Too, subs. Deemed too smart

WTF is the matter with the UK? Sounds like a brave new world over there.

Strange story.

el_dudarino: Too, subs. Deemed too smart

it works, you know how you can hit someone and it smarts? In that way you can "swart" someone (hurt them, especially verbally). Of course, you've heard of redeeming someone, right? Well, before you can redeem them you need to deem them. He was told only if he was insulted could they marry her, so he had a nazi deem him to smart him to marry her. See/?

what's wrong with her? she doesn't appear drooling and incompetent

The tyranny of town councils on steroids. The UK is going to have severe problems if they don't put a leash on their little local tyrants.

Miss Robertson, who has mild learning difficulties

Define mild. Is this guy farking a retard?

Guy?

PacManDreaming: WTF is the matter with the UK? Sounds like a brave new world over there.

Twenty-five year old guy farking a less-than-averagely-bright 17 year old girl?

Yeah, um, that's not autmotically cool. How long as he been 'seeing' her?

This is from the Daily Fail. Anyone who believes the story the way they tell it is a farking moron.

There is obviously so much more to the story.

And no, I don't support taking children away from dumb mothers, unless they're dumb to the point they'll definitely injure the child.

God damn, that's a sad topic.

Considering how many Farkers on here lambaste stupid parents, I'm a little shocked the actions of the Social Workers aren't getting a bit more applause from here.

Kome: Considering how many Farkers on here lambaste stupid parents, I'm a little shocked the actions of the Social Workers aren't getting a bit more applause from here.

I would possibly approve of taking children away from stupid parents if we could be certain the social workers were smart and good.

It is possible that the township or whatever is being a hardass towards an unusual but loving couple. It's also possible he's a much older guy taking advantage of a developmentally disabled girl. The latter seems pretty damn likely.

We have also offered to go to parenting classes and have a lot of support from family and friends. We feel if Fife really wanted to help us they would allow us to get married.

Well she seems intelligent enough to be interviewed and form intelligent thoughts. Also she has the support of family and friends.

The father isn't learning disabled so I have no farking clue what their excuse would be to sever his parental rights. Seventeen is legal over there so he's not a sexual predator like he would be in the US. I'm also going to assume he doesn't have prior convictions for child abuse or neglect.

I mean fine she's learning disabled but he has no diminished capacity. How are you terminating his rights?

Gwendolyn: Seventeen is legal over there so he's not a sexual predator like he would be in the US.

She's seventeen now. How old was she when they first got together?

It's the Daily Fail. The only thing you can be certain of is that they're twisting the story.

Obdicut: Gwendolyn: Seventeen is legal over there so he's not a sexual predator like he would be in the US.

She's seventeen now. How old was she when they first got together?

It's the Daily Fail. The only thing you can be certain of is that they're twisting the story.

Well 16 is legal over there too. So as long as it's a year + or less he's good there. Maybe it's because he's an artist and has no income? I can't imagine they are taking babies away from poor people like it's 1840. *shrug*

Yeah there has to be more to it. Still I can't see what the hell he did. Maybe because they are not married he doesn't have the same rights and would have to petition the court to be the primary parent?

Obdicut: Twenty-five year old guy farking a less-than-averagely-bright 17 year old girl?

Yeah, um, that's not autmotically cool. How long as he been 'seeing' her?

The age of consent over there isn't the same as it is over here in most of the states.

Obdicut: This is from the Daily Fail. Anyone who believes the story the way they tell it is a farking moron.

Just because you think you're being clever by saying "Daily Fail" doesn't mean the story isn't true. If it isn't, find another reliable source and post it so everyone can see how unreliable the Daily Mail is or isn't.

telegraph Link (new window) Seems kinda like the same info but with the added bonus that this council has taken away a baby before because someone was deemed "too stupid" their words not mine.

Sinday Mirror (new window) this really makes it seems this is a stupid as the daily Fail is making it out to be. She hasn't even had a freaking psychological assessment yet and they are deeming her not capable? Who the fark runs social services over there?

Gwendolyn: Well 16 is legal over there too. So as long as it's a year + or less he's good there. Maybe it's because he's an artist and has no income? I can't imagine they are taking babies away from poor people like it's 1840. *shrug*

You probably can't imagine it because it probably isn't goddamn true.

PacManDreaming: Just because you think you're being clever by saying "Daily Fail" doesn't mean the story isn't true. If it isn't, find another reliable source and post it so everyone can see how unreliable the Daily Mail is or isn't.

Sure. Here's what they left out, from the BBC:

Stephen Moore, the executive director of Fife Council social work service, said "no decision" had yet been made on the baby's future.

He added: "People, including the family, will make a judgment about the welfare of the baby after the baby is born.

"It will be decided then whether she has the capacity to look after the baby. People will work with the young mother to look after the baby. She will be given every support.

