A couple who fled to Ireland after social workers threatened to remove their baby at birth have had the newborn snatched after all. Why? Mother 'not clever enough to raise child'.

Oh, i"m sure you're right, but you're such a buzzkill. Sometimes, it's fun to poke 'em with a stick.

Is it sporting? Nope. But doggon it, it's fun.

Olé! Olé! Olé!

It may be fun, but it likely gets you farther from where you want rather than closer.

Our ideals may seem to be opposing, but that does not make us enemies. You want your enemies to fight with a closed mind, but you want your opposition to engage intelligently with a clear open attitude that you may speak directly to the heart.

I wish I had that skill, but it's one to aspire to.

Excellent Point!

That is why I think there is more to the story . This is commonly done .

I couldn't have said it better myself. I don't think being of greater intelligence makes anyone a better parent. In fact, in some ways, possibly the opposite is true. Smarter people try to attach reason and logic to things when more often than not, reacting on an emotional level is better for parent and child relationships. Parenting is common sense, not book smart. My 2 oldest daughters, their half-sister from their father, has 3 small children and she is most definitely on the lower end of "normal" intelligence as is her mother but Kim (their half-sister) is a damn good mother. She might not make a million bucks a year but those children have everything they want and need. So I guess some of the commenters here are saying she should lose her children because of her lesser intelligence. Tell me how that would be better for any of them?

And what resources did they have to defend themselves against the unlimited resources of a gov't. agency? Flight was likely the only option. Similar to being poor and having the IRS attack you.

Keeping the child in the family . They had people helping them . Family support . There Must have been something really wrong to not have considered that option . Again . There is not enough info . What is the rest of the story ?

Thanks ,Curtis. You absolutely correct in your assessment of liberal values. This article defines their need to override parental rights with socialistic principles. A disgusting commentary on liberal thought patterns.

I always though that "liberal" values were more oriented to "allowing choice" and "assuring rights," rather than creating systems where the profit motive rules those rights and choices. I always thought those were rather "unliberal"

Silly me.

Well, that sounds like a fair description of what they say, but not what they do. How many times has President Hugo Chavez spoken hollow words about "human rights" while he systematically violates them?

The Bolivarian Revolution constantly berates the rich, or "oligarchs" as they call them, while they stuff their pockets and have become the new rich while all the while claiming they are "helping the poor". Only a fool believes the slogans represent an authentic oath of poverty in the name of "social justice" and "worker's rights" when they are simply appropriating successful businesses for their own profit.

What's more, the socialist left promotes abortion through the guise of "women's choice", and to that end they have the gov't contribute hundreds of millions to Planned Parenthood, which in turn is essentially a corporate entity reaping millions off the abortion industry. If you think it's immoral to make profits off exploitation of natural resources, how do you rationalize the murder of 40 million fetuses for profit?

This latest is just one more horrendous example of the Left imposing a false sense of social duty and justice that, in reality, tramples upon the human rights of the subjects. What right can be more basic than the right to raise one's own children?!

I wholeheartedly agree with you that the words of our "leaders" seldom match the results -- whether right or left, socialist or conservative, religious or athiest, capitalist or anarchist. They all suk.

Your first comment was about "values" and I expressed my understanding of those values-- NOT the implementation of those values. That's quite another topic, and, while an excellent point, is not about "values" at all, but our repeated faith in crappy leadership -- From ALL of our supposed leaders (I'll want to put Nelson Mandela outside of this conversation, though.)

You refer to "how many times has Hugo Chavez.." or other things that you have inferred about the world you live in. That's great, but you must remember this: There is no need for me to have any opinion at all about the beliefs you have in your head.

My mission in life has nothing to do with altering your belief system. That would be a tiresome and thankless job.

If this did happen in the US? Seriously, this happens in the United States on a daily...not minute by minute basis. Kids are stolen from perfectly safe homes and placed into any 'ol foster care home they can find expressly for the Title IV-E funding. Then they make the bio parents pay child support, and get money from Medicaid fraud. After that well has been bled dry, they terminate the parental rights and adopt them out of the foster care market for the ASFA adoption bonus money (research ASFA if you don't know what that is). So it's not IF but WHEN this happens in the United States...

