Too stupid to raise your children?

Overheal

http://www.ntd.tv/2017/07/21/oregon-state-takes-children-away-citing-parents-low-iq/

All those times someone ever exclaimed there should be a test or a license to be a parent - well there are 2 parents caught up in that hell already apparently. Kind of a doozie for morals and ethics.

Amy Fabbrini and Eric Ziegler’s two sons were taken away from them before they could begin making memories as a family—all because the parents scored below average in their IQ tests.

The couple from the city of Redmond, Oregon, has been fighting the state for nearly four years, trying to prove that they have the intellectual capacity to raise two children by themselves. But the Department of Human Services says they are unable to be good parents because of their poor mental ability, The Oregonian reports.

In 2013, the parent’s first-born, Christopher, was taken from them soon after birth by the Oregon State government and put into foster care. According to court documents, the reasoning behind this was because both parents demonstrated “limited cognitive abilities that interfere with [their] ability to safely parent the child.”

This year the couple had a second son they named Hunter, but the couple did not even have a chance to take him home—the State took him as well, this time while they were still in the hospital.

Psychological evaluation documents show Fabbrini, 31, had scored an IQ of 72, placing her in the “extremely low to borderline range of intelligence,” while her 38-year-old husband, Ziegler, scored an IQ of 66 placing him in the “mild range of intellectual disability,” according to documents acquired by The Oregonian.

The trouble started after the couple’s family members started warning the state’s child welfare department of issues and problems with their first son. Most of the warnings came from Fabbrini’s 74-year-old father who said: “She doesn’t have the instincts to be a mother.”

Sherrene Hagenbach, a former volunteer from the state agency that worked with the couple, said her services were shut down after she told the state she believed the couple was capable enough to raise their sons. Hagenbach, who is a professional mediator and a board member of regional support system Healthy Families of the High Desert, has since been advocating for the parents.

“They are saying they are intellectually incapable without any guidelines to go by,” Hagenbach told The Oregonian.

The couple’s lawyer last year fought for the parent’s case in a June 2016 hearing.

“This is a case that just simply presents this question to the court, and that is: What level of disability denies human beings the right to raise a child. There’s no smoking gun evidence of abuse,” Fabbrini’s attorney argued at the hearing.

Whole thing smells like crap to me. Plenty of "smart" parents are still completely incompetent parents.

Jim Bob Scratcher

Only in America

Tigger

Good

cruizer101

I was sure it was fairly well established that IQ isn't a good measure of intelligence anymore.
An I would say that is even more so for parenting skill.

Fathom

Overheal wrote: »

All those times someone ever exclaimed there should be a test or a license to be a parent

Kid-driver's license for parents? Cool idea Overheal. What if it gets suspended? Driving-kid while intoxicated?

osarusan

I was reading about this the other day. Read a pretty good article on it.

I can understand social services being concerned, and I can understand that taking a 'wait and see' approach could have disastrous results...but, unless the parents have actually shown themselves to be unfit parents through their actions, I think such measures are really premature.


If there did have to be involvement from social services, I wonder if there could have been any other less drastic measures taken instead...some carer living with them for a time to evaluate their parenting ability while ensuring the baby isn't at risk, for example.

r93kaey5p2izun

I know lots of people with MGLD. From what I have seen they are no more likely to be incompetent parents than those of average intelligence. I'm surprised this course of action would be taken without real evidence of neglect or abuse.

REXER

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

Only in America

Of course, Ireland has a sparkling reputation with regards to the welfare of children! :rolleyes:

Ipso

REXER wrote: »

Of course, Ireland has a sparkling reputation with regards to the welfare of children! :rolleyes:

Don't forget the homes for the mothers and fathers who got themselves into trouble.

Shenshen

I don't honestly believe that intellect is a good indicator for parenting skills. Parenting isn't so much about calculating just exactly how warm you need to dress your child up if the temperature drops by 2 degrees and the wind picks up by 5kph. More than anything, it's about providing an emotional safe space for your child, it's about encouraging an nurturing.
Mind you, it's also about providing for their physical needs, so I'm not entirely sure what the financial situation of the couple is like.

But still, I find it highly questionable to remove their children based on nothing but their intelligence.

Annasopra

osarusan wrote: »

I was reading about this the other day. Read a pretty good article on it.

I can understand social services being concerned, and I can understand that taking a 'wait and see' approach could have disastrous results...but, unless the parents have actually shown themselves to be unfit parents through their actions, I think such measures are really premature.


If there did have to be involvement from social services, I wonder if there could have been any other less drastic measures taken instead...some carer living with them for a time to evaluate their parenting ability while ensuring the baby isn't at risk, for example.

Some support given to them would have been far preferable

Widdershins

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

Only in America

Actually no, recent case in Britain too. A lady named Kerry (forgot her surname) with a learning disability and her husband with no learning disability (iirc) they fled to Ireland but on their return met with more problems from the British social services.

Comte de Mirabeau

it's a bit crazy that you need a government licence to merely own a dog or a tv, but raising another human being . . nope.

