should kids be taken away from "dumb" parents?

[dead0man]

An Oregon couple with low IQs (72 and 66) had their kids taken from them (the second one was taken from the hospital when the mother was still recovering from birth).  cite  The kids were not abused or neglected.

This seems like a horrible idea to me.  If there is no abuse or neglect then the state shouldn't be allowed to do this.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I didn't even realize the state had a right to do this. WTF

[dead0man]

I read on a pro-disability website that 40-80% of mentally disabled parents have their children taken away.  There are some (obvious) reasons to take that number with a large amount of salt, but it does happen.

[Sir Mohamed]

Nah. Measuring "dumb" is difficult in most cases anyway and we shouldn't use IQ tests for much serious decisions. Children should only be taken away if they are seriously neglected, in the cases of violence, drug- or alcohol abuse.

[Goldwater]

I read on a pro-disability website that 40-80% of mentally disabled parents have their children taken away.  There are some (obvious) reasons to take that number with a large amount of salt, but it does happen.

Yeah, no way I can trust a number with that wide of a range. I also have to wonder how many of those are solely because of the mental disability and not becasue the parent was unable to provide all of their child's needs.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that taking away a child just becasue the parent has a low IQ score is an obviously horrible thing to do.

[Santander]

Nah. Measuring "dumb" is difficult in most cases anyway and we shouldn't use IQ tests for much serious decisions. Children should only be taken away if they are seriously neglected, in the cases of violence, drug- or alcohol abuse.

The state didn't order them to take an IQ test one day and then take the children away. Both parents have been diagnosed with severe mental disabilities that makes them unable to be responsible for their actions. If the state thought a support network would work, I assume they would've tried to help the parents that way.

Anyway, I support this decision.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Absolutely

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Disgusting.

[mvd10]

We shouldn't be taking children away from their parents just because the parents are dumb (and an IQ-test is by no means perfect), but if your IQ is 66 you're probably not fit to raise children and we should absolutely take children away from people who aren't fit to raise children. Seriously, how is someone with an IQ of 66 going to handle and understand a rebellious and/or reasonably intelligent 16-year old? What will become of the child?

[TDAS04]

IQ per se should not be a reason to take kids away from their parents.  Negligence and/or abuse are (obviously) good reasons to remove kids, regardless of the parents' intelligence.

[Beet]

It appears I'm the only one who voted "some third thing." The childrens' objective standards should be analyzed, and if it's clearly in the best interests of the child to separate them from their parents and have them placed somewhere else, then yes, and attempt should be made. Otherwise, no. However, fundamental custody issues may also arise. It's possible there's some sort of theory that could be formulated where parents have rights to their children absent abuse or neglect.

[Santander]

We shouldn't be taking children away from their parents just because the parents are dumb (and an IQ-test is by no means perfect), but if your IQ is 66 you're probably not fit to raise children and we should absolutely take children away from people who aren't fit to raise children.

Yes, describing someone with an IQ of 66 as "dumb" is terribly inaccurate. They are severely disabled individuals who cannot even take care of themselves, let alone a child.

[RFayette]

The difficult issue in this case is that if someone has a mental disability (which both were diagnosed with), then there is going to be a significant risk of negligence, and with young children, this could be deadly.   Waiting for evidence of abject negligence or abuse while the couple has custody of the children could often mean it will be too late and the child will be dead or irreparably harmed.  If the chances of this abuse or neglect of a family with such a profile is so high, I think the state did the right thing in the best interests of the child, to prevent the very high chance of something awful happening.  

However, the tough question is, what is the cutoff for that (level of developmental disability necessary for the risk to be high enough to warrant loss of custody)?  I don't know if an IQ of 66 necessarily is sufficient to meet that threshold, but I am not well acquainted enough with the research in this field to say for sure.  Nonetheless, a strong case can be made for erring on the side of caution, for the sake of the child.

[Santander]

Also, the child was taken away in response to a family member contacting the state Department of Human Services. It was not just done on a whim. I have to defer to the opinion of the concerned family member on this, as they know the parents better than any of us or even the state government.

Yeah, the parents can speak English and play with their child, but even children can do those things. With such mental disabilities, what would the parents do if something that required fast decision-making skills happened, like if their child had an accident, and how would they take care of the child's needs as they got older? These are things that are hard enough for fully-able parents, let alone disabled ones.

[dead0man]

from the article

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kingpoleon]

I imagine trying to find a... smarter relative might be best, but not seizing kids.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

There's really no rule here. We can cite plenty of examples of "dumb" parents raising intelligent children and the other way around. It must be on case-to-case basis. When you're unable due to your level of intelligence to provide acceptable care, then a child's welfare is paramount issue here.

[darklordoftech]

No way! Family is about love, not intelligence.

[afleitch]

No. Only neglectful ones, whether than neglect is willing or through lack of ability.

[dead0man]

the state has given the youngest son back to the parents

good news!

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

We shouldn't be taking children away from their parents just because the parents are dumb (and an IQ-test is by no means perfect), but if your IQ is 66 you're probably not fit to raise children and we should absolutely take children away from people who aren't fit to raise children.

Yes, describing someone with an IQ of 66 as "dumb" is terribly inaccurate. They are severely disabled individuals who cannot even take care of themselves, let alone a child.

My IQ is around 75, and I'm not anywhere near being mentally disabled/retarded.

[Mr. Reactionary]

We shouldn't be taking children away from their parents just because the parents are dumb (and an IQ-test is by no means perfect), but if your IQ is 66 you're probably not fit to raise children and we should absolutely take children away from people who aren't fit to raise children.

Yes, describing someone with an IQ of 66 as "dumb" is terribly inaccurate. They are severely disabled individuals who cannot even take care of themselves, let alone a child.

My IQ is around 75, and I'm not anywhere near being mentally disabled/retarded.

Forest Gumps iq was 75 and he met 5 Presidents, started several multimillion dollar businesses, won the congressional medal of honor, captured saddam hussein, and raised a kid of his own.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Of course not. This is a terrible decision.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Of course not. This is a terrible decision.

[DC Al Fine]

Of course not. This is a terrible decision.

Precisely. If our society wants to pat itself on the back, it can't arbitrarily take away children from parents without some evidence of harm to the child.