You mean like when the gov't interfered with some of the Church of Latter Day Saints communities, rounded up the children and took them en masse from their parents?

Of course, in fairness, there was a legitimate concern that little girls were being wedded to older men in some kind of religious pedophile arrangement, but you still have a similar situation, and to my knowledge they never could demonstrate tht their "fears" were well founded.

Do you remember the movie I am Sam... wasnt that based on a true story!? how quickly we forget...

Recommended by xiola. :)

there is a huge difference between mental ILLNESS (such as deep depression or violent rages) and a learning disability.

By your standard, perhaps the state should judge you incompetent simply because you have such severe spelling difficulties? (review your response for the various errors)

You made what sounds like a very loving and difficult decision to avoid procreating in order to prevent subjecting children to what could have been a horrible and possibly abusive environment. Good for you.

There is no indication here that these parents would have been anything other than responsible, caring parents.

I repeat, this is simply the "sweet song of fascism" at its best: "let me (the government) care for you...I'll make it all better...all you have to give up is your freedom."

Sickening. As a parent, I can tell you that babies and infants often injure themselves and the state is far too quick to move in and remove the child. If the man actually broke the child's arm through an abusive behavior--violently hitting the child--then I could agree that the infant might be in danger.

But I can tell you that it is entirely conceivable that the child's arm was broken through a perfectly reasonable incident.

I once had an incident occur to me that scared the daylights out of me. My 18 month old daughter was playing in the doorway of a bathroom, and had her hand on the door jam. My wife was cleaning the bathroom and I saw that she had her back turned to my daughter and me (I was just outside the door in the hall) and she hit the door and it started to slam. I was too far away to stop the door, and I already had my daughter arm in my grasp because I was worried she would be injured if the door was closed on her fingers, so I was trying to coax her out of the room. When I saw the door slamming on her fingers, I pulled to try to get her out of the way of the door, and the force of the pull slightly dislocated her ulna from the elbow. She was pulled out of the way of the door, however, which slammed where her fingers had been. We took her to the doctor, who told us that this type of injury is common because infants bones and cartilage are not as strongly attached as adults, but there was no permanent damage.

NEvertheless, had the doctor suspected child abuse, I could have been in teh same situation as this Muslim gentleman. There was NO abuse involved--in an attempt to avoid broken fingers I injured her arm, yet it is EASY to imagine how CPS could have gotten involved and separated our family.

I hope the family is able to demonstrate that they are a loving, caring and peaceful family and can recover their child.

I fully agree that if this child needs protection, he should have it. I am grateful for the agencies that protect children. I just wonder what the evidence is that this particular man and woman are incompetent. I'm curious: are you saying these agencies are infallible? I may be misunderstanding, but it seems to me you have no doubt mistakes couldn't possibly have been made here. I just want to know more. A video was posted here, which I'm looking forward to watching; perhaps it will clear things up a bit for me. Have you watched it yet?

So what about the fact that more children are abused and neglected in foster care than in biological homes??

@Regjoeschmo, though your question does not pertain to the argument, I would like to see some sort of reference to back up your claim. The argument is about whether or not the parents are competent enough to safely raise a child, not whether foster parents are generally better (or worse) than biological parents at raising children. If your argument was that foster parents are more likely to abuse children than mentally disabled parents it might hold a little more credence. I hate to spend so much time on a straw man, but this is a fallacy I see all the time on current and it really annoys me! Regardless, I will address your question, if only to help you see its irrelevance.

I recognize that that state services are not perfect, but, even if you can find data to back up your claim, unless the percentage of foster kids that are abused is something extraordinary (like over 10%) would you agree that in cases where the parents are an imminent threat that it is better to risk putting children under the state's care?

