Kerry Robertson is not intelligent enough to get married.

[ohmarvellousme!]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ride-told.html

Social workers banned a young woman from her own wedding in an extraordinary row over whether she is bright enough to get married.

Kerry Robertson, who has mild learning difficulties, was told her wedding was being halted just 48 hours before she was to walk up the aisle with fiance Mark McDougall.

Miss Robertson, 17, had bought her wedding dress and the couple had booked the church ceremony, bought the rings and organised a reception to be held last Saturday

But two days before they were due to say their vows in front of 20 guests, social services told the bride-to-be that she would have to cancel the big day because she 'did not understand the implications of getting married'.

Yesterday, Miss Robertson, who is five months pregnant, said the decision was cruel.
[...]

Mr McDougall claims Miss Robertson's learning difficulties are not severe. 'It's true she is not very academic,' he said. 'But she is nowhere near as stupid as social services are making out.

'She is a loving caring person. She can also read and write, although not very well, and was going to college to catch up.
[...]

The couple are concerned that their unborn baby, a boy they have already named Ben, could be taken away if Fife council judges Miss Robertson unable to care for him.

She now faces a psychologist's assessment to determine if she is too unintelligent to get married.

[Tassa]

Puh-lease!

Since when did we refuse to allow stupid people to get married?!

Unless the tests show she only has the mental capacity of a 10-year old or something, they should let this girl be...

[Misskittychaos]

Jesus, I could give a list a foot long of people who are dumb as fuck who are married and most aren't on their first marriage. I feel bad for this couple.

[thequeenofsorrow]

Wow instead of saying she was intelligent enough to get married the quote said she's nowhere near as stupid as they think she is.

That could have been worded better.

[hunnie]

The state is stepping in before the "I DO's", my guess would be so maybe the father doesn't have rights over the baby. Sounds like a form of discrimination..
I wonder if he is of sound mind? Why can't he be the main care taker of the child?

Is something missing from this story?....alot of disabled people have kids.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

A couple things from the article:

Miss Robertson, of Dunfermline, Fife, has been in the care of her grandmother since she was nine months old after her parents were unable to look after her, with her welfare overseen by social workers at Fife council.

Under Scottish law, a registrar may refuse to marry a couple if he believes one or both the parties lack the mental capacity to understand what the institution of marriage is about.

In a highly unusual step, the registrar at Dunfermline Register Office refused to sanction the marriage after Fife council wrote a letter of objection.

She now faces a psychologist's assessment to determine if she is too unintelligent to get married.

It seems she has always been overseen by social workers. But they didn't seem to have a problem with her moving in with the guy... only getting married to him??

I WOULD fear for my baby if I was in her position.

She is 17. Would she been out of the Fife council's care when she turned 18??

Too many questions and not enough details.

[Awhell]

Intelligent enough to read and write moderately well.
Intelligent enough to understand that what is being done to her is cruel.
Intelligent enough to fear for the safety of her unborn child, which indicates a basic understanding of the law.

How many fucking people do we see or hear about or know personally that are able to get married and have considerably less than that going for them? Shit, back off, let her be a responsible adult. At least she is trying.

[ohmarvellousme!]

Originally Posted by Dakota Valkyrie

But they didn't seem to have a problem with her moving in with the guy... only getting married to him??

Mr McDougall said their nightmare began last Thursday when two social workers arrived at the flat they have shared for the past four months.

Exactly! If she was under their care since she was 9mths old, then where were they for the 4mths she was living with this guy, if they were so concerned about her mental capacity?

And how did they find out about the marriage? What would have happened if the marriage had gone ahead before they found out about it?

They are right to fear for their unborn child. Based on what the social workers have already done, I can see him being spirited away from them and adopted out.

[ohmarvellousme!]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ook-child.html

A heavily pregnant woman and her fiance have gone on the run after social workers threatened to take away their baby at birth.