StupidLikeAFox

Comte de Mirabeau wrote: »

it's a bit crazy that you need a government licence to merely own a dog or a tv, but raising another human being . . nope.

They are just taxes to be fair

Supergurrier

Worrying precedent

Comte de Mirabeau

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

They are just taxes to be fair

you've missed the point

StupidLikeAFox

Comte de Mirabeau wrote: »

you've missed the point

I think you have. The point being made is whether somebody should need a licence to have kids, in a similar way to getting a driving licence. That is, you pass a test to prove your competency

You dont need to prove you can operate a TV or operate a dog in order to get a TV/dog license, you just go in and pay the money, i.e. they are just taxes (even though they have "license" in the name)

Comte de Mirabeau

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I think you have. The point being made is whether somebody should need a licence to have kids, in a similar way to getting a driving licence. That is, you pass a test to prove your competency

You dont need to prove you can operate a TV or operate a dog in order to get a TV/dog license, you just go in and pay the money, i.e. they are just taxes (even though they have "license" in the name)

you've missed it again. . . and I've never come across someone before who thinks you 'operate a dog' . . .that's a good one. God help your dog.

Jesus Wept

cruizer101 wrote: »

I was sure it was fairly well established that IQ isn't a good measure of intelligence anymore.

People who enjoy doing IQ tests thing it's gr8.

Widdershins

Comte de Mirabeau wrote: »

it's a bit crazy that you need a government licence to merely own a dog or a tv, but raising another human being . . nope.

A license is granted to anyone who fills out a very short form which only asks the colour of the dog, and pays a fee. No questions asked, no test, no assessment of the dog owners ability to look after the dog. How would it help to have a similar system for human beings?

Humans already have multiple checkups for their offspring during which the professionals are gauging the parenting abilities etc as well as checking child development. This is far more appropriate than a license.

StupidLikeAFox

Comte de Mirabeau wrote: »

you've missed it again. . . and I've never come across someone before who thinks you 'operate a dog' . . .that's a good one. God help your dog.

Don't have one. They wouldn't renew my licence

Jim Bob Scratcher

REXER wrote: »

Of course, Ireland has a sparkling reputation with regards to the welfare of children! :rolleyes:

It probably has one of the worst reputations worldwide :rolleyes:

Comte de Mirabeau

Widdershins wrote: »

A license is granted to anyone who fills out a very short form which only asks the colour of the dog, and pays a fee. No questions asked, no test, no assessment of the dog owners ability to look after the dog. How would it help to have a similar system for human beings?

You'll have to ask someone who actually proposed that it should be exactly the same system for a dog and a child. Do you think the requirements should be less, the same or more onerous for a Child ? What's the most precious, important, and consequential thing a person and a civilised society will ever undertake or achieve ? It's rearing a child.

Widdershins wrote: »

Humans already have multiple checkups for their offspring during which the professionals are gauging the parenting abilities etc as well as checking child development. This is far more appropriate than a license.

That's only for those who bother to take them, there's no obligation whatsoever to take any child for any checkup anywhere, and other that the child's health, exactly what parenting abilities are being gauged ? there's a whole lot more to parenting a child than just making sure they pass the odd medical check up.

aido79

People are confusing bad parenting with people who genuinely wouldn't be intelligent to raise a child. They are both in the borderline/mildly retarded spectrum of the IQ scale. A person with an IQ below 60 would most likely struggle to dress themselves in the morning by themselves let alone look after a child. The father scored 66 which is just above this.

Also it was the family of the parents who raised the concern for the children so I would imagine they have first hand evidence of neglect/poor parenting.

judeboy101

cruizer101 wrote: »

I was sure it was fairly well established that IQ isn't a good measure of intelligence anymore.
An I would say that is even more so for parenting skill.

The only people who claim that tend to be those with low or average IQ

Wanderer78

I've actually heard that the iq is a poor way of calculating and representing intelligence as well. How about the state assisting those that have complex issues in parenting?

Mrs OBumble

Fathom wrote: »

Driving-kid while intoxicated?

You do realise that it's illegal to be drunk while in charge of a child under seven here in Ireland? The law is only appliedwhen other approaches have failed - but it id still there and is a useful guide to parents re what behaviour is appropriate.



Regarding the original post - yawn, its a non- story. Welfare authorities observed problems with the parents raising the first kid. They would have tried support as a first option, but it clearly failed. So the subsequent kids wete protected from the parents from birth. And rightly so.

Guy:Incognito

Does having a child taken from you then deciding "sure let's just have another one" not indicate something lacking in the parenting abilities?

Poor Uncle Tom

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

Only in America

No, not only n America.

Wanderer78

It's actually an ethical debate, with no clear solutions. Who should say who should or shouldn't be parents? What if someone told you, you can't have kid's? If someone said that to me, I'd tell them to **** off!

pickarooney

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Does having a child taken from you then deciding "sure let's just have another one" not indicate something lacking in the parenting abilities?


Edit. And then I go and double post

Why don't you just delete the second one? This is a great mystery of boards behaviour I'm eager to solve.

Wanderer78

pickarooney wrote:

Why don't you just delete the second one? This is a great mystery of boards behaviour I'm eager to solve.