Of course it pertains to the argument, just because this young woman has a learning difficulty, it does not mean she is unable to care for her child adequately. I mean she was even able to breastfeed, something I have witnessed very competent people unable to do..... If you want to know about the abuse and such that happens in foster care just google "legally kidnapped" and "stolen but the state"

The information is there is you are willing to find it, and labeling something as a straw man argument just because you do not believe it is hardly worthy of debate.....

@regjoeschmo,

"Of course it pertains to the argument, just because this young woman has a learning difficulty, it does not mean she is unable to care for her child adequately. I mean she was even able to breastfeed, something I have witnessed very competent people unable to do....."

That does pertain to the argument, your previous post is nothing like that. I agree with your premise, "A learning disability does not mean one is unable to adequately care for a child." You can hardly jump to the conclusion that it automatically means this woman is fit to raise a child. Unless you have some facts about this case that I do not, it is unwise to jump to conclusions.

"If you want to know about the abuse and such that happens in foster care just google "legally kidnapped" and "stolen but the state"
The information is there is you are willing to find it."

I don't necessarily want to know and if I did I would not search for the terms you suggested, which would result in biased sites. Why not suggest for me to search for "State saves child," or "state removes child for abusive home" instead? The information may be there, but you are the one making the claim so it falls to you to back it up. I am not saying you are lying, just that I want to see your data, if in fact there is any. I could make baseless claims all day and they would get us nowhere until I provided actual data to be scrutinized.

God forbid that an individual who has such a propensity toward absurd and vulgar statements ever work with "at risk" children. You tend to lend credence to the fear that our children are at risk when they are in your hands.

you mistake my concern for the fact that there is no clarification or evidence that she has or will cause harm to her own child with presuming i am making such an assumption...... and your refusal to look into such things is indicative of your own bias... unfortunately they are databases of government statistics and info as well as news articles. Purely reference based.. but you wouldnt know this because you refuse to look into something you have already decided to disagree with without looking into it in the first place.... talk about straw man lol

So you couldn't find any evidence to back your claim I take it? Also, for your information, I believe you might be right in the fact that there is a higher rate of abuse among foster children than with children being raised with a biological parent. I just wanted you and others to beware that people shouldn't take baseless claims at face value.

You have failed to slay the straw man you set up, though it could be easily done if you would just provide me with the facts I require to relinquish my assault on the side of the straw man. Can't you see that he has given up. Do you not see the fight has gone from his button eyes? Regardless, I will pretend that you have provided the necessary information and now stand triumphant, with one foot atop the slain dummy as he lays dying in a pile of straw that was his innards. Now that victory is yours, how does winning that argument affect the greater argument at hand?

I admit, perhaps you truly were convinced that your question was relevant and I set up the straw man solely to see if you could knock it down. A sort of reverse straw man, I suppose. After all I expected you to easily win. but you failed. I will reiterate my point one last time: It doesn't follow that just because some foster parents are bad parents that all biological parents are good parents or that all foster parents are bad parents.

you discounted the resources without even looking at them, this is hardly not being able to back up my statements with facts.....

I'm not sure if I agree because I can't watch the video right now (no sound). But I admire that you did your own research to find the true facts of the case. I look forward to learning more, but right now, this still seems pretty wrong to me...

This video even seems to push the idea that taking the child was unnecessary and other options are available....

So let me see if I get this straight: the British government, which has an ongoing policy of providing the "Dole" for people who are financially unable to support themselves, yet you state that as a reason to take their child? Why them and not every other family on the dole?

The father's wealth (or lack thereof) is no reason to remove a child. Clearly in the video he is a very loving and careing individual, but is that not sufficient? So liberals have presumed that a single mother is capable of raising a child alone, yet an intelligent man with a wife (with a learning disability) is somehow incapable of raising the child?

The FIFE gentleman (Mark) admits that HALF of the children born to learning-disabled are taken by the government?! They don't provide support for the mother, they instead simply remove the child?!

What's next in this socialist utopia? Forced sterilization? Forced abortions?