Kerry Robertson, 17, and Mark McDougall, 25, had been told that she was not bright enough to raise their child and that they would have to give him up.
[...]

Miss Robertson, who is 29 weeks pregnant, has since been told the couple will be allowed only a few hours with their baby - a boy they have already named Ben - before he is taken into care and placed with foster parents.

Desperate to keep their family together, the pair fled their home yesterday for a secret safe house.
[...]

'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.'
[...]

A family law expert said: 'If Miss Robertson gave birth in Fife and then fled with the baby, after the local authority had got a care order, she would be liable for child abduction.

'But by fleeing while pregnant, Miss Robertson has not broken any law, as far as I'm aware.

'If she has her baby outside the jurisdiction of Fife council, they no longer have any power to take the child into care.

'Rather, they would have to locate her and alert the relevant council who would have to apply for a removal order themselves.'

[skeptik]

I really wish I had been given an aptitude test before I got married.

[Misskittychaos]

Cruel, sick, depraved and abusive parents are allowed to bring home and often eventually KILL their children yet these two aren't even allowed to try and be parents? Shouldn't the social workers be focused on saving endangered children and just try and see if these two can hack it? I have yet to see evidence that these two are a danger to their baby Ben. Should they have him taken away if they don't care for him properly? ABSOLUTELY!
What if they are wonderful adoring parents? What if the foster family this child would be sent to was like the ones we see on here who abuse their foster kids to death or until they are permanently disabled?

I don't know, this case outrages me. If they(social workers) had concrete evidence these two are unfit parents that is one thing but I really view this as bullying. Why not award a stable family member as some sort of co-guardian? Why take a child from it's parents who CLEARLY want to do right and be good parents?

[ImmortalOne]

I am hoping that these two have the child outside of the jurisdiction I really do. I also hope that they are able to find a place to marry them legally before any of this.

If she can take care of herself she can take care of a child. The fact that they are young should mean nothing. The fact that a judge allowed Social Services to stop a marriage is disgusting (however I am assuming its because of her age she needed someone to sign for her).

There are all kinds of other things they can do for this family, for support of this family that is wanting to try to be good parents. Yet they are robbing them of that long before the child is born. *shakes head*

[Pene784]

Doesn't anyone remember the thread from a couple months ago where child services did NOT take the baby away from a mentally challenged woman and the baby died, her name was Destiny Lewis. Then everyone was screaming about how DCFS SHOULD have taken the baby away and never let her take the baby home. Unfortunatey you CANNOT have it both ways. Perhaps they know something that we do not in this case? I would rather help the child, then worry about the mother in this case. The authorities may have a very good reason for believing that this youngwoman is a danger to her child.

http://www.dreamindemon.com/forums/s...914#post299914

[ImmortalOne]

Originally Posted by Pene784

Doesn't anyone remember the thread from a couple months ago where child services did NOT take the baby away from a mentally challenged woman and the baby died, her name was Destiny Lewis. Then everyone was screaming about how DCFS SHOULD have taken the baby away and never let her take the baby home. Unfortunatey you CANNOT have it both ways. Perhaps they know something that we do not in this case? I would rather help the child, then worry about the mother in this case. The authorities may have a very good reason for believing that this youngwoman is a danger to her child.

http://www.dreamindemon.com/forums/s...914#post299914

There was a difference. That mother showed an inability to do it without proper support while the baby was in the hospital and a preemie. This baby hasn't even been born. S.S. of Scotland hasn't seemed to have offered or made any effort to accept the parents offer of taking parenting classes. They seem (or its portrayed) that they just wanted to take the baby at birth. There wasn't any opportunity for these parents (the father is capable) to prove they can care for this baby they care about.

The problem with this is that by doing what they are proposing (and the news is reporting) .... what is going to stop them from sterilizing people they think are too "stupid"? What is going to stop discrimination of the mentally ill from being raped of appropriate rights? Etc. This situation is a dangerous step.

