To what degree should the government be allowed to intervene?

Is this justified? Do you think the government through social services should have the right to do this. it seems the couple were trying to do the right thing.
If the social services (SS) are allowed to do this then should they be allowed to order the sterilization of people they deem to stupid to marry or have children?

Quote:

---

Social services 'to take baby from teenager deemed too stupid to marry'

A mother-to-be, who was banned from marrying after social workers said she is not intelligent enough, is to have her baby taken away immediately after giving birth.



By Murray Wardrop
Published: 3:57PM BST 18 Oct 2009


Kerry Robertson, 17, who has mild learning difficulties, has been told that she will not be allowed to bring up her own child, who she has already named Ben.
Last month Miss Robertson was prevented from marrying her fiancé Mark McDougall, 25, after council officials claimed that she “did not understand the implications of getting married”.

Related Articles

• Bristol Palin campaigns for teenage abstinence
• Mother fights claims she is 'too stupid' to bring up child
• Britain's oldest mother-to-be, 66, dismisses concerns about her age
• The welfare state, not social workers, sealed the fate of Baby P
• Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol splits from fiance Levi Johnston

She has now been warned that she will only be allowed a few hours with her baby, which is due in January, before it is taken into foster care.
After hearing the news, Miss Robertson, of Dunfermline, Fife, who is 26 weeks pregnant, said: “I couldn't believe it. I am so upset – I can't stop crying.”
Mr McDougall, an artist, said he wants to take on full responsibility for his son but claims that he is powerless because he is not married to Miss Robertson.
He added: “Social Services are ruining our lives. As we are not married – because social workers would not let us marry – it seems I have no rights as a dad at all.
“Kerry's gran is trying to apply for custody of Ben but social services have already told us it is unlikely she will be successful. We feel helpless.”
The extraordinary case first came to light last month when the couple’s wedding was halted 48 hours before Miss Robertson was due to walk up the aisle.
Under Scottish law, a registrar may refuse to marry a couple if they believe one or both the parties lack the mental capacity to understand what the institution of marriage is about.
In a highly unusual step, Dunfermline Register Office refused to sanction the marriage after Fife council wrote a letter of objection.
Miss Robertson was brought up by her grandmother from the age of nine months because her parents were unable to look after her and her welfare has since been overseen by the council’s social workers.
She met Mr McDougall, from Arbroath, in January and the couple planned to get married after Miss Robertson became pregnant.
Two days before the ceremony, two social workers visited their flat and told them that the marriage was illegal because of Miss Robertson’s learning difficulties.
The service and reception for 20 guests had to be called off despite the couple having already bought rings and a wedding dress.
At the time, Miss Robertson said: “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.”
Mr McDougall added: “Despite arguing that we loved one another and didn't want our baby to be born to unwed parents, they would not budge. It's a nightmare.”
He claims that social services have exaggerated the extent of Miss Robertson’s learning difficulties and that she is hoping to go back to college to catch up academically.
The council said it does not comment on individual cases. But Stephen Moore, the council's executive director of social services, said: “Much of the work we do is governed by legislation. Complex decisions are made that balance risk and welfare while supporting people at times of personal or family need.
"We will always work with people for the best outcome for all involved.”
In May it was disclosed that Rachel Pullen, 24, had her three-year-old daughter taken away from her by social services when she was six months old after Nottingham City Council officials deemed her too stupid to look after the child.

---

Social services 'to take baby from teenager deemed too stupid to marry' - Telegraph

Banned from getting married? I didn't realise that was possible. It seems fucking outrageous and I'm not sure that there's much - or any - justification for taking the children into care but without knowing more, it's a bit hard to say.

Maybe social services are just trying to do the right thing for the baby. There have been a few high profile cases lately of incapable mothers who's children have ended up injured or worse , dead , as a result of negligence and in some cases sexual abuse . It is a shame they feel they need to do this but their decision has probably been influenced by the bad press social services have recieved on account of their not acting sooner in those cases mentioned above.
In any event, the mother and father will probably still have some kind of visiting rights and if they can demonstrate their own responsibility by holding down a steady job or something similar then perhaps the child might be returned to their custody in the future.