Why not simply execute the mentally unfit?

This whole situation reveals exactly how the fascist mindset and the socialist utopian mentaity are incestuously bound together.

"So let me see if I get this straight: the British government, which has an ongoing policy of providing the "Dole" for people who are financially unable to support themselves, yet you state that as a reason to take their child? Why them and not every other family on the dole?
The father's wealth (or lack thereof) is no reason to remove a child. Clearly in the video he is a very loving and careing individual, but is that not sufficient?"

I think that whether a parents has the means (monetarily or otherwise) to raise a child is very relevant. If welfare in the UK is anything like it is in the US, there are stipulations you have to meet (too few in my opinion) perhaps the state felt he could not or did not meet these guidelines. Just the fact that he is 25 and does not have job makes me question how responsible he is. I would be interested in seeing his employment history. It is possible he has never held down a decent job. Of course we can only speculate at the evidence the state has because of confidentiality issues.

"So liberals have presumed that a single mother is capable of raising a child alone, yet an intelligent man with a wife (with a learning disability) is somehow incapable of raising the child?"

What evidence do you have up the parent's intelligence?

"The FIFE gentleman (Mark) admits that HALF of the children born to learning-disabled are taken by the government?! They don't provide support for the mother, they instead simply remove the child?!"

Perhaps a few of the parents may have been fit (I don't have records for every case) but even if your implication that the state has wrongly taken children in the past, that does not mean this SEVENTEEN year-old kid is a fit mother. I didn't even know it was legal for grown men to have sex with 16 year-olds (not sure when her birthday is, but chances are she was 16 when she got pregnant) in the UK. I am just curious on this, because it may be part of the reason the state wants the child.

"What's next in this socialist utopia? Forced sterilization? Forced abortions?"

In my ideal government forced sterilization and abortions would take place. What is next in your ideal government? Children are forced to stay with abusive unfit parents? I am sure you recognize that there are situations where it is best for a child to be removed from his/her home. I just don't see how you can so furiously defend this family when you have only heard one side of the story.

"Why not simply execute the mentally unfit?"

I have asked the same question. Why not?

existentialist actually admits that he would promote, in his "ideal society", forced abortions, forced sterilization, and the extermination of those deemed "mentally unfit" by the state.

I suggest you change your avatar to a Swastika today so everyone can immediately recognize your value system.

Thanks for this . She was assessed to be not capable of understanding marriage vows ! THAT is not a mild disability . Her family may not have been able to handle that . Mentally , she is about age 6 . I kind of hate the guy that got her pregnant . He should have used birth control . She would not be able to .

Who gave you the right and authority to play God and decide who was "fit" enough to be a parent? Where do you get your assessment she has the mentality of a "six year old"?
the fact the woman understands and can articulate that breast feeding is better forher baby than giving it cow's milk and formula tells me that she's far more intelligent than what these idiots are claiming. I know a lot of morons with college degrees who still can't comprehend why breast milk is preferred for babies.

I have a "learning disability". I simply cannot learn to accept gov't. intrusion into my life.

I'd love to hear just what the fuck you're talking about. Please, if you're suggesting it's inconsistent to disagree with the government taking a baby from a mother and to support the right to choose, enlighten me as to why.

From what do you contend that the government is protecting this baby? To me, that's the question here.

If there was some evidence of abuse, I'm all for protecting the child. I just wonder what the evidence is here. Don't you?

As far as homosexuality and abortion go, that has nothing to do with this post. Personally, I'm a fan of keeping things on topic.

Judging from the confusion over your post, I have to wonder if I flunked or if your post just isn't clear. Either way, I'm interested in an explanation of your post, if you're not interested in posting one, I'll move on, your point will not have been made and we'll all have failed.

I think what Walks was saying is that if the government can step in and take a child with no proof that there is any harm being done or will be done to the child, then they could come in and take a child if you believe in abortion or homosexuality, saying there is the potential for harm. (mental, physical or psychological). He was pointing out its a slippery slope, if you aren't in lock-step with the governing party at the time.