"But someone needs to make the judgment about whether she can care for the baby, and that decision will be taken when the baby has been born.

"Much of the work we do is governed by legislation. Complex decisions are made that balance risk and welfare while supporting people at times of personal or family need."

And:

She and Mr McDougall decided to marry after she became pregnant. But in a highly unusual step, Dunfermline Register Office refused to sanction the marriage after Fife Council wrote a letter of objection.

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



I don't think a 17 year old who's got learning disabilities can possibly understand what marriage involves.

Do you?

I mean, I halfheartedly support the marriage just so that she'll have someone to take care of her, but I suspect the hell out of the guy. Most twenty-five year olds who are into sixteen year olds strike me as not exactly great parenting types themselves.

He added: "However, social workers just told me at the meeting to be quiet. As we are not married - because social workers would not let us marry - it seems I have no rights as a dad at all.

Sooo social workers say he has no parental rights because they are not married but they are not married because the same social workers said so...*head explodes* I guarantee if she was a normal woman keeping a baby his ass would be on the line for child support married or not.

Is someone in that town council desperate for a white baby of their own or something? Selling babies?

Gwendolyn: Sinday Mirror (new window) this really makes it seems this is a stupid as the daily Fail is making it out to be. She hasn't even had a freaking psychological assessment yet and they are deeming her not capable? Who the fark runs social services over there?

The Mirror is also a tabloid.

Gwendolyn: Seems kinda like the same info but with the added bonus that this council has taken away a baby before because someone was deemed "too stupid" their words not mine.

No, that was the Nottingham council. Can we put the goddamn pitchforks down? You're being emotionally farked around with by the Daily Mail. It's what they do.

It's entirely possible the council are being assholes. I just don't get why you automatically trust the twenty-five year old father who knocked up a seventeen year old. The difference between twenty-five and seventeen is huge, even if you don't believe she has learning disabilities.

Is it just me, or does his head look too big for his body?

Obdicut: Gwendolyn: Well 16 is legal over there too. So as long as it's a year + or less he's good there. Maybe it's because he's an artist and has no income? I can't imagine they are taking babies away from poor people like it's 1840. *shrug*

You probably can't imagine it because it probably isn't goddamn true.

I don't think a 17 year old who's got learning disabilities can possibly understand what marriage involves.

Right I know that isn't true that part was a semi joke as a who the hell knows why.

Also the woman's learning disabilities haven't even been assessed yet. Is she dyslexic? Does she have an IQ of 75? What? Random "can't read or write very well" isn't very helpful.

Gwendolyn: Sooo social workers say he has no parental rights because they are not married but they are not married because the same social workers said so...*head explodes*

Do you think a seventeen year old should be allowed to marry over the objections of her caretakers, to a man eight years older than her?

From the telegraph story:

Miss Robertson was brought up by her grandmother from the age of nine months because her parents were unable to look after her and her welfare has since been overseen by the council's social workers.

This raises some more questions-- why were her parents unable to care for her?

At least it seems like she just met the guy last January, so he's not a total skeeze.

Obdicut: Gwendolyn: Sooo social workers say he has no parental rights because they are not married but they are not married because the same social workers said so...*head explodes*

Do you think a seventeen year old should be allowed to marry over the objections of her caretakers, to a man eight years older than her?


I think getting married just because you are knocked up is freaking stupid I'm only referring to the father having rights. That part seems fishy to me.

Gwendolyn: I think getting married just because you are knocked up is freaking stupid I'm only referring to the father having rights. That part seems fishy to me.

I know zero about Scottish family law. It's kind of sounding like a weird mix of puritanism-- if you're not married, you don't have rights-- and modern European statism-- the child will be a citizen too and they're asserting they have a duty, not just a right, to look out for its best interests.

It's definitely a dangerous road, but I think the case is more extreme than it's being made out to be in the Mail. Why couldn't her parents care for her?

For any states-rights supporters: this is what local control can be like, by the way. Maybe they're doing this because they know her, and her family, and are really looking out for her interests, and are protecting her. Maybe they're power-mad bastards who think they're creating utopias up there.

It's just really hard for me to trust a twenty-five year old who knocked up a seventeen year old girl. As a father or anything.

Obdicut: I don't think a 17 year old who's got learning disabilities can possibly understand what marriage involves.

Do you?

Depends. If she's just dyslexic, or has some other minor learning disability as all the articles I've seen say, she may very well understand what she's getting into.

And judging by her responses in two other articles, she doesn't seem that unintelligent. She may not have much common sense, getting knocked up at 16 ain't too bright, but that doesn't mean she's an idiot.

If she was a heroin junkie or crack head, then I could understand what all the fuss was about. Otherwise, the social workers need to just leave them the hell alone. We've already had one group of European jackholes decide who was and wasn't fit to procreate. Let's not start that shiat again.