Parenting is all about feeling dumb -- every time you forget where your car keys are or leave the house without enough diapers or completely space out on a date with friends, you wind up questioning your intelligence. We might joke about how giving birth gives us "Mommy Brain" and lowers our IQ, but for one British mother, the idea of being a dumb mom isn't funny.
24-year-old Rachel has lost custody of her three-year-old daughter, Baby K, because social workers in Nottingham, England, have determined that she is "too stupid" to care for her child. Baby K, who was 13 weeks premature and had serious health issues, has been in foster care since leaving the hospital as an infant. The toddler is now on the verge of adoption and Rachel (whose last name is being withheld for legal reasons) has had her visitations reduced to one 90-minute period each month. If the adoption goes through, Rachel's contact will be even further limited. "If she's adopted," Rachel tells the "Daily Mail," "I've been told I won't be allowed any contact with her, apart from sending her one letter or card a year, and I won't be able to use the word daughter or mother in them. So what will I be to her? A pen pal?"
Rachel's IQ, according to tests done last year, is 71; the average adult IQ falls between 90 and 109. A psychiatrist hired by Rachel concluded that "There was no evidence of any disturbances in her thought perception. Her moods were appropriate. Rachel did not show any evidence of abnormal mental preoccupation. She was well orientated and her cognitive functions were intact." A court-appointed psychologist, on the other hand, determined that Rachel's intellect would cause a "high level of risk to the child." The court also claims that Rachel has "learning difficulties" that make it impossible for her to appropriately care for Baby K.
Rachel is understandably angry about the court's decision; she told the "Daily Mail" that intelligence should not be a measure of successful parenting. "When I walk around Nottingham, I see other mothers who are no better or more clever than me and they still have their children. Why? I see drug addicts and prostitutes who are allowed to keep their kids. They should be targeting parents who hurt their children, not someone who has never harmed a child in her life."
Rachel became pregnant at 19, and didn't know she was expecting until she was 27 weeks along. Then she became ill and went to the hospital, where she gave birth. Baby K weighed less than two pounds and had serious health issues; she required two surgeries, one on her heart and another on her bowel. The baby still has breathing problems and developmental delays related to her prematurity.
And here's where the story gets murky: Rachel claims that she stayed with her baby while she was in hospital, but social workers say the opposite, reporting that the young mother only rarely visited. Rachel says that she was prepared to bring the baby home at six months, having purchased all the equipment that the social workers advised (two cribs, for example, and a specific stroller) but that when she came to get her daughter, she was instead asked to sign consent forms to put the baby in foster care.
It's hard to tell who is in the right here -- 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'." But Rachel's story raises an interesting question: Are smarter parents really better parents? What does IQ have to do with the ability to raise a healthy, happy child?
No comments:
Post a Comment