What! Stuff can be deleted on boards!Wtf!

donegaLroad

surely a measure of a person's levels of affection and capacity to love should be of greater importance than a person's IQ when it comes to parenting.

biko

Shocking. If the parents aren't junkies or abusive then of course the Dept of Soc Services should instead offer help instead of taking kids away.
Again the state meddles and ruins people's lives.

somefeen

judeboy101 wrote: »

The only people who claim that tend to be those with low or average IQ

I have an above average IQ and spent 15 minutes yesterday looking for my car keys. I was convinced I left them in the car. I searched everywhere possible in there and couldn't find them.
Eventually I gave up and decided they must be somewhere else so I closed the car and...locked it...with my keys...that I had also used to open it.

Take that Mensa.

Wanderer78

somefeen wrote: »

I have an above average IQ and spent 15 minutes yesterday looking for my car keys. I was convinced I left them in the car. I searched everywhere possible in there and couldn't find them.
Eventually I gave up and decided they must be somewhere else so I closed the car and...locked it...with my keys...that I had also used to open it.

Take that Mensa.

a retest maybe:D

Widdershins

Comte de Mirabeau wrote: »

You'll have to ask someone who actually proposed that it should be exactly the same system for a dog and a child. Do you think the requirements should be less, the same or more onerous for a Child ? What's the most precious, important, and consequential thing a person and a civilised society will ever undertake or achieve ? It's rearing a child.



That's only for those who bother to take them, there's no obligation whatsoever to take any child for any checkup anywhere, and other that the child's health, exactly what parenting abilities are being gauged ? there's a whole lot more to parenting a child than just making sure they pass the odd medical check up.

The requirements ARE more 'onerous' for a child!

Unless the child was never registered at birth and born at home, AND never registered with a General Practitioner, it'd be highly unlikely the parents would fly under the radar like that and never get a call or an enquiry which would lead to other things if necessary.

At said checkups they are well able to gauge the parents general demeanour and attitude to parenting and the health and wellbeing of the child is evidence enough in any case. What more do you actually want? A live-in social worker or just hand all children over to the state?

Mrs OBumble

biko wrote: »

Shocking. If the parents aren't junkies or abusive then of course the Dept of Soc Services should instead offer help instead of taking kids away.
Again the state meddles and ruins people's lives.

Neglecting the first child was ok then?

Read the article. Kids 2 and 3 were removed at birth. Kid one was only removed after concerns erte expressed by family members and investigated by social services.

LadyMacBeth_

I definitely think this was a premature action by the state, give the parents community supports and monitor them, and if it is observed that the child/children seem to be in danger/neglected then remove them. The parents have already taken steps to show their commitment such as taking parenting and nutrition classes. I don't think that IQ should be a factor, how they look after their children should be the only determining factor.

osarusan

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Neglecting the first child was ok then?

Read the article. Kids 2 and 3 were removed at birth. Kid one was only removed after concerns erte expressed by family members and investigated by social services.

What are you reading?

They have 2 kids together - she also has twins with her ex-partner. She had joint custody of those twins when she lived with her father, but they live with their father now. There was no suggestion of neglect with those kids, was there?

Their first child did live with the parents for a while but was removed, but there was no suggestion of instances of neglect. Rather there was the prediction that, simply because of the parents' intelligence, the child might be be injured or neglected.

The second child was taken before they even left the hospital.

annascott

I have always thought there should be an IQ test

JMNolan

donegaLroad wrote: »

surely a measure of a person's levels of affection and capacity to love should be of greater importance than a person's IQ when it comes to parenting.

To be honest love won't put food on the table or make sure the kids go to school every day or make sure the oven is turned off before going to bed or that the doors are locked at night etc etc. In fact, I'm pretty sure love and affection is not a practical capability in the same way as being able to drive.

Although I am not sure in this case that taking the kids away was the correct course of action.

r93kaey5p2izun

Do the people here commenting about the incompetence of those in this IQ bracket actually know any of these people? It sure doesn't sound like it. I personally know dozens and have taught hundreds of people with MGLD. Nearly all of them work. Some of them have degrees. They are childcare assistants, hairdressers, beauticians, nurses, care assistants, shop assistants, shop managers, tradesmen, in the army etc.

It is not clear cut that low IQ means incompetence. It does not sound like this couple were given a fair chance (though there is limited information given) and it is a very dangerous precedent imo.

Dravokivich

annascott wrote: »

I have always thought there should be an IQ test

There are, just not mandatory. I couldn't be arsed with'em.

donegaLroad

JMNolan wrote: »

To be honest love won't put food on the table or make sure the kids go to school every day or make sure the oven is turned off before going to bed or that the doors are locked at night etc etc. In fact, I'm pretty sure love and affection is not a practical capability in the same way as being able to drive.

Although I am not sure in this case that taking the kids away was the correct course of action.

I think that if a person loves their children and their family, things like putting food on the table and making sure that the household is a safe environment is central to what love really is. It is instinctive to make sure that your children are safe and do not go hungry, imho.