Court takes child of ‘stupid’ mother
WHEN Rachel celebrated her daughter’s third birthday three weeks ago the little girl was a picture of happiness. Yet for her mother it was a bittersweet occasion.
Rachel had to squeeze in the celebrations with family court hearings in the morning and the afternoon. The judge was to decide whether to reduce Rachel’s contact with her daughter in the run-up to her adoption in three months’ time.
The verdict came back days later. “The judge said I should have my contact with my daughter reduced from once a fortnight to once a month, with the amount of time going down from an hour-and-a-half to just five minutes,” said Rachel.
“Then, when she is with the adoptive family, that will be it. I will never see her again.”
The 24-year-old single mother has never been accused of physically or emotionally harming her daughter, who for legal reasons can be referred to only as K. Even those set on taking her away concede that she harbours nothing but love for the girl.
She has been denied the right to keep her only child because she has been deemed to be mentally incapable of caring for her. She is simply “too stupid”, it was decided.
Rachel protested and secured a solicitor to give her a voice in the family court. But by the time of the crucial placement hearing her pleas had been silenced. This was because her “stupidity” had been used as a means to deny her something else: the right to instruct a lawyer.
Instead, the official solicitor was brought in to speak for Rachel. Alastair Pitblado, the government-funded official, is appointed by the courts to represent the interests of those who cannot make their own case, such as mentally incapacitated people.
In Rachel’s case it was decided that her interests were best served by agreeing with Nottingham city council’s application to have her daughter adopted.
Rachel’s protests over her treatment were dismissed. The official solicitor had acted “entirely properly” in capitulating to the council since Rachel’s case was “unarguable”, the Court of Appeal ruled.
The decisions of the family court and the appeal court relied upon reports drawn up by a psychologist whose verdict that Rachel had low intelligence and learning disabilities had led to K being put up for adoption and the appointment of the official solicitor.
Rachel’s “fundamental learning difficulties”, said the appeal court, meant “whilst [her] love for her daughter is not doubted, her capacity to care for her independently is seriously deficient”.
However, according to a new report by a leading psychiatrist, Rachel is far from deficient. He said she had “demonstrated that she has more than an adequate knowledge of court proceedings”.
“She has good literacy and numeracy and her general intellectual abilities appear to be within normal range,” he wrote in a report.
“She has no previous history of learning disability or mental illness and did not receive special or remedial education.
“Rachel fully understands the nature of the current court proceedings, can retain them, weigh the information and can communicate both verbally and in writing.”
The psychiatrist’s report, ordered by the court last year to assess whether she could continue to represent her case for continuing contact with K, was a reversal of the previous expert’s opinion.
While it was accepted by the family court as evidence of her legal astuteness, it has cut no ice with the family court judge in respect of her ability to look after her daughter.
In a separate study last year, Rachel’s overall IQ was rated at 71, although her processing speed was scored higher at 84. She was categorised as “border-line”, one level below low average intelligence. Someone with Down’s syndrome would typically have an IQ of 50-60. The IQ of an “average” adult is 90-109.
Now Rachel is pinning her hopes on a last-ditch appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, but time is running out. Once K has been placed with her adoptive family, any realistic hope of Rachel seeing her again will vanish.
Rachel’s potential to be a sufficient parent was first placed in doubt soon after her daughter was born prematurely in 2006. “She had breathing problems and needed operations on her bowel, eye, heart and throat,” recalled Rachel.
Social workers were sceptical about Rachel as a mother. They were “concerned” that initially she was visiting K in the hospital for only a couple of hours a day.
When K was released from hospital she went straight into care and a psychologist was appointed to assess Rachel. “[Rachel] has a significant learning disability, and she will always need a high level of support in caring for [her daughter],” the psychologist wrote.
“If she were not receiving this support she would pose a high level of risk to [the girl’s] wellbeing, which is not due to any desire on her part to hurt [her daughter], but to her limitations.”
Rachel’s brother Andrew and their parents all offered their services but were rejected for reasons varying from being too old to having played truant from school.
Andrew, an articulate 27-year-old, said: “The guardian that the court appointed for K even said that I have learning difficulties, although she had never met me. These people are ridiculous. What’s worse, the judges overlook it and still think they are credible professionals.”
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6395954.ece
Comments
Add a comment
Next entry: More ‘stupid’ mothers prevented from fighting adoptions
Previous entry: Social services cut dying mother’s time with her children
On 22nd Jun 2009 at 08:01 AM B Safe 1st Always said...
Whether Rachel has learning difficulties or not is not the main point. If true it is a reason to help not to force adoption. What is the point? Could she cope with help is and even if not you cant stop someone who loves their child from having any contact. yes I know they do. I have worked with someone with down's syndrome. And that person in some ways yes needed help or more so support. But in other ways they were as able as most I know too. But the courts arguements or reasons are not the most relevent thing to stop someone seeing there own child in any event. And it is discrimination to use them in the context and way they are being used. As someone who had parents who DID abuse me but are of average IQ (probably at least). There reasoning is fundementally flawed. Or is it ok? Is child protection about IQ or love?What matters is if a Parent LOVE's their child (Apparently that is not in dispute). Then not only is adoption a last resort for the parent. What about the childs right to have a loving parent? Something there is no substitue for. Even in an extreme sad case where a child has to be in care fostered e.t.c. Why should a parent lose total contact if they do genuinely love them? And have nor harmed or abused them? They shouldnt. NO ONE has the right to deny access to a child in that circumstance. Though I know the system says different. There is a way to make sure a loving parent who cant alone look after a child, the child and a fosterer can all work together to bring the child up. But it doesnt fit into the systems little box of how they say it should be done. Or the effort needed to make it happen. I say all this in a general way for all cases like them.
On 16th Aug 2009 at 01:49 AM angela jones-wright said...
This is not right. Take the kids and worry about the expense later sydrome. The fact is the children need extra support to do things. This money spent on lawyers and court should have been put to help this woman. I am going through the same thing. IT IS TIME FOR SOMEONE TO TAKE A STAND> MONDAY IS MY COURTDAY>and i am terrified. social has showed me they can't bearly find child care for my children. it is not right. I am sick of seeing them say i am a bad influnce. I don't drink, i don't do drugs. i have no real violent things but..... i do have depression.
if they take my kids cause i have mild mental health issues then they need t o look at all families. Is this country going to take all kids? It is not right we need to be helping people with solutions not problems.