A knee jerk reaction following recent Social services failures.

Social services works like a pendulum, if any one can remember back to the
Cleveland Dr Marietta Higgs saga in 87 will know what I mean, that time the
pendulum swung the other way because the ss unnecessarily took into care
dozens of kids. After that embarrassment the ss did little for years and kids
suffered.
That's the way the ss works, coupled with the government manipulation of
course to make it appear as if they are actually doing something constructive.

A few months ago the government announced that they would be issuing stronger
powers to the ss to take kids into care a lot sooner, I guess this is the result.
.

yep knee jerk,
the people in charge, do not really have to answer to any body or comment.

This is one of the main problems with the UK, no responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dug

A mother-to-be, who was banned from marrying after social workers said she is not intelligent enough

---

The intelligence of anyone contemplating marriage should be questioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dug

A mother-to-be, who was banned from marrying after social workers said she is not intelligent enough

---

The intelligence of anyone contemplating marriage should be questioned.

---

Is that right? Do expand on that theme will you Norts?:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Is that right? Do expand on that theme will you Norts?

---

OK. A simple question. How many times can ones assets be decreased by 50% before they get intelligent?

Ok, some facts.

She's 17. Young. Add to this she has learning difficulties. So her actual intellectual age maybe nearer 12 or 13, or even younger. We also don't know what caused these learning difficulties.

There's a test called "Gillick competence"

Here's a link...wiki, but lots more out there...

Gillick competence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, the social workers would've had to have assessed her based upon this legal standard. She would've also undergone a battery of tests, mostly related to intelligence and ability to care for a child. The social workers would've then had to go before a court and judge, to get this order to remove the child, presenting evidence in court. The child's interests would've been represented by a barrister appointed by the courts. It's not an easy thing to do and social services lose a lot more of these cases than they win....the sad thing is such lost cases always end up back in court eventually and you have a fucked up child to deal with later....

There's an extremely tight legal framework to all this. No one points this out in these inflammatory stories. The wording of being "too stupid" is highly irresponsible and emotive. The hack journalist who wrote this obviously has an axe to grind. Social services are an easy target.

I would further point out, a 25 year old male choosing to have sex with an emotionally and intellectually very young women has some interesting issues and is highly unlikely to be attracted to such sorts of girls just for her looks...trust me, he has some "interesting" shit going on....and it is not nice....

I have given evidence as an expert witness in such cases before. There's a lot more to this story....trust me.

^I'll take you at your word on this one mate, you're obviously very much in the know in these matters

I've yet to meet a kid that was raised in care that isn't a villan, drug addict, prostitute or done time in jail.

Social services made them what they are.

Unless a child is being beaten or starved, they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near kids.

She can marry when she's eighteen & nobody can stop her.

It didn't occur to you that it was the parents who caused this in the first place? And social services intervened when the child came to their attention, after the damage was done?

And actually the criteria for child protection and removal from the family home is abuse, so you've kind of cancelled out your own argument. Only in instances of actual neglect, harm or abuse is a child removed. The "Children's act" specifically states that the best interests of the child come first and research indicates that the child is best left at home with the parents.

It's only the absolute worst cases that result in removal and placement into care. There is a dire shortage of foster homes/placements/carers.

It's thus hardly surprising that most of these youngsters go on to become such nightmare teenagers/adults, when their backgrounds are so appalling. Most social services departments don't have the resources to deliver the long term therapeutic care needed for the damage done.

It's cause and effect.

I'll excuse your utter ignorance of these matters DJ and I hope you've learned something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shitdigit

^I'll take you at your word on this one mate, you're obviously very much in the know in these matters

---

Cheers mate. Over a decade as a forensic psychologist, both in the public and private sectors, meant I encountered all sorts. A lot of it very nasty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

It didn't occur to you that it was the parents who caused this in the first place?