@Walks in Storms and NotFooled, you are both absolutely correct. Once the gov't. or the gov't. employees are given the right to assign suitability of parenthood, without proof of unsuitability we are wading in deep water. This is the first step toward assuming that any "imperfection", outside of the gov't. dictated norm, can be regarded as abnormal and subject to correction. Homosexuality, genetic problems, lower levels of intelligence, brown hair, blue eyes, blond hair, kinky hair, big feet, small feet, could all eventually be considered a reason for the gov't. to intrude on private family affairs. The worst of all is having someone with little qualifications themselves to make decisions that can affect a whole family. It is disgusting beyond belief, when children in danger are left to fend for themselves, while children not at danger are torn from the bosom of their family!

Oh please. It's not tunnel vision to stick to the subject. That's just ridiculous. You have an agenda you want to push, so if you can find a post where you can make some flimsy connection, you'll do so. Which is fine with me. Whatever. But you seem to be suffering from a case of tunnel vision youself because you answered none of my questions (which were actually ON topic, by the way):

"From what do you contend that the government is protecting this baby? To me, that's the question here.

If there was some evidence of abuse, I'm all for protecting the child. I just wonder what the evidence is here. Don't you?"

I'm here to learn about this particular story, find as much evidence as possible regarding the matter, and discuss it with fellow posters. Then, perhaps, I'll come to my own conclusions regarding the validity of removing this child from his parents.

I see no attempt by walks in storms to belittle, maybe I missed something, do you have a specific insult in mind? Your questions regarding specific information are good and proper, but he has introduced a 'meta' discussion that really isn't about specifics.

His point is that these attempts at social engineering, (whether by populist pressure or economic pressure or governmental fiat) have unknown and unknowable consequences. And that assuring that the proper metrics are in place -- or even if proper metrics exist.

That seems pretty straight forward and understandable. And that point is not really off-topic, it is just a meta discussion regarding our urge to fix other people's problems. Hey! That's why we post and read stuff like this.

RIP Katanajon.

Well, maybe you're right. Maybe belittling was not the intention at all. I'm very sick today, so it's possible I overreacted. I'm a reasonable person. :) It's just that whole tunnel vision thing that rubbed me the wrong way. There are folks on here that go on every thread and try to make it about Obama or marijuana, and I guess I just get tired of it. That's why I like to focus on the actual topic. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that this poster is doing that. Perhaps I was just being touchy; if so, I apologize. Thanks. I'll go take some Tylenol.

what scares me is an infant with a dangerous and/or incompetent adult - it should scare you as well.

your personal attack is childish, further it seems apparent you would put abstract ideological interests ahead of the welfare of a real, flesh and blood infant.

I can not be so cavalier with the life of an infant.

Tut, Let me ASSURE you, from many past debates, that uni does not hate, nor fear.

He who smelt it, dealt it.

RIP: Katanajon

I agree.

You will note that the "retarded" mother realizes that breast feeding is the best thing for her baby, a fact that has been proven time and again, yet the government fascists do not recognize this medically proven fact.

If the mother is clever enough to know that breast feeding provides a number of significant advantages, from nutritional benefits to auto-immune benefits, not to mention emotional benefits, then on what grounds exactly have these ass-clowns come to the conclusion that she is "not clever"?!

Exactly.

Do you have children?

There's a father too.

You obviously don't have children and have never dealt with social workers.

I find your logic interesting. If children do not belong to their parents then they must belong to the government. Is that how you will view it when you have a child? It is not about ownership it is about the very essence of family.

If so I feel very sorry for any children you have because there is no stronger love in the universe than that of a parent to a child.

Hopefully common sense will prevail as I have zero faith in the record of the UK social services. Google "Baby P" sometime to get a flavour of their competence.

Oh yes! The government CLEARLY always knows what's best for all of us! We should all be good citizens!