[thehesbomb]

what is going to stop them from sterilizing people they think are too "stupid"? What is going to stop discrimination of the mentally ill from being raped of appropriate rights?

This has already happened, and well before the Nazis. California eugenicists sterilized 9,782 individuals in the first twenty-five years of eugenicist laws. These women were sterilized for everything from being "oversexed" to having a clitoris and/or labia that was deemed too large.

http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html

I am all for people being made to pass tests in order to have kids but until ALL people have to do it situations such as these are ridiculous.

[drkeegee]

Originally Posted by Pene784

... Perhaps they know something that we do not in this case? ...http://www.dreamindemon.com/forums/s...914#post299914

I have a feeling you're right. I think they're using this as a legal excuse to remove the child from what they have reason to believe is a potentially dangerous environment.

[Misskittychaos]

Like I said, I'd like to know WHY they think she is unfit to raise her child! We've got people with normal IQs who think it's acceptable to put out cigarettes on babies, shake them, rape them, and leave them alone with no food in filth.

[ImmortalOne]

Originally Posted by thehesbomb

This has already happened, and well before the Nazis. California eugenicists sterilized 9,782 individuals in the first twenty-five years of eugenicist laws. These women were sterilized for everything from being "oversexed" to having a clitoris and/or labia that was deemed too large.

http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html

I am all for people being made to pass tests in order to have kids but until ALL people have to do it situations such as these are ridiculous.

I thought that had happened. However I wasn't sure. I think I saw a movie about it when I was young but again, it was years ago and I'm not sure.

[MadmamainNC]

Originally Posted by Pene784

Doesn't anyone remember the thread from a couple months ago where child services did NOT take the baby away from a mentally challenged woman and the baby died, her name was Destiny Lewis. Then everyone was screaming about how DCFS SHOULD have taken the baby away and never let her take the baby home. Unfortunatey you CANNOT have it both ways. Perhaps they know something that we do not in this case? I would rather help the child, then worry about the mother in this case. The authorities may have a very good reason for believing that this youngwoman is a danger to her child.

http://www.dreamindemon.com/forums/s...914#post299914

Truly, none of us have an inkling what marriage is at 17yrs of age so lets just start banning it if that's the case or just butt out. I don't believe she is any more or less intelligent than any other teen when it comes to this.

Judging from what I am reading the difference is, they aren't questioning if she can parent a child, but questioning if she has the ability to understand marriage? And the parenting assessment remains to be seen. They're keeping a watchful eye and I commend them for that as long as they are providing her with skills and support to help her be a successful parent and not making assumptions based on her IQ.

As for judging ones ability to be a good spouse or parent on IQ, there are people in this world of above average intelligence who totally suck at marriage and parenting. It's called the elite group and they have their own special haven for their fucked up kids.

[biteme]

Originally Posted by Misskittychaos

Cruel, sick, depraved and abusive parents are allowed to bring home and often eventually KILL their children yet these two aren't even allowed to try and be parents? Shouldn't the social workers be focused on saving endangered children and just try and see if these two can hack it? I have yet to see evidence that these two are a danger to their baby Ben. Should they have him taken away if they don't care for him properly? ABSOLUTELY!
What if they are wonderful adoring parents? What if the foster family this child would be sent to was like the ones we see on here who abuse their foster kids to death or until they are permanently disabled?

I don't know, this case outrages me. If they(social workers) had concrete evidence these two are unfit parents that is one thing but I really view this as bullying. Why not award a stable family member as some sort of co-guardian? Why take a child from it's parents who CLEARLY want to do right and be good parents?

Yeah! Some assholes have black & blue babies with broken arms and legs and these (social workers) don't see anything wrong and close the cases
Clearly these agencies are out of control, always busy where they're not needed and never going where they're is need
The mental health of these agencies administrators needs to be checked. Seems they never learn from their mistakes, and their next move is dumber than the last, if that isn't a sign of mental deficiency what is?