Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

British court says woman is not smart enough to raise her baby?

just saw this on AOL's homepage... what do you think ladies?? (hope it hasn't been posted already)|main|dl3|link4|


Asked by LuckyClown at 2:09 PM on Jun. 4, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 1 (3 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (45)
  • I wonder how the people in the hospital/the social workers KNEW her IQ was only 71? Its not like they ask your number on the hospital paperwork. And even if she came in and delivered at 27 weeks, if there were no drugs or alcohol in her/the baby's system, what happened that would've warrented an investigation into her ability to mother the child? Even if she didn't visit the baby often, thats not a qualifying 'neglect/abuse' sign. When I worked in the hospital we would have some "regulars" that had congenital defects and would be in 3-5 times a year, and some of those parents would literally drop them off and not pick them up until they were discharged...its not grounds for neglect since they are being cared for by the hospital! (weird I know!)

    IMO there HAS to be more to this story...maybe she is/was living in an assisted home for the mentally challenged or something and the fact she can't care for herself plays in???

    Answer by ozarkgirl3 at 3:43 PM on Jun. 4, 2009

  • OBAMA's fault.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:10 PM on Jun. 4, 2009

  • lol... it's British courts, let's leave Obama out of this.

    Answer by LuckyClown at 2:11 PM on Jun. 4, 2009

  • I would like to recommend to people read hillary's book It Takes a Village and see if it can't happen here.

    Answer by Carpy at 2:12 PM on Jun. 4, 2009

  • An IQ of 71 is borderline retarded. If she is not capable of taking care of her kid then then baby should be taken away. If she has/had a family to help support and care for the kid it would be a different matter.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:16 PM on Jun. 4, 2009

  • I'm glad you saw a little bit of my humor when I said it was so-n-so's fault.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:17 PM on Jun. 4, 2009

  • This is really sad but then again I fell sorry for the baby, Rachel didn't know she was pregnant and went to the hospital when she felt sick and ended up giving birth to a baby. The baby only weighed 2lbs. Come on now, she should have taken care of herself and that baby would have come out healthy as could be. But now that she's here she should be with her mother, the one that could care for her! This is so stupid, give her a chance to raise her own child, they took the baby the day she was born so Rachel has never had a chance to even try to raise her. I think these people are the stupid ones!! The ones taking the baby away from her!!

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:18 PM on Jun. 4, 2009

  • Her IQ is that of one that is retarded. The child is better off being adopted. They should do this in the United States, to many less then worthy are raising children.

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:24 PM on Jun. 4, 2009

  • Go Go Eugenics!

    Answer by NotPanicking at 2:25 PM on Jun. 4, 2009

  • "the "Daily Mail's" reporter describes Rachel as "confrontational" and "argumentative," and adding that "in truth, she is not the most sympathetic of characters, her voice steadily rising as she angrily dismisses the 'mad' social workers and lawyers involved in her case as the real 'idiots' or 'bimbos'." "

    This part made me shake my head.... Can you imagine? OF COURSE SHE'S CONFRONTATIONAL!!! They've taken her child from her and told her she's too stupid to care for it! I would be a bitch too! Oh... and BTW, to the Anon poster at :18.... just because the baby was premature, does NOT mean that Rachel didn't take care of herself! My first child was premature, and me and the doctors did everything we could to stop that from happening.

    Answer by brandyj at 2:26 PM on Jun. 4, 2009