My God, you lot are so condescending. The first person to offer a debate upon this and you jump on them like rabid dogs. Isn't the point that we are meant to figure out things for ourselves, and not follow what the media tell us? I'm not defending unimatrix's point of view, but I am defending the point that he should be entitled to it, and hopefully conflicting points will get a little healthy debate going on.

@ OrbViper, Personally, I'm not jumping on anyone. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, certainly--keeps things interesting. I just want it to be remembered that there is a father too. Many people raise a child alone. It would appear that this couple consists of two loving parents. Of course, we don't have the whole story. The jury is still out...

But everyone here is just expressing his or her opinion. As long as things stay appropriate and respectful, I don't see the problem. People like to discuss opposing viewpoints here. Calling posters condescending for expressing passionate opinions doesn't seem productive, but you're allowed to express your opinion, as well.

I agree with Unimatrix, to an extent. Well known American Feral Child, Genie, was raised in circumstances similar to this- the mother being blind, the father mentally ill- , which is how Genie's abuse came about. Yes, Parents do love their children, Yes, it is terrible to take a child away from their home. But some parents literally cannot take care of their children. Intervening is perfectly appropriate in such a case.

I think people are freaking out about this, because it seems the social workers had no reason to take the child, other than petty grievances. More information would have to be given, and I'm sure there is more to it than what the article contains. Until further information is gathered, I don't feel comfortable making a decision.

And people doubt that the fascist mentality was an extension of socialist (Left-leaning) mentality. So let's extend the illogic a bit further to see where they can take us.

A government bureaucrat now has the authority to determine which parents are fit based upon their impression of "intelligence" (or cleverness)? Exactly WHO has created the matrix of IQ vs. Parenting Skill set? How was that created?

I suppose it makes sense to allow the government to begin forced sterilization and mandatory abortions! All SUBJECTS (you are as of now degraded from citizens to subjects) shall be required to submit DNA evidence of soundness AND a mandatory state-sanctioned Intelligence Test to all couples before they are allowed to copulate. A marriage license can only be granted to those who pass the exam. Anyone with an IQ below 80 shall be prohibted from marriage, and subjected to humane sterilization (for the benefit of society). Copulation without a certificate of soundness shall be punishable by up to 5 years in jail for the first offense, with increasing penalties for each incident thereafter.

All fetuses shall be made subject to a DNA test before delivery. A fetus with any defect shall be aborted. A fetus whose parents cannot pass the IQ test runs a risk of also being insufficiently clever and shall be aborted for the good of society.

Not only do they think they can snatch the child, but they can now apparently decide WHO is allowed to MARRY?! "You cannot marry because you are not clever enough". Just a hair's width away from "you cannot marry because you are not WHITE enough", or "you must not be allowed to reproduce because you are a Jew."

I personally find Unimatrix's avatar perfect for his (or her) mindset: you shall absorbed into the collective. Resistence is futile. Individuals who are unfit for the collective shall be eliminated.

This is simply informal fascism with a "humanist" face.

I note that the mother is intelligent enough to realize that breast feeding is by far the superior and preferred feeding method of infants--a fact that the protective custody fascists do not grasp. I therefore conclude that this mother is clearly clever enough to raise her child, and the government asses are NOT.

@curtisreed: "And people doubt that the fascist mentality was an extension of socialist (Left-leaning) mentality. So let's extend the illogic a bit further to see where they can take us.".................

Come on, curtis. We all know that the left never follows a thought to its conclusion. If they did they'd see the foolishness of what they're saying.

By stating that parents don't their kids no one is remotely suggesting the government owns them. Extended family of the couple and friends should help decide if a parent is fit to raise their child, but of course these people are bias. An outside view is needed, which is either private or public (government). Unless there's another option I'm not aware of. Scientific consensus on child care will never be reached so the whole idea of caring for what's best for a child will always be impossibly difficult.

And with all that said I don't know enough to say if it can apply to this circumstance. There is insufficient discussion in the article about why the mother is deemed incompetent to be able to see if there's any merit to question the ability of the mother, especially when she was never given a chance.