She's not an Aspie or even an Autie of any kind (as far as I can tell), and I'm certain we don't have the whole story (for example, she seemed not to have visited the baby in hospital much), but this is why I don't go to our Social Services for help. This is why I put myself through the trauma of work - I know my kids are perfectly well with me. They're GREAT, happy, well-balanced, tolerant, silly, clever, gorgeous, mature, respectful people ... but the Nazis at Social Services might not see it that way.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-baby.html


A young mother who was judged too stupid to care for her own baby last night accused social workers of 'stealing' the child from her.

The woman, who must be identified only as Rachel for legal reasons, is taking her case to the European Court of Human Rights in a last ditch attempt to halt the adoption of the child, now aged three.

She told the Daily Mail yesterday that she was bitterly unhappy with her treatment at the hands of social workers at Nottingham City Council.

Rachel who has taken her case to the European Court of Human Rights

Rachel has taken her case to the European Court of Human Rights

Her daughter, referred to only as K, was born three months prematurely with severe medical complications. Officials felt the first-time mother lacked the intelligence to cope with the child and care for her in safety.

K was eventually discharged from hospital and given to a foster family.

But although her health has now improved to the point where she needs little or no day-to-day care, the child is due to be handed to adoptive parents within three months.

Rachel will then be barred from further contact.

The adoption is going ahead despite a recent psychiatrist's report which declared that the 24-year-old has 'good literacy and numeracy and that her general intellectual abilities appear to be within the normal range'.

It said the unemployed former cleaner had no previous history of learning disability or mental illness.

The single mother told the Daily Mail yesterday that she had been 'totally let down' by the system.

She said: 'Social workers and the psychologist keep saying I have got learning difficulties but I do not. They go after the wrong people. There are people out there harming children. All I want to do is look after mine but they will not let me.

'That girl has been stolen from me. They might have stamped all the paperwork, but she has effectively been stolen from me.'
Fight: Rachel's attempts to stop Nottingham city council's adoption of her daughter has been hampered

Fight: Rachel's attempts to stop Nottingham City Council's adoption of her daughter have been hampered

After a hearing earlier this month, a family court judge reduced her contact visits with K from 90 minutes every fortnight to five minutes a month in preparation for the adoption.

Rachel's battle was compounded by the fact a psychologist concluded that her 'learning difficulties' would leave her unable to instruct her own solicitor.

As a result, Alastair Pitblado, the Official Solicitor, who acts for those who cannot represent themselves, was called in. He declined to contest the council's adoption application, despite Rachel's wish to do so.

She told appeal court judges last year that the Official Solicitor's involvement had reduced her to a 'spectator' in the case, even though she had the mental capacity to take part.

A study last year found that Rachel's IQ was rated at 71 - the IQ of an 'average' adult is 90-109.

Rachel will claim at the European Court that the lack of a fair hearing and the enforced adoption has infringed her human rights.

Social workers first raised doubts about Rachel's parenting capabilities soon after her daughter was born with chronic lung disease and other complications.

They were 'concerned' that she initially only visited the baby for one or two hours each day.

K was discharged from hospital aged six months into the care of the foster parents she remains with today.

The child's father, aged 66, has no contact with his daughter and he and Rachel are no longer together.

Rachel is being supported by Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, a vocal critic of the family justice system.

Mr Hemming, MP for Birmingham Yardley, said Rachel had been 'swept aside by a system that seems more interested in securing a child for adoption than preserving a natural family unit'.

The council wanted Rachel to remain anonymous, but she successfully argued that allowing her first name and picture to be used would allow the case to be discussed publicly.

The Daily Mail has long campaigned for greater openness in the family courts.

In February last year, Nottingham City Council conceded social workers had acted illegally in removing a baby boy two hours after his birth because no court order had been sought.

The council claimed that the mother's troubled childhood and mental health problems threatened the baby's welfare.

Nottingham City Council said yesterday that adoption cases were 'decided by the courts, taking into account all the information presented by all parties and putting the future welfare of the child as the priority'.

This reminds me of I Am Sam. I think social workers' hearts are generally in the right place. But an intelligence test score alone may not be the most accurate measure for someone's fitness as a parent.

I remember this....didn't have this much detail before though.

Eugenics is the next logical step in this.  I hate to tell you this, but you guys in England are launching in to a Fascist state even faster than we are.  And, you have less people willing or able to take a stand.  If you do not, the homeland of liberty, the English Revolution and the Magna Carta will go under.

You really need to stop this, and give us on this side of the Pond some hope for our country too!

They view us with their supposed IQ tests as unfit for parents?

This is horrible.

NTs are still allowed to have children, even though there are some who act stupider than a sack of flour about caring for their children. Double standard.

she IS an NT.

She's a first-time mum, doesn't mean she'll fail at her job as a parent.

It seems they took the baby as soon as she was born. How could they judge if she is a good mum or not? She could have a knack for it, for all you bleeding idiots at social security know.

If she abused her child, it would be a legit case, open and shut. But she didn't. Give her kid back, dammit! D=<

I'm sorry, I assumed being this is a board for people with Asperger's Syndrome, that we were talking about someone like us. I didn't realize we were talking about someone NT, even though they did mention learning disabilities.

I apologize for not understanding what we were talking about. It wasn't made very clear in the OP that the person was NT.

It seemed to also be that her only visiting the baby in hospital for one or two hours per day initially was of concern to officials.  Is there a minimum number of hours required for visiting that parents should know about?  I know single parents who can not keep employment because their child has cancer and they expected to sit around the hospital all day guarding their children and signing papers.  

I have also heard that a public health nurse will come to visit after a baby is born to see that they have a crib and other items, if they are keeping feeding records etc.  I suppose that this young woman didn't even get a chance to do any of that or maybe she didn't know about it.  I wonder if she took any prenatal classes on infant care?

She has an IQ of 71 and if I remember correctly, I think the article also said she has learning difficulties. Here in the USA people with borderline MR are allowed kids and even some people who have an IQ in the late 60's are also allowed to have kids too but it seems like in the UK their kids get taken before they even start taking care of their child after they have it.

You're absolutely right, and THIS is the reason that, when my youngest daughter leaves high school, I am high tailing it the HELL out of here. Queenie can shove her Big Brother fascism up her arse. I'm off.

IQ's (see other thread/s) are not a good indicator of intelligence in many ways.

Sometimes people test badly, sometimes they test very well.  Neither makes someone fit or unfit to be a parent.

I also agree that a single mom is supposed to do what? Not work at all?  A whole hospial wing of people taking care of the premature baby - who knows how hard it is/was to deal with a bunch of professionals.

WRONG, just wrong.

I know people who have IQs in the 70s and many of them would make fine parents. This is a load of total crap.