It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mother 'too stupid' to keep child

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Mother 'too stupid' to keep child


women.timesonline.co.uk

A MOTHER is taking her fight to the European Court of Human Rights after being forbidden from seeing her 3-yr-old daughter because she is not “clever enough.”

The woman, identified only as Rachel, has been told by a family court that her daughter will placed for adoption parents and be barred from contact.

This, despite the declaration by a psychiatrist that Rachel has no learning difficulties, “good literacy and numeracy and intellectual intellectual abilities within normal range.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
What if the gov't stepped in, said they didn't think you could raise your kids or defend yourself, then refused your right to appeal?

England thinks this is good government!

Is this evidence of how the NWO will work?

England allowed local gov't to take away her child, denied her ability to defend, and refused an appeal. Her, and her child's, fate rests with the EU Court of Human Rights.

Here, British gov't activists decided the mother would be incapable of raising her child. When she hired an attorney, they "found" she could not assist him and appointed their own attorney to 'represent' her. The appointed attorney refused to fight the adoption!

The UK, staunch advocates of government-controlled health care, global warming and the need for global approaches to environmental, human rights and financial regualtion, sees no problem with this scenario!

Here, English authorities ignored the obvious and followed their own beliefs.


Her daughter, K, was born prematurely and officials felt Rachel lacked the intelligence to cope with her complex medical needs Baby K was released from hospital into care and is currently with a foster family. Her health has now improved to the point where she needs little or no day-to-day medical care.

Her attempts to fight the city council’s adoption of her daughter have been hampered because her case was taken over by the official solicitor, a government-paid lawyer who acts for those unable to represent themselves. He was brought in to represent Rachel’s interests because she was judged to be intellectually incapable of instructing her own solicitor. He declined to contest the council’s adoption, despite her wish to do so.


Faced with the psychiatrist's findings, the government admits she's capable of defending the charges, but refused her appeals!

How long before this attitude makes its way here?

deny ignorance

jw

women.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Wow, what a bunch of Mooks.

This is simply insane. You mean to tell me the woman even spoke to psychiatrists who cleared her of any mental dissability, and the court refuses to see that?

The government has really taken things too far in the UK apparently. This is what happens when the fear and propaganda machine takes a whole nation by storm, without any public opposition.

London has millions of cameras, every license plate is monitored, they know where you are at every second of the day. And now they are taking it upon themselves to decide whether or not somebody is "clever" enough to raise a child.

There is a serious problem with setting these kinds of precedents in law. It could lead to more of this situation, even if this one is deemed a mistake. Now not so "clever" people will be discriminated against and treated like peasants.

What a wonderful work we live in.

~Keeper



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Yeah, this is one crazy story.
Where does it end?
I mean the term "too stupid" could be applied to almost any situation. If you are not of their ideology then you could be deemed "too stupid". If you don't think or believe like they do, then you could be labeled as "too stupid". This is one dangerous road.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
My country going downhill rapidly, it is so saddening to see everyday i read and watch what passes for news over here and its just getting worse and worse.

They really control us over here, they have had more practice than anybody else you see,The english have been controlling things for a long time



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
One of the questions is why do they want the mother to eventually have no contact with her daughter? Is there a special interest reason behind this?

I wonder what the mother did to deserve such a label.

This sets an very dangerous precedent.





[edit on 31-5-2009 by star in a jar]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
So her legal defence refused to contest the adoption process. Sound like the defence might have known more about this woman than the judge and made a decision in the childs best intrest.

A small weak premature baby in the hands of a poor work stricken single mother would really be a death sentance for the baby.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
We've had a similar story in the Netherlands. The parents of the baby were told to be weak-minded and therefore not capable of caring for their newly born child. The baby was taken away until it was ruled that they have every right to raise their child. They know have their child but have some form of special support as well as camera supervision 24hrs/day on the baby.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 
As much as I'm opposed to any sort of "global court" (and despite Obama's endorsement of their jurisdiction), this woman has no recourse without taking her situation to some authority outside of the mindless UK.

My oldest daughter works in London (an attorney), and she is bumbfounded by the blind belief that "the Crown" knows best and can do no wrong.

Help us all, if we get that way in the US.

jw



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


We know that DHS/Napolitno believe she knows who the real "threats" are and where they come from.

We know that DoE/Chu believes we pay far too little for gasoline and that our electricity should come from something else than coal and fossil fuels, even if it means demand outstrips supplr and prices triple overnight.

We know that Obama/EPA believe our vehicles are too big and our breath is poisonous.

We know that Obama/DoT/Geithner believe that "secured creditors" are not, and that Unions come before the Constitution, contracts and rule of law.

What will happen when our new "Cyber Czar" and "Health Czar" decide what's best for us?

How far do we go letting gov't decide what is best for us and our children?