---

Never in a million years was that kid being abused.

Quote:

---

I'll excuse your utter ignorance of these matters

---

I'm not surprised - you know fuck all yourself.

If you want to keep pretending that you do though, knock yourself out.

Quote:

---

forensic psychologist

---

:)

Colin Stagg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shitdigit

^I'll take you at your word on this one mate, you're obviously very much in the know in these matters

---

Cheers mate. Over a decade as a forensic psychologist, both in the public and private sectors, meant I encountered all sorts. A lot of it very nasty.

---

You sound too rational to be a psychologist. Most of the ones I have met over the years have been a bit nutty. Met a couple of good ones though. BTW, I work in an allied health field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Juan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

It didn't occur to you that it was the parents who caused this in the first place?

---

Never in a million years was that kid being abused.

Quote:

---

I'll excuse your utter ignorance of these matters

---

I'm not surprised - you know fuck all yourself.

If you want to keep pretending that you do though, knock yourself out.

Quote:

---

forensic psychologist

---

:)

Colin Stagg.

---

Not only are you ignorant and stupid, but you're an offensive little shit as well.

Got some issues that need sorting have we? Touched a raw nerve did I? Spent some time in care did you?

My god, I never cease to be amazed at how utterly stupid and nasty people are. You're really the lowest of the low.

Horrible little man.

I'm sorry, but do you inhabit a really fucking out there reality distortion field?

I didn't begin throwing the insults around. I merely reported factual, relevant information. This is something I know about. And as you obviously know so little about it, I sought to correct a few misconceptions on your part.

Rather than have the wherewithal to acknowledge this and perhaps admit your errors, you resort instead to being utterly vile.

So, how exactly am i the horrible one?

There's such a thing as responsibility. Learn about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

I didn't begin throwing the insults around

---

You did.

Further to that, the way you posted this:

Quote:

---

Spent some time in care did you?

---

As if to suggest that because a person has been in care that makes them somehow 'beneath' you suggests you are indeed, a pretty horrible guy.

I won't mention the fact you're the sort who bands peadophile accusations about on the basis of absolutely nothing.

That would just make you sound even worse.

Oh and thanks for the red...and your comment of "get a proper job".

Firstly, it isn't my job anymore.

Secondly, I dealt with rapists, murderers, wife batterers, the mentally ill and pedophiles. Just how much proper can a job be? I'd love to know which vaunted positions you've held...

You know very little about me or what I've done, and as seems to be your style, you just spout off ignorant useless shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Juan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

I didn't begin throwing the insults around

---

You did.

Further to that, the way you posted this:

Quote:

---

Spent some time in care did you?

---

As if to suggest that because a person has been in care that makes them somehow 'beneath' you suggests you are indeed, a pretty horrible guy.

I won't mention the fact you're the sort who bands peadophile accusations about on the basis of absolutely nothing.

That would just make you sound even worse.

---

No, I said that to suggest you were overreacting for a reason...it's called an issue. A psychological term used to suggest an unresolved personal problem.

My god, can you interpret anything correctly? You appear to have a massive problem processing information accurately.

And what's all this pedophile horseshit? What the hell are you talking about? Have you completely lost your mind?

Ahhh, now I think I understand what's going on...I just re-read your second sentence again....

I'm the sort eh?

Interesting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

I dealt with rapists, murderers, wife batterers, the mentally ill and pedophiles

---

Whatever gets you through the day.

Quote:

---

You know very little about me or what I've done

---

I couldn't care less about you or what you've done.

Odd then that you've found it necessary to attack me and red me...

Yeah, you couldn't care less...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

I said that to suggest you were overreacting for a reason...it's called an issue

---

Look again.

Quote:

---

Got some issues that need sorting have we? Touched a raw nerve did I? Spent some time in care did you?

---

Backpedal all you want - that's exactly what you wrote & the intent is pretty clear.

Even to an idiot like me.

