · 12/09/2009 14:58

Why would social services be engineering this to get the baby though? It sounds very unlikely to me.

drlove8 · 12/09/2009 15:06

baby's are in high demand.... no one wants to adopt an older child or teenager , so if they can get a baby and "save" it they will imo .
Time will tell whats really going on here, however unlikely ....i wouldnt trust the ss in fife.

limonchik · 12/09/2009 15:13

Why though? What benefit is it to the social services to take a child that isn't at risk and have it adopted? Especially given that the law is geared towards children staying with birth families and they'd have to get a court order to do so.

MitchyInge · 12/09/2009 15:15

I think there are financial incentives for social services to meet adoption targets.

MitchyInge · 12/09/2009 15:16

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576025/Labours-adoption-targets-to-be-scrapped.html

limonchik · 12/09/2009 15:19

I see - but those targets were scrapped last year by the look of that article, so presumably wouldn't effect this case?

drlove8 · 12/09/2009 15:37

Yes but by stoping the wedding they are giving cause for "at risk" status beause the mother has LD .They are suggesting that she will not be competant enough to care for a newborn. Her with husband gives them no cause.

seeker · 12/09/2009 16:13

I am as fond of a conspiracy as the next woman, but the idea of social services doing this in order to "get the baby" strikes me as far fetched in the extreme.

Why is it not possible to believe that a vulnerable young woman is being looked after by the Social Services in the absence of her parents? I'm not saying that is the case, but it seems a more likely explanation than a complex plot to steal babies.

limonchik · 12/09/2009 17:39

I agree with seeker - social workers conspiring to stop a wedding in order to steal a baby doesn't seem all that likely. It's certainly more likely that this young woman is unfortunate enough to have a rubbish social worker with prejudices against people with LD. Equally possible that social services have genuine concerns about her welfare given that she's a vulnerable teenager in a relationship with an older man.

But, based on one side of the story as told by a tabloid journo, and given that social services aren't going to give their account of events, we can't possibly know.

MrsMuddle · 12/09/2009 18:54

I would think that the SW director has welfare guardianship for this young woman, in which case, he or she is doing the right and proper thing by stopping to wedding to check whether or not the woman has the mental capacity to consent to marriage and to undertand the implications of what is, after all, a legal contract.

MrsMuddle · 12/09/2009 20:12

Sorry - also meant to say that they will want to check that she has not been coerced into marriage, or is not being abused - sexually, emotionally or financially.

I don't buy into the baby-snatching conspiracy theories. I have had dealings with Fife Council in a professional capacity, and it has a reputation of being a progressive LA when it comes to people with learning disabilities, and I am sure that they are doing what they are doing for the right reasons.

nymphadora · 12/09/2009 20:21

I think she is probably under a care order which runs until she is 18. Which makes childrens services a parent which can over ride the family if needed. I assume they didn't give permission for the wedding (also probably it's council policy)

It also sounds like it was done heavyhandly without tact or common sense!

ilovemydogandmrobama · 12/09/2009 20:33

The registrar has the discretion not to marry them if there is reason to believe the applicant doesn't have mental capacity to consent to marriage. Presumably social services wrote the registrar and then the registrar exercised the discretion.

But how bizarre. I used to live near a residential home for Down Syndrome adults, and several of them married each other. There wasn't the issue of not having capacity to consent.

2shoes · 12/09/2009 21:18

imo very sad story, 2 people in love, should be allowed to marry.

slowreadingprogress · 12/09/2009 21:58

good god. That people would actually think ss plan this kind of thing to get hold of a baby. Why the hell does any one bother being a social worker and taking the heavy responsibilities of the role and worrying about people and trying to help people lead fulfilling lives. They might as well absolutely all give up. FGS. I've never heard such complete crap in my life.

Yes of course there will be mistakes and bad sw's just like there are bad staff in any job but to ascribe that sort of motivation to people who choose to do the job is just jaw dropping.

drlove8 · 13/09/2009 08:37
  • but as the ss were fine about her living with fiancee for -four- -months- ,i think its a bit
Why did they not stop her moving in with him in the first place? Living with someone is not that different from being married to them(aside from legal side).I just dont get it, (tbh the baby -snatching theory i said earlier in thread is a bit far fetched , but it seems to "fit" ) FIFE ss are (some of them are a bit , some are very good). There is one in particular who, having been in the position for a number of years, is a total twunt probably not the best sw around i suspect the couple in question have that one. its all very sad. like previous poster said a man who wants to look after his baby and loves his fiance ,whats wrong with that?
TheDMshouldbeRivened · 13/09/2009 08:50

adults with down syndrome. Not Down syndrome adults.
nit picky I know.

drlove8 · 13/09/2009 10:01

lol RIVEN ! good point! .... actually this is quite worring for me. i have a daughter with SN ... I would love for her to grow up and get married if she wanted to...i doubt that will ever happen. But she doesnt "look" disabled - so you never know , perhaps a NT person will fall in love with her?.
I do understand the need for extra protection for vunerable people, but i still think , in this case the ss shouldnt have blocked the wedding.
Could it be they dont think that a SN person and a NT person should be together?- not so long ago ther was similar predudice towards mix race couples.

bigstripeytiger · 13/09/2009 10:11

drlove8

The only information that you have about this case is the information in the article. Its possible that there aspects to this case that the daily mail doesnt know about or hasnt chosen to report.

The wedding at this point has not been blocked for ever, just put on hold to allow a proper assesment of this persons capacity.

TheDMshouldbeRivened · 13/09/2009 10:12

I hope to goodness an NT person falls for dd. She cant do anything so he/she will have to cook, clean etc etc
Although my prejudice sister said 'why would anyone marry a quadriplegic?' Cheers sis.

bigstripeytiger · 13/09/2009 10:12

sorry, that should say 'we' in the second line, not 'you'

Why is there no edit button here!

drlove8 · 13/09/2009 10:43

stripy - a edit button would take all the fun away! .
good point though re: DM .... because they're so reliable , arn`t they?.lol

drlove8 · 13/09/2009 10:47

RIVEN , i think your sis and mine may be BF! .... mine thinks dd4 is "putting it on" ????wtf. How on earth can a four year old pretend she has asd?.... some people !

ilovemydogandmrobama · 13/09/2009 10:53

The residential home was for Down syndrome adults. I don't understand what's wrong with that? Sorry.

drlove8 · 13/09/2009 11:08

the phrase "down syndrome adults" is irritating. its like thats all there is , the people with downs ,are nothing more.
A bit like saying" single parent mums" - yes you can be a single mum , but theres often more to the story kind of thing?
you dont say angina adults, diabetic adults, ms adults .its usually adults with x y or z. bit pedantic ,but still