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I am not surprised. When the birth rate goes way down , the demand for other people's children goes way up. In some places, bounties are placed on healthy white babies ,particularly, if they have blond hair and blue eyes. This is not far removed from slavery. The mother's lawyer should also focus on the leibensborn apsects of this kidnapping. The baby was probably singled out not much because the mother was boring, but probably because the baby was highly desirable to people who want the best child money can buy.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reading
They really control us over here, they have had more practice than anybody else you see,The english have been controlling things for a long time


I'm sorry for you, but your nation has always existed in reverence of a monarch and "royal" blood.

Our nation was built on the principle that the people are the sovereign, and government's 'power' is derived from the "governed".

Sadly, it seems we've begun to slide down a slippery slope toward domination, as well.

Stiff upper lip, you know?

Good luck.
jw



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I must say this is very alarming
I hope to god she wins this battle and it ends there!



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

England thinks this is good government!

The UK ... sees no problem with this scenario!


Too stupid to reply without accusing a whole nation of being a bunch of numb-headed, heartless bumholes?

The article clearly states that a local politician is fighting the cause.

Having been a father for the past 18 months, the way this woman is being denied a life with her child fills me with rage.

This case will no doubt cause concern and anger throughout the UK.

You will probably see real people from the UK organising real demonstrations outside real government buildings letting these tossers know what we really think.

It's what we do quite well actually. We love a party in the streets of the capital, facing up to the thugs and bullies (aka police and government) that think they can destroy our spirit.

Not all of us take it from The Man matey so stick your Mighty Tarnishing Brush of Vast Generalisations back in your pocket and do something useful.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I'd like to hear the full story behind this. If things went so far as to involve court-ordered testing that indicates to me that there is something else to this story, possibly involving failure to comply with prenatal care or properly care for her child after birth. Preemies do have a big range of complications and it is possible that she screwed up somewhere big time. Also, I'd like to know if she has a history of neglecting children? Agencies do not get involved unless they recieve complaints from a health care official or member of the public, health agencies don't have the time or money to randomly select members of the public for harassment though from experience it will happen due to bureaucratic sloppiness and incompetence.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
A quick search on Nottingham City Council reveals a few more articles that go a bit more in depth:


women.timesonline.co.uk...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

-Her daughter is now 3 years old
-She has had another psych exam which reveals her IQ to be borderline, but above incapacitated.
-Her family has volunteered to monitor her care of her daughter but have been deemed unacceptable for superfluous reasons.

It does appear to be an out and out case of someone wanting to adopt and having friends in places with the ability to make it happen. Very sad indeed.
S&F for you!



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
So her legal defence refused to contest the adoption process. Sound like the defence might have known more about this woman than the judge and made a decision in the childs best intrest.

A small weak premature baby in the hands of a poor work stricken single mother would really be a death sentance for the baby.

"Sounds like" you think like the government.

An independent doctor says the mother is capable; the government-paid solicitor says what the government had already decided, and contrary to medical opinion, which they ultimately agreed with!

Is it your contention that working parents should not raise once-sick children?
Can you describe the situation of the government-selected propsective parents?
What other human rights does being poor, or "work stricken" disqualify me from?
Since she was able to hire an attorney, before the government took him away, how do you determine that she is 'poor', anyway?
Do you work for the government?
Have you ever exercised your own judgment?

I recognize that true sheep blindly have taken the side of authorities who acknowlegde their error, but persist in their judgment anyway! Just because "they said so."

Baaaaad idea.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   


John Hemming, Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, who is campaigning on Rachel’s behalf, said: “The way Rachel has been treated is appalling. She has been swept aside by a system that seems more interested in securing a child for adoption than preserving a natural family unit.”


I wouldn't be so quick to jump on England's government over this, it seems that at least one politician is getting on this poor woman's side.

I would wager that most people in England have a problem with this sort of thing going on.

I also found this bit to be pretty ridiculous:



After the psychiatrist’s assessment of Rachel, the court has now acknowledged that she does have the mental capacity to keep up with the legal aspects of her situation. It has nevertheless refused her attempts to halt the adoption process.


So the court acknowledges that she's not mentally handicapped, yet they still want to go on with the adoption.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2 ...in the Netherlands ... parents were told to be weak-minded and therefore not capable of caring for their newly born child ... until it was ruled that they have every right to raise their child.


As many State resources as are available in the EU and UK, you'd think this was a non-issue.

AND, since the EU/UK state-run health care system is supposed to meet everyone's needs, regardless of cost, why aren't the mother and child entitled to similar 'child-protective' services?

I will never accept that the UK should serve as an example for anything.

From what I've seen of history, things have gone downhill for the English since the Magna Carta.

Have they abandoned those principles as well?

jw



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I hope to god she wins this battle and it ends there!


If she 'wins,' what prevents this from happening again?

How about the others (?) we haven't heard about?

jw



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join