Parenting
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Should you have to pass an IQ test to keep your baby?
user
- by CafeMom, on Tue Jun 9, 2009 12:35pm PDT
A 24-year-old mom
in England is only allowed to see her daughter once a month. Is she
a bad mom? No. Did she abuse her child? No.
So what's the problem?
Well, she's just not smart enough to be a mom. At least
that's what the court says.
Rachel Pullen's baby was born prematurely, had two
surgeries, and stayed in the hospital for six months before she was
taken to foster parents. Social Services argued that Rachel
lacks the intelligence it takes to parent—she has
an IQ of 71, which means she has a borderline intellectual
ability. (The average adult IQ score range is 90 to
109.)
Because she's "dumb," Rachel is allowed to see her
daughter only once a month. If the latest court ruling sticks, her
baby will be adopted in the next three months, and Rachel won't
be allowed to see her again.
"If she's adopted, I've been told I won't be
allowed any contact with her, apart from sending her one letter or
card a year, and I won't be able to use the word daughter or
mother in them, Rachel told The Daily Mail. "So what will I
be to her? A pen pal? ... When I walk around Nottingham, I see
other mothers who are no better or more clever than me and they
still have their children. Why?"
Do you think moms should have to pass an IQ test in
order to keep their kids? Why or why not?
Written by Suzanne Murray for
CafeMom's Baby Buzz
Related: smart enough, rachel pullen, parent, nottingham, mother, low iq, iq test, intelligence, england, dumb, cafemom
-
Posted by April Hughes Tue Jun 9, 2009 3:19pm PDT
Can't someone get rid of these stupid spam messages? I have tried to report, but Shine has a really complicated form to report spam.
Report Abuse
-
Posted by Tue Jun 9, 2009 3:47pm PDT
Pass an IQ test to be a good mom?! What will the courts think of next?! I guess they don't realize that children do not come with manuals!! Besides the fact that every child is different, not all kids have a great start in their first days of life, there are such unfortunate things as complications. We as human beings have the capacity to learn. They could've taught her what was necessary for her to be a better prepared parent not strip her of her child. That's really bogus!
Report Abuse
-
Posted by Brianna Tue Jun 9, 2009 3:47pm PDT
with an IQ like that, could she harm the baby? it sounds like she wants to love her baby, and if shes able to keep herself out of harms way, she would probably be able to keep her baby safe. she was smart enough (or not smart) to get pregnant, where is he? hard call, there are so many people out there who abuse, mistreat and neglect their children and they are of normal intelligence.
Report Abuse
-
Posted by Crystal G. Tue Jun 9, 2009 3:50pm PDT
This is the most silliest thing I have ever heard! People just come up with dumb things to try to rule someone else's life. Your IQ has nothing to do with being a parent. I think whom ever thought this one up should have their kids taken away. Besides I want to know how this all came about?? What caused them to feel as if they needed to give this woman a IQ test in the first place. Main questions I have is: Did? If there's more to the story, wich it seems to be, then that needs to be told as well.
Report Abuse
-
Posted by Crystal G. Tue Jun 9, 2009 3:54pm PDT
LOL I screwed up my last comment. My laptop sucks. The part that was cut out was the questions: Did she do something that would have caused her or her baby any harm?
Report Abuse
-
Posted by Gizmo1 Tue Jun 9, 2009 4:09pm PDT
Unless she had already harmed the baby in some way, I don't see how they have the right to do that.
Report Abuse
-
Posted by erin Tue Jun 9, 2009 4:15pm PDT
As I learned in college, this means you man not be a genius but it does however mean she can't raise a child. As a Psyc. teacher put it they might not pass math but they are very smart when it comes to cars or something else, they are still intelligent in many other ways but the basic way of measuring the IQ is limited to few topics not including morals and non-academic abilities and puts people into a pigeon hold on their IQ, which is not fair. Basic point in fact, I had a roommate who was top of our graduating class at our well known college, he was in fact brilliant at Math and Coding programs, however he couldn't cook, he stuck a fork in the toaster and never bathed. This does not mean she does not have "street smarts". Also said by my proff. She sounded intelligent enough in the clip and to make that comparison it's obvious she's no dummy. I'm sure that with my ADHD and inability to do simple math and poor English skills I would come out at about 80, however ask me about Art History, Arts, General History, literature I would do great, I was good at those subjects at school, but math science I failed each year, no matter how hard I studied and even with my handicap. She could be quite smart in other ways, or as the brits say Clever.
Report Abuse
-
Posted by Ms.Thick&Sexy Tue Jun 9, 2009 4:15pm PDT
Thank God, I live in the USA, even though our court system is far from perfect, I couldn't image the courts ruling about something like this. I have seen mentally disable people raising their children. So I really don't understand how the England court could do something like that base on a person intellect. Wow truly this world is coming to an end.
Report Abuse
-
Posted by opiniononly Tue Jun 9, 2009 4:26pm PDT
Way too many people decide they have the right to dictate/legislate how we should live our lives. IF this woman demonstrated an inability to care for her child, in a tangible, measurable way that put her child in harm's way, then yes...protective services should be involved and her case should be evaluated for her ability to raise a child.
The baby apparently has medical issues and a once a month restriction is pretty harsh. Did she do something during her pregnancy to create the medical problems? Can the mother care for the child within any potential medical emergency? She falls within recognized intellectual disability levels, but that should not automatically preclude her from providing care of a child - but the ethical/legal question must be asked as what constitutes providing care. As Brianna states, there are many people of 'normal' intelligence who are unable to care for their children.
This is slippery slope. What's next - deaf or disabled or mute people also can't raise kids? Who decides? Who should decide? How about passing a test before you can get pregnant - or your pregnancy will be terminated or the child taken immediately away for adoption?
All that being said, this is yet another example of extracting the most sensational parts of the story without providing substance and background in order for us to have a discuss based on fact and not sensationalism. Please, spare us from Tabloid Shine.
Report Abuse
-
Posted by Doktor Eevol Tue Jun 9, 2009 5:26pm PDT
This is ridiculous. They'll force a woman to take an IQ test but don't want to do anything about the MORONS stupid enough to get multiple women pregnant or knowingly create kids they have no intention of financially or emotionally supporting.
Oh, they target only women here in the states, too. I remember a long time ago where WOMEN (and women only) were offered free sterilization if she had an ongoing drug problem. But yet, the cheaper and less risky surgeries for men weren't offered.
And forced sterilization is already a part of our history in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization
Report Abuse