Too Stupid To Have Children.

CR 7

Finally, authorities are seeing sense. Up with this sort of thing!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245190/Mother-clever-raise-child-baby-removed-social-workers-running-away.html?printingPage=true

A couple who fled to Ireland after social workers threatened to remove their baby at birth have had the newborn snatched after all.
Kerry Robertson, 17, who has mild learning difficulties, and Mark McDougall, 25, went on the run after British social services said she was not clever enough to raise a child.
But just four days after Ben was born, Irish social workers marched into the maternity ward and forced them to hand him over.......

[Too many words, see title for more details.]

...............The Irish authorities refused to comment last night.

Stephen Moore, executive director of social work at Fife Council, said: ‘I can confirm that although the Robertson family are not presently within Fife, we are committed to working closely with professional colleagues elsewhere to ensure safety and welfare of the child and indeed the whole family as this is of paramount concern to us.

‘I would urge Kerry to use all the support that is being made available to her and her baby and to get appropriate help should she need it.’

hitlersson666

Park Ji Sung wrote: »

Finally, authorities are seeing sense. Up with this sort of thing!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245190/Mother-clever-raise-child-baby-removed-social-workers-running-away.html?printingPage=true

A couple who fled to Ireland after social workers threatened to remove their baby at birth have had the newborn snatched after all.

Kerry Robertson, 17, who has mild learning difficulties, and Mark McDougall, 25, went on the run after British social services said she was not clever enough to raise a child.

But just four days after Ben was born, Irish social workers marched into the maternity ward and forced them to hand him over.

They were told they were acting at the behest of their British counterparts.

The couple, from Fife, Scotland, have been on the run for three months.

In September, their wedding was halted just 48 hours before the service when social workers claimed Miss Robertson was not bright enough to understand the marriage declaration.

Then in November they were told that her ‘disability’ meant their baby would be taken away at birth.

With Miss Robertson 29 weeks pregnant, they fled their house in the middle of the night and travelled to Ireland.

Ben was born healthy and weighing 7lb 3oz last Friday.

Last night Miss Robertson said: ‘When the Irish social workers said I had to give the baby to them, I felt sick.

‘I didn’t want to hand him over and I started crying because I couldn’t believe what they were saying. I thought I had misunderstood.

‘I had just been breastfeeding him.

Just before they took him away, I told Ben I loved him and gave him a kiss.’

Mr McDougall added: ‘Kerry let out a dreadful cry when she realised what was happening – it was terrible. She is just in pieces.

‘We believed that the Irish had more traditional values than social workers in the UK. We found a two-bedroom cottage in a beautiful village in Waterford overlooking the sea.

‘Kerry booked herself in with the local GP and at last we began to feel as if we were safe.’

An anonymous benefactor has been funding the couple after they left home with just £200, and has even paid for the house.

Artist Mr McDougall has also been selling pictures while friends and family have donated clothes, baby gear and further money.

Miss Robertson has been cared for by her grandmother since the age of nine months after her own parents were unable to look after her, with her care overseen by Fife Council.

She began getting contractions last Friday and the couple went to the local hospital, where she gave birth after a natural labour.

‘Both of us were overjoyed,’ said Mr McDougall. ‘Ben was absolutely perfect.’

But on Tuesday morning two Irish social workers – a man and a woman – came to the hospital and delivered the bombshell.

Mr McDougall added: ‘It seems that through Kerry’s medical records – although we have been on the run she has always ensured she had all the checks and scans on the baby – Fife Council had been alerted.

‘The social workers said that now Ben was born, Fife had put him on the at-risk register and he was subject to a care order.

As the social workers told us the news, the two midwives who have been caring for Kerry were so distressed that they fled the room.’

Ben is being cared for by foster parents.

Family law experts said that if Fife had genuine concerns about the baby it had a duty to pursue the couple even once they had fled its jurisdiction.

Under a 1980 European convention on child welfare, they would have contacted the Irish authorities to alert them and the Irish would then have sought an order from a judge allowing them to intervene.

Irish social workers now have to investigate for themselves and have until Monday to make a decision on the case or apply for an extension.

The couple have been allowed to see their son for two hours every other day.

Miss Robertson said: ‘Holding him made me upset all over again. I’ve told the social workers I don’t want him to have bottled milk or a dummy. I feel breastfeeding is so important and at least then he is still having some of me.’