Quote:

---

And what's all this pedophile horseshit?

---

I took it from this:

Quote:

---

I would further point out, a 25 year old male choosing to have sex with an emotionally and intellectually very young women has some interesting issues and is highly unlikely to be attracted to such sorts of girls just for her looks...trust me, he has some "interesting" shit going on....and it is not nice....

---

I guess I could be wrong, but what were you implying?

Ignoring the rest.

A 25 year old screwing a 17 year old girl, with learning disabilities, means he seeks out vulnerable individuals. Many men are scared of strong confident women and what better to not have to face this than choose an intellectually impaired, cognitively deficient partner, incapable of being strong or dominant. He can thus be in control and not have to worry about her realising what a waste of space he may actually be.

The man concerned will have seriously bad issues, with himself (such as confidence, self esteem, efficacy), but like most, is unaware of refuses to acknowledge his own deficiencies and chooses a mate that wont threaten him or make him feel insecure. He will feel in control...dominant...unthreatened...I'd say that's pretty messed up. Wouldn't you? His is a dishonest and failed position.

Is she childlike? I don't know, but it would appear likely. That is an aside to the above. Your conclusion may in fact be right.

If he was that bad they'd struggle to get guests for the wedding.

They managed twenty.

That's twenty people who know this lad personally & don't think he's so bad.

You've never met him, yet conclude all that shit. That's pretty nasty.

I would assume that he's probably a bit thick himself & they're likely very well-suited.

Maybe, but we don't know and it doesn't say anything about him being cognitively impaired. A rather important consideration I'd have said.

20 guests means little btw.

Maybe you're right, maybe he's a top guy, who just has a thing for this intellectually challenged 17 year olds. Maybe I've done him a disservice. But I've encountered similar cases in the past...and I bet I'm near the mark....

To add.

I think it is nice that you see the good in this situation.

Experience has taught me otherwise.

One of my main concerns is that the social services department sought to stop the wedding. A most unusual thing to do. Please try to remember that social services have a very limited budget and going to court to seek orders is very expensive. It is very unusual to do this, I've never heard of it. They must have some very grave concerns about this guy...they may even have information on him, which by law, they cannot release to the public.

Quote:

---

Ok, some facts.

She's 17. Young. Add to this she has learning difficulties. So her actual intellectual age maybe nearer 12 or 13, or even younger. We also don't know what caused these learning difficulties.

There's a test called "Gillick competence"

Now, the social workers would've had to have assessed her based upon this legal standard. She would've also undergone a battery of tests, mostly related to intelligence and ability to care for a child

---

So lets say she scores very low on the Gillick competence test. So low in fact that the authorities determine she is not competent enough to look after a child.
Do you think the authorities are justified in removing the child from her care?

That alone would inform part of the decision, but it wouldn't in isolation determine the outcome.

If her potential husband was of good standing and could care for the child, then he could look after it. They could all live together. Her competence, or otherwise, would be irrelevant.

There's seemingly several factors at play in this case.

Oh, and Jet Gorgon, who hasn't been involved in this thread, gave me a red and had this to say in the comments...

"It helps to read the post and process the ideas."

Now, even the stupidest, most retarded, most idiotic, total fucking imbecile could see I've read the post and replied with relevant information, based in part on my work experiences. I think the ideas have been processed. I've also tried to be informative.

So, if an absolute and total retard could see this, what does that make you Jet?

And finally, here's the kicker..............

You've ironically done the very thing you've accused me of. You've totally misread and misunderstood the post and my replies to it. Just how mind-bogglingly stupid is that?

You are a special kind of dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shitdigit

^I'll take you at your word on this one mate, you're obviously very much in the know in these matters

---

Cheers mate. Over a decade as a forensic psychologist, both in the public and private sectors, meant I encountered all sorts. A lot of it very nasty.

---

A very interesting career that, my sister in law tried for it, took a degree in forensic psychology and wanted to work with the police, unfortunately she fell short, she still got a good job in social services out of it though.