This has made me pretty damn angry. A 17 year-old british girl with 'mild learning difficulties' has been told that she and her fiance will only be allowed a few hours with her newborn before it is taken into care because she is 'unfit to be a mother' due to her disability. Nobody seems to have considered the father in this case, who seems to be loyal to his fiancee and would help bring up the child. Can you imagine this would be happening if it were the male partner who had the learning disability? Anyway, the couple have been forced to go on the run from social workers who would charge them with kidnapping their OWN newborn if she disappeared after it was born.
"Last night, Miss Robertson, who has mild learning difficulties, said:
'I have been out of my mind with worry about my unborn baby being taken away.
'Although Ben isn't born yet, I already love my baby and know I will be a good mum. Mark and I talk to him inside me every day and tell him we love him.
'We've already bought him clothes and my cousin, who recently had a baby, has handed down a beautiful crib for him.
'But social workers aren't even giving me a chance to be a mum. It's as if social workers are trying to rule my life and I just couldn't take the pressure from them any more.'
Mr McDougall, an artist, said they had made their decision after seeing minutes of a meeting this week where social workers claimed their baby could suffer 'emotional harm' if left with Miss Robertson - an allegation they say is 'ridiculous'.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Pregnant 17 year-old with mild learning disabilities goes on run from social workers.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17021
I'm not taking a position on this, because there really isn't enough information, and the original piece is from the Daily Mail, which is one step above the National Enquirer, but I will note this:
"Learning disabilities" in England means something very different. We would say more like, "special needs" or, to be more clinical, "mentally retarded". I didn't know this until I began dating an English girl, and got furious about something similar. She explained that it wasn't ADD or dyslexia, it was mild to moderate mental retardation (again--I am studying special education; those are the clinical terms; I would NEVER use "retarded" casually).
The registrar also refused to marry the couple, based on a determination that Kerry lacked the mental capacity to consent. This may be a case of outrageous discrimination, but it may also be a case of the social workers and government dong the responsible thing for a child and the Daily Mail (which is also a completely anti-feminist publication) sensationalizing it.
Plus, the man is 25 years old, and he was dating a 16-17 year old who is mentally challenged. Something isn't quite right with that picture.
Possible, sure.
It's sometimes difficult to balance not wanting to be ableist, by trying to keep people with disabilities from doing things they actually are capable of, with the realities of what they aren't.
The daughter, who had developmental delays, of one of my neighbors was just-short-of-raped several years back by her bus driver. She was in her late teens but especially in her agitation could not articulate what had happened. Luckily, she sought out my mother who worked in special ed for decades and caught on pretty quickly. My mom stayed with her until her parents got home, helped preserve the evidence, and the guy was prosecuted.
That is such a fine line. When I worked at a preschool for children with special needs it was always hard to tell parents that sometimes their children really would never be capable of doing something. They had always been given positive messages (which is great!), but sometimes no amount of therapy was going to make a child walk, or talk, or write, etc. We wanted to say, Don't let her be held back by her Down Syndrome/CP/autism/etc, but on the other hand, the sad fact was that some things were impossible.
I just find something off about this story, especially coming from the Mail.
Hmm. A few things about this that I think should be noted:
1) The Daily Mail is a heinous shit-rag with unbelievable racist, homophobic, sexist and now apparently ableist undertones. Recent offerings include one columnist suggesting that people who worry about global warming need to be sectioned and a second implying that Stephen Gateley died because he was gay. Take with HUGE pinches of salt.
2) Learning difficulties and learning disabilities are separate - but frequently confused - terms in the UK. Learning difficulties refers to dyslexia/ADHD or similar whereas learning disabilities (as Clapifyoulikeme mentioned) can refer to anything up to and including profound mental and cognitive disability. I used to work for Mencap and the amount of people who confuse the two is very large.
3) The fact that they go into no detail about her difficulties is important. If they are indeed what we term 'difficulties' (dyslexia, dyspraxia - as opposed to more profound disabilities) then this situation is either outrageously discriminatory or outrageously misreported. If social workers are implying that a person with dyslexia, say, is unfit to parent, that's ludicrous, but it's also very unlikely.
I suspect it's more likely that learning 'difficulties' (inverted commas to differentiate as explained above, not to imply they're somehow fictional!) and 'disabilities' have been confused here, either accidentally or to sensationalise the story. If her difficulties are so mild as to be a non-issue, why are they and their effect (or non-effect) on her life not described?
4) Every other news source I have checked has said that removing the child into care is only a possibility, not a certainty. The Mail says:
"Mr McDougall, an artist, said they had made their decision after seeing minutes of a meeting this week where social workers claimed their baby could suffer 'emotional harm' if left with Miss Robertson - an allegation they say is 'ridiculous'.
He said: 'It was clear to Kerry and I that although social workers recently appeared to backtrack, telling us they would not make any decision about our baby until he is born, the truth is they intend to take him away. Kerry was in pieces."
So far (and I've looked but still might have missed it) I haven't found any actual confirmation that the social workers have gone back on their word. Yes, they've been discussing the potential problems and possible solutions (including care), but it appears the couple have fled because they THINK the social workers INTEND to take the child, not because they've actually said they will. The TimesOnline (IIRC) quoted social workers as saying they would only take the child if they were certain that - even with all the support they could provide - the child would still be at risk. Worst case scenario, not automatic action.
5) And finally, the Mail is using very misleading and insulting language to skew the story. Not "clever enough", "bright enough", "intelligent enough" which is CLEARLY not the issue. A) this equates disabilities and difficulties with low intelligence - ableist much?- and B) this is about whether or not she is capable of raising a child, not her intelligence. An less intelligent person can be a great parent and vice versa - this is about how her disability/difficulty and the level of support/care she will need to raise a child.
They're making this about intellectual elitism when it seems to be about nanny-stateism - the fear of being sued leading to over-interference.
Nettle Syrup, I just read through this and realised how critical I'm being - please know that I'm criticising the Mail's reporting, not your bringing it up! If I'm being too cautious and it is the way they say it is, I'd be appalled but knowing their habit for ludicrous reporting, I'd also be surprised.