Mr McDougall claimed the care order had the wrong baby’s name on it and the wrong date of birth. He added: ‘Kerry and I are now absolutely furious because we believe our baby has been kidnapped by social services.’

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.’

The Irish authorities refused to comment last night.

Stephen Moore, executive director of social work at Fife Council, said: ‘I can confirm that although the Robertson family are not presently within Fife, we are committed to working closely with professional colleagues elsewhere to ensure safety and welfare of the child and indeed the whole family as this is of paramount concern to us.

‘I would urge Kerry to use all the support that is being made available to her and her baby and to get appropriate help should she need it.’

considering i live in foster care this really hits a raw nerve with me :mad: them fcuking heartless social workers should be taken to court for discrimation!!!!!!!

Jay P

hitlersson666 wrote: »

considering i live in foster care this really hits a raw nerve with me :mad: them fcuking heartless social workers should be taken to court for discrimation!!!!!!!

Heartless social workers?
They're doing the child some good by taking him/her away from a Mother who doesn't have the mental capacity to raise him/her properly.

MaybeLogic

Jay P wrote: »

Heartless social workers?
They're doing the child some good by taking him/her away from a Mother who doesn't have the mental capacity to raise him/her properly.

She sounds articulate enough,if her quotes in the report are anything to go by.
That's a disgrace,I think. (what happened)

Lollymcd

Park Ji Sung wrote: »

Finally, authorities are seeing sense. Up with this sort of thing!!!

This is a really sensitive case, the extent of which is not dealt with in this article. Your statement is quite far off the mark.

PFJSplitter

Funny story - I wonder where the truth ends and fantasy begins. There ARE 2 parents, yet the focus seems to be on the mum....

El Weirdo

PFJSplitter wrote: »

Funny story - I wonder where the truth ends and fantasy begins.

Seeing as it's from the Daily Mail, I'd say right about here.

Lollymcd

PFJSplitter wrote: »

Funny story - I wonder where the truth ends and fantasy begins. There ARE 2 parents, yet the focus seems to be on the mum....

The rights of the father don't count as they are not married, he therefore has no jurisdiction over the child.

The couple were prevented from marrying by social services.

rockmongrel

I see no mention of how she is mentally challenged... Gwan the quality journalism of the Daily Mail.
Seems terrible to me to say she's too stupid without going into details, seems like the authorities just said "Oh look, durs a retard, gis your baby".

My name is URL

This would make an excelent RomCom / Thriller

johnnyskeleton

Jay P wrote: »

Heartless social workers?
They're doing the child some good by taking him/her away from a Mother who doesn't have the mental capacity to raise him/her properly.

I would have more faith in a mentally challenged natural mother than in the state to know what is best for a child.

Taking children from an environment where they could be physically or mentally abused, or where they are probably going to die or be caused serious harm is one thing, but the reality is often that social workers decide in their all too fallible wisdom that they should intervene in cases where they really have no business to do so.

If a child is not given an advantage in life because of his mother's less than average IQ, that is at least better than him not being given that advantage because he was taken from his natural mother and put into care.

They should bring article 40 proceedings to have the baby given back to them.

Ickle Magoo

It's atrocious. There is a long, long list of children in the UK let down by their local child services after numerous complaints, various social work reports and hospital visits - yet Fife council think in all their wisdom they can tell while the child is still in it's mothers womb that she doesn't fill the criterion for functioning mother - how the hell did they do that? :mad:

ejmaztec

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's atrocious. There is a long, long list of children in the UK let down by their local child services after numerous complaints, various social work reports and hospital visits - yet Fife council think in all their wisdom they can tell while the child is still in it's mothers womb that she doesn't fill the criterion for functioning mother - how the hell did they do that? :mad:

Because they're gods and know everything, except when a kid gets murdered and they run around passing the buck at a public enquiry.

caseyann

In these cases i believe if a parent is simply not capable to take care of a child instead of taking child away and displacing children from love of their parents,Place the parent in classes to enable them to become more capable to take on a roll as parent.But when child is just born the audacity to say not intelligent enough to take care of child is ludicrous.
I see kids wandering streets here in dublin of age between 7 and 14,Where is social then? And babies who are left in houses alone One such story i heard of north side,Baby crawling around back garden in nappy in rain and door locked,2 Years old.Neighbour rang police and they came to house but did nothing.:mad:

SoulTrader

My name is URL wrote: »

This would make an excelent RomCom / Thriller

Indeed it did.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277027/

dylano_k

hitlersson666 wrote: »

considering i live in foster care this really hits a raw nerve with me :mad: them fcuking heartless social workers should be taken to court for discrimation!!!!!!!

