Bristol mum told she cannot keep baby because she has low IQ
A FAMILY has begun a legal battle after social services took a baby from her mother just days after she was born.
The 25-year-old mum from Easton, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is fighting to be allowed to keep her baby daughter, who is just one week old.
-
She has been told she is not fit to bring up her baby because she has a low IQ – between 64 and 72.
One of the baby's grandmothers asked to be allowed to look after the baby but she was told she was unsuitable.
The mother gave birth at St Michael's Hospital last Thursday after labour was induced.
The baby's father and both grandmothers were with her. One of the baby's arms was injured during delivery and she was whisked to the special care baby unit before the mother had a chance to hold her.
She was returned to her mother after protests from both grandmothers.
One of the grandmothers, from Nailsea, said: "Social services tried to get a court order to have the baby handed to foster parents as soon as she was born but our solicitor fought it.
"There were 10 staff in the delivery room because of all the interest from social services.
"They had to pull the baby out. She suffered stretched ligaments as a result.
"The baby keeps that arm at her side.
"They took her to the special care baby unit straight away.
"We protested and they brought her back. My daughter was kept in a room on her own and was not encouraged to breast feed like the other mothers."
The mother herself was given sedatives and on Sunday she complained of blurred vision and feeling unwell.
With tears running down her face, she said: "I love my baby and I want to keep her."
She said she has the support of both grandparents and would be able to look after the baby.
Social services have been arguing that she is a schizophrenic, but the diagnosis is being challenged by the mother's legal team as they claim it was arrived at following a brief visit by a doctor.
The family claim tests by a London specialist later showed she was not schizophrenic but they believe social workers are using old medical records to strengthen their case.
Her mother said: "She has a low IQ and learning difficulties but that is no bar to being a good mother.
"Social services are trying to say she has psychiatric problems but we believe that they are basing that on incorrect records.
"My daughter has been assessed by a consultant in London and he said she only had low IQ. If that is a reason to take a baby from its mother, then there are thousands of people who should not be looking after their children.
"I think it's appalling."
The other grandmother, who is 46 and has four children and 10 grandchildren, said: "I have been told that I am not suitable to look after the baby. I believe the parents are being penalised because they have learning difficulties. Everyone has the right to family life."
The mother went to a normal school where it was discovered she was dyslexic so she had to have special lessons and although she didn't gain any qualifications, she did attend a beauty therapy course and has worked as a shop assistant.
She lives alone in a two-bed flat near a mother and baby unit where she has been offered support by the Young Mothers Group Trust which helps mothers aged 16 – 25.
Katherine de Lisle, a spokesman for Bristol City Council said: "We would never seek to remove a child from a family unless there were significant concerns for its welfare and would not legally be permitted to do so unless the court confirmed it was in the child's best interests. To protect the child involved, we can't give details of an individual case."
51 Comments
View all
by Andrew, UK
Sunday, June 28 2009, 3:38AM
“Yes the social services really do target people with learning disabilities, it is sickening.
What they do is generally is disgusting and the "damned if we do, and damned if we don't" catchphrase is to cover incompetence - They are always "damned" as they often have everything ass upwards, and simply want their 'cake and eat it', it is like saying "Don't ever blame me, I'm perfect, I'm a social worker!"”
by A social worker, West Midlands
Wednesday, March 18 2009, 1:08PM
“Sigh....! Why on earth do I do this job? I'll tell you why; because children are the most precious assets we have and they deserve to be loved, protected and given every chance to lead a fullfilling life. It's a social worker's job to ensure that every child who is is in need of protection is afforded the same rights as any other human being because sometimes, they can't make their own views heard. That's why I do my job, because EVERY child matters.”
by here we go again, weston super mare
Saturday, March 14 2009, 4:19PM
“One thing that is FACT is that social workers cant just 'remove' babies. They have to apply to court for an order, and it is the COURT who decide whether the baby is safe to remain with its parent(s) or not.
Low IQ will NOT be the only reason to remove this child. As already stated, there are thousands of parents with low IQ who raise their children.
The problem is, Social Workers are not able to speak up and explain the reasoning behind their decisions in public, so if the mother chooses to be 'selective' with what information she shares with the press there is nothing the social worker can do about it.
The fact people actually believe the facts of this case are this simple is very concerning.”
by Jeremy, Bristol
Tuesday, March 10 2009, 12:15PM
“I know very little about this case but I know more than anyone whose only source is the Evening Post report. Anyone who has read only that report should not comment on the case - they don't have enough information to do so and the information they do have is misleading.
Some journalism is good - it reveals things that vested interests try to hide or sheds light on issues that are more complicated than commonly thought. Some journalism is bad - it seeks only to sell papers and will mislead and even tell lies to do so. As someone on the margins of this case, I know that this report is bad journalism and that is worth commenting on.
It's also worth pointing out that the paper and even the journalist responsible probably know this is bad journalism but are more interested in the 'story' and it's circulation value than in the welfare of the baby.”
by Mark, Bristol
Monday, March 09 2009, 10:06PM
“John, its a bit unfair to say things like that when we only have one side of the story, the side that is from the family. The same extended family that are not allowed to have care of the baby.
We do not know the reasons, and we dont need to know, why.
That is for the family, the SS and the other departments that have a say in this.”