Oregon takes couple's kids away because of IQ test

[Eeset]

This is sad

 

[Tambora]

Because of an IQ test? Instead of that they should have observed the child. Is he being properly fed and clothed. Is he being schooled like he should be. Are his basic needs being met? IQ tests are notoriously unreliable.

Yeah.
I was wondering what IQ number they considered to be acceptable in order to be deemed worthy enough to raise children.
This all reminds me of the forced sterilization that was conducted for a time to keep the 'less desirable' from having any children.

 

[Greg Jennings]

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2017/07/parents_with_intellectual_disa.html

There's no evidence of neglect or abuse. The parents have IQ scores of 72 and 66. So the government has decided that they are not allowed to raise children.

Sounds a bit like eugenics.

I feel for these people, but they are both in the range (in terms of IQ, an admittedly flawed system of ranking intelligent capabilities) of autism. Two autistic parents should, imo, not initially be granted custody of their child. I think they should be able to prove ability to raise to the child WELL, and if they cannot then they cannot.

Autistic people don't normally make good parents, just throwing that out there. The well-being of the child is more important than how anyone feels about it

Also, "It's impossible to know the full story when child welfare officials are unable to comment, but the case has left the couple and their advocates heartbroken," makes it seem like we're not getting all the info either

 

[Greg Jennings]

Yeah.
I was wondering what IQ number they considered to be acceptable in order to be deemed worthy enough to raise children.
This all reminds me of the forced sterilization that was conducted for a time to keep the 'less desirable' from having any children.

Nobody is keeping anyone from having kids. The idea is to prevent those kids from being raised in an environment that will hinder their mental or emotional development. As someone who grew up in an environment that was unhealthy (not due to autistic parents but other reasons), I know the ill effects that childhood trauma or neglect can have, and that they don't ever fully go away. It's not worth potentially screwing up a kid's life just to make his parents feel better about themselves

 

[Tambora]

Nobody is keeping anyone from having kids. The idea is to prevent those kids from being raised in an environment that will hinder their mental or emotional development. As someone who grew up in an environment that was unhealthy (not due to autistic parents but other reasons), I know the ill effects that childhood trauma or neglect can have, and that they don't ever fully go away. It's not worth potentially screwing up a kid's life just to make his parents feel better about themselves

So you think society should have taken you away from your parents?

 

[Tambora]

I feel for these people, but they are both in the range (in terms of IQ, an admittedly flawed system of ranking intelligent capabilities) of autism. Two autistic parents should, imo, not initially be granted custody of their child. I think they should be able to prove ability to raise to the child WELL, and if they cannot then they cannot.

Autistic people don't normally make good parents, just throwing that out there. The well-being of the child is more important than how anyone feels about it

Also, "It's impossible to know the full story when child welfare officials are unable to comment, but the case has left the couple and their advocates heartbroken," makes it seem like we're not getting all the info either

The danger in this way of thinking is that there will always be a "better" ideal parent for just about every child born.
Once the elimination process of what constitutes an acceptable parent begins, there will always be the next level of what is considered "less desirable" traits to then eliminate as parents.
It's a domino effect, round and round it goes and where it stops nobody knows.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Nobody is keeping anyone from having kids. The idea is to prevent those kids from being raised in an environment that will hinder their mental or emotional development. As someone who grew up in an environment that was unhealthy (not due to autistic parents but other reasons), I know the ill effects that childhood trauma or neglect can have, and that they don't ever fully go away. It's not worth potentially screwing up a kid's life just to make his parents feel better about themselves

Have you seen what happens to kids taken away from their parents when they grow up? Which is worse in your mind?

 

[glassjester]

I feel for these people, but they are both in the range (in terms of IQ, an admittedly flawed system of ranking intelligent capabilities) of autism.

Do you mean mental retardation (below 70 IQ)? I am pretty sure autism isn't diagnosed by IQ only.

Two autistic parents should, imo, not initially be granted custody of their child. I think they should be able to prove ability to raise to the child WELL, and if they cannot then they cannot.

Autistic people don't normally make good parents, just throwing that out there. The well-being of the child is more important than how anyone feels about it

Also, "It's impossible to know the full story when child welfare officials are unable to comment, but the case has left the couple and their advocates heartbroken," makes it seem like we're not getting all the info either

But why should the state have the right to take children from their parents without charges of neglect or abuse? This whole idea of "potential for neglect" is very dangerous. Who doesn't have the potential for neglect?

And why should the government have the right to treat you like a criminal because you might commit a crime in the future?

 

[glassjester]

It's not worth potentially screwing up a kid's life just to make his parents feel better about themselves

What you're advocating is very dangerous, Greg.

Let's say the state can produce some data showing a correlation between low IQ and neglect. Fine. Then you're saying that, without any actual neglect in this particular case, the state has the right and obligation to remove the child, based only on this correlation?

And what happens if there also turns out to be a correlation between neglect and race? Or neglect and age? Or neglect and income? Or neglect and religion? Or neglect and zip code?

Should they start preemptively taking children away from parents of a certain race, income, age, zip code... ?

 

[The Barbarian]

All 50 states already provide free education to every child for at least 12 years.

These kids would need more than that, because the parents wouldn't be able to provide it. I see no more problem giving them adequate stimulation to develop normally in intelligence than there would be in giving them adequate assistance in other ways.

 

[glassjester]

These kids would need more than that, because the parents wouldn't be able to provide it. I see no more problem giving them adequate stimulation to develop normally in intelligence than there would be in giving them adequate assistance in other ways.

I agree - kids need more than just a K-12 education to really flourish, intellectually. But I am not sure that it's the government's job to provide it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Admitting you have a problem is the first step toward recovery

In your case, it's prolly the first stagger toward recovery :thumb:

Problem? More like a very mild irritant that keeps on buzzing about...