Hitler left his son in foster care??? what an evil basterd

stovelid

Decreeing that people can't be parents solely on the grounds of supposedly nominal intelligence sounds bogus.

Especially as thousands of parents, who supposedly intellectually pass muster, can't fulfil a parental role because of addictions, or just plain disinterest.

If that's what the case here is. I suspect that there could be more to the case?

BluesBerry

Id say there is a lot more to this than what we know the social services dont take children from their parents if they didn't have something to worry about
They just don't go and take children of people for nothing there is a reason behind this decision that will probably never be disclosed
They are doing their jobs if they didn't and something was to happen there would be public uproar as to why they were not doing their jobs


Nothing to do with this story but there was a case a couple of years ago when the father killed his wife and children with her consent they even arranged their funeral that mother had a learning disability and look what happened there

rockmongrel

You complete bastard OP. Have you no empathy at all? This is a terrible case and you act like its some kind of triumph.

BluesBerry

rockmongrel wrote: »

You complete bastard. Have you no empathy at all? This is a terrible case and you act like its some kind of triumph.

Are you talking to me?

rockmongrel

BluesBerry wrote: »

Are you talking to me?

Sorry, directed at OP

Jay P

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I would have more faith in a mentally challenged natural mother than in the state to know what is best for a child.

Taking children from an environment where they could be physically or mentally abused, or where they are probably going to die or be caused serious harm is one thing, but the reality is often that social workers decide in their all too fallible wisdom that they should intervene in cases where they really have no business to do so.

If a child is not given an advantage in life because of his mother's less than average IQ, that is at least better than him not being given that advantage because he was taken from his natural mother and put into care.

They should bring article 40 proceedings to have the baby given back to them.

Ok...that's a really good point. I don't know a whole lot about state care.

Admitting I'm wrong is harder than I thought

themadchef

Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

Remember, social services have let whole families who needed support die in this country because the service couldint be provided or wasint adequate etc.

It does seem too much to swoop in and take the child, and i feel very sorry for the parents BUT if you found out next week or next year that the child died for any un-natural reason there would be a public out cry of "why was nothing done?"

I do think they went in boots first here, support the family unit, offer help and services instead of being judge and jury and just removing the baby BUT maybe, just maybe, there are things we dont know about this story that caused those decisions to be made.

Of course it could also just be a complete fcuk up, if the sole reason for removing the child is the mothers IQ.

ejmaztec

Perhaps there's a shortage of kids to abuse in care homes, so they had to get more stock.

Ickle Magoo

ejmaztec wrote: »

Perhaps there's a shortage of kids to abuse in care homes, so they had to get more stock.

The real cynic in me says that a sweet brand new-born baby is in higher demand in terms of adoption than one of those wee toe-rags left with their averagely-intelligent-excuse of parents & the strike was purely pre-emptive on that basis.

ejmaztec

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The real cynic in me says that a sweet brand new-born baby is in higher demand in terms of adoption than one of those wee toe-rags left with their averagely-intelligent-excuse of parents & the strike was purely pre-emptive on that basis.

Oh yeh, and then there's that process. The child's probably reserved, and social services will probably say that it was orphaned when its astro-physicist parents got killed in a laboratory accident, just before they were off to collect their joint Nobel Prize.

we'llallhavetea_old

jesus, that sounds rough. obviously we don't know the whole story, but even still, the amount of stupid bastArds i see raising their kids is quite high, and they're ... fine.

hitlersson666

dylano_k wrote: »

Hitler left his son in foster care??? what an evil basterd

social workers said that the son oh the devil and hitler should not be around them....... only coz there gay

4zn76tysfajdxp

rockmongrel wrote: »

You complete bastard OP. Have you no empathy at all? This is a terrible case and you act like its some kind of triumph.

Banned.

bonerm

Here's some video of yer wan so you can judge for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yd25ejL6jU

Have to be careful with all this lecturing on who and who should not be allowed to have children. For example, the Holocaust in Germany started off with "just" the killing mentally retarded children. You point the finger at someone and eventually it might point back at you.

MaybeLogic

bonerm wrote: »

Here's some video of yer wan so you can judge for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yd25ejL6jU

Have to be careful with all this lecturing on who and who should not be allowed to have children. For example, the Holocaust in Germany started off with "just" the killing mentally retarded children. You point the finger at someone and eventually it might point back at you.

That's heartbreaking watching that.
I don't see how this is a good decision in any way.
Since when does the level of someones IQ indicate how good or bad they will be at bringing up a child?

inforfun

Mixed emotions about this.
I am all for taking kids away from parents who can not raise them properly.
But I don't know if that (raising kids) has anything to do with being smart or not.
Social standards are more important in my opinion.
I worry more about kids that are raised by parents that have been in court more often than a normal person goes to the shop than i worry about a kid whose parents might not be the brightest bulbs in the box but at least know the difference between right and wrong.

Prof.Badass

Ok, leaving aside the whole question of mentally disabled parents,

What about the father?

Is he mentally disabled too? Doesn't seem to say anything about it in the article. Why does he not have an automatic right to his child?

Could he not just be given sole responsibility of the child?
As an artist he could probably keep his job and work from home.
It seems like a stange move from a state that has no problems fully endorsing single motherhood.

Is there something we're not being told about this story, or is this just evidence of their sexist views on parenting and their complete apathy towards fathers?

Overheal

MaybeLogic wrote: »

That's heartbreaking watching that.
I don't see how this is a good decision in any way.
Since when does the level of someones IQ indicate how good or bad they will be at bringing up a child?

Social Welfare Services should be busy enough trying to enforce Reactionary measures: why in this one case are they taking preventative measures? Stinks of something.

Lollymcd

vinylmesh wrote: »

What about the father?

As I said earlier, they are not married he has zero rights, social services prevented them from marrying as they claimed the mother could not understand the importance of the ceramony. If they were married the father could have kept the child. He will probably have to go through the courts and provide DNA to attempt to be given custody.

It's very said but perhaps there is more to this case than we will ever know.

Smokenfold

Been reading the posts here on Kerry Robertson, interesting mixture of views. UK SS will make things up (has been proven in other cases) in order to get a newborn from it's parents. Infants under 3 are worth ££££s to the authorities, and the targets are always the sick, the vulnerable, and now the so called 'stupid'! Did you know that the UK is the only place that your baby can be removed at birth and put up for adoption, without your say so? This couple are just one of thousands. The media often get slated for publishing 'fairy stories', however, did you know that they have to do their research first...and this case was certainly well researched before the story was told. You are correct in saying there is more to this.....but nothing bad about the parents, just stuff about the SS that the papers cannot print...yet!
There are many who do not deserve to have children, but they will never see the inside of a court or a contact centre. This case is very accurate, the mum has lost her child because they say she has a low IQ....there is nothing hidden. Google 'forced adoption' or try Fran Lyon, Sam Thomas, Mark and Nicki Webster,Angela Wileman....and if that doesn't tell you what the UK social services are capable of, nothing will.

Dudess

That's a very sad story.

Although I agree: there's surely more to it. The exclusion of the father is depressing too - that's how things are for unmarried fathers unfortunately.

sherdydan

in fairness she does seem as thick as f**k, a 25 year old knockin up a 17 year old is a bit sick. so i think the social services are right. I agree that in reality she could be fairly able to take care of the child and all the rest, but if anything happened, it would be uproar about why this child wasnt taken into custody.

Dudess

Nothing sick about it - she's not underage and that really shouldn't have any bearing on the social services' decision.

I'm just surprised a lack of stupidity is considered a prerequisite to be a fit parent. First I've heard of it, to be honest. The couple must be in an awful state - poor things.

AckwelFoley

who's to judge?

and where is the line drawn?

sherdydan

just because shes not underage, and legally all is fine, i think personally its disgraceful. I personally cant say that these people could or couldnt raise a child, but they're obviously a higher risk of taking bad care of the child than the norms of society therefore the child should be taken. As i said previously, there would be some uproar if something did happen to the child!

Lola92

sherdydan wrote: »

in fairness she does seem as thick as f**k, a 25 year old knockin up a 17 year old is a bit sick. so i think the social services are right. I agree that in reality she could be fairly able to take care of the child and all the rest, but if anything happened, it would be uproar about why this child wasnt taken into custody.

sherdydan I really don't see how you or anyone else can make that assumption, especially based on a clip on youtube where there is such little insight to the person involved.
She was clearly distraught in any case so its hardly be the ideal time to asses anyone, learning disabilitiy or no learning disability.

An 8 year age gap is hardly the end of the world is it?:rolleyes:

IMO this woman seems to have the full support of her partner, who will be able to help her, as any partner should, in raising their child together.

Regardless, I think the splitting up of any family unit is upsetting. Especially in a case like this where it seems unjustified.

If they had been allowed to marry in the first instance then this situation would never have occurred. The father would have a piece of paper to give him custody rights, not that he should need it but that story is for a whole other post.:(:mad:

Smokenfold

Just wondering what it is about Kerry that prompts you to say she is thick as **** ....

Dudess

sherdydan wrote: »

As i said previously, there would be some uproar if something did happen to the child!

Well obviously - that would be the case no matter who the parents were.

sherdydan

lola92, an 8 year age gap is not that big is it not? well then i guess it would be perfectly fine for a 16 year old to head down the playground and pick himself up a few 8 year olds.

and what you ask makes me think shes thick? well firstly she has a learning disability and secondly from those 2 seconds of speach on that youtube clip you can see the labour that was actually required for her to blurt out a few words. i swear to god political correctness is ruining the world!

Smokenfold

The girl had problems with speech as a kid, that doesn't make her thick...was a physical thing not mental.

January

sherdydan wrote: »

lola92, an 8 year age gap is not that big is it not? well then i guess it would be perfectly fine for a 16 year old to head down the playground and pick himself up a few 8 year olds.

and what you ask makes me think shes thick? well firstly she has a learning disability and secondly from those 2 seconds of speach on that youtube clip you can see the labour that was actually required for her to blurt out a few words. i swear to god political correctness is ruining the world!

No, because that would be illegal. Do you reckon my ten year age gap with my partner and our one year old child is sick too? Or is it just because she has a learning difficulty that it's sick?

Your arguement is very very flawed.

Dudess

sherdydan wrote: »

i swear to god political correctness is ruining the world!

/bangs head against desk repeatedly

That is not why people are questioning the decision to take the baby away...

I swear to god: lack of compassion ("because that's for PC weaklings") is ruining the world!

MaybeLogic

sherdydan wrote: »

lola92, an 8 year age gap is not that big is it not? well then i guess it would be perfectly fine for a 16 year old to head down the playground and pick himself up a few 8 year olds.

and what you ask makes me think shes thick? well firstly she has a learning disability and secondly from those 2 seconds of speach on that youtube clip you can see the labour that was actually required for her to blurt out a few words. i swear to god political correctness is ruining the world!

The 8 year old gap between 16 and 8 year olds is cavernous compared to that between 17 and 25 year olds.
The girl in the video seems rather emotional about the expected loss of the child within her womb and perhaps this is a factor in her mode of speech.

Lola92

sherdydan wrote: »

lola92, an 8 year age gap is not that big is it not? well then i guess it would be perfectly fine for a 16 year old to head down the playground and pick himself up a few 8 year olds.

and what you ask makes me think shes thick? well firstly she has a learning disability and secondly from those 2 seconds of speach on that youtube clip you can see the labour that was actually required for her to blurt out a few words. i swear to god political correctness is ruining the world!

Thats a great way to put it yea...:rolleyes: An age gap in a relationship is hardy the same as paedophilia tbh.

A learning difficulty, by the way can be classed as anything from very mild dyslexia to severe autism or downs syndrome. There have been no details that I can find saying how severe or otherwise this womans 'disability' is.

Surely no psychologist, even one as talented as yourself, would dream of assessing someone in her current state of mind (thinking of having her child taken away from her) exclusively from a few seconds of video tape?

sherdydan

adrieanne__x wrote: »

No, because that would be illegal. Do you reckon my ten year age gap with my partner and our one year old child is sick too? Or is it just because she has a learning difficulty that it's sick?

Your arguement is very very flawed.

so you judge sickness on whether or not the act is ilegal? no i am not saying that an 8 year gap is always terrible... i am just saying that its not always right either. eg, my original 8-16 thing is wrong but say a 25-35 both people are mature enough etc. im saying the age gap is a bit young as although she is almost an adult in the eyes of the law, in reality people are still maturing from 17-25. you adrieanne seem to be working just on black and white areas, while forgetting there is a grey area also.