More:

UK: Mother Mildly Learning Disabled, so Council Prevents Marriage, Takes Child Four Days After Birth

By Glenn Sacks | Sun, Jan 24 2010, 10:13 AM

There was a young couple from Fife,
To their son they'd have given their life
But the Fife Council said
Give him to us instead
Only we can decide what is right.

(OK, I know it's not great, but there's something about Fife that moves me to limerick.)

I've written many times about my concerns about the ever-expanding authority of the state into family life. More and more, it seems the governmental authority is taking it upon itself to intervene in parental decision-making and in some cases judicially overrule even trivial parental decisions. Last year, for example, I reported on a case out of Canada in which a custodial father had grounded his 12-year-old daughter because she was spending too much time on the Internet, contrary to his instructions. So she sued him and won, the court ruling that his discipline was too harsh.

In a similar vein, try this one on for size (Daily Mail, 1/22/10). Seventeen-year-old Kerry Robertson of Fife, Scotland has apparently been found by some authority or other to have "mildl learning difficulties." She became pregnant by her boyfriend, artist Mark McDougall, 25. Last September, they decided to get married, but the Fife Council intervened and prevented the wedding from taking place. By what authority or for what reason the Council did that, I have no idea. Perhaps our readers from the U.K. can enlighten us. Does the Council have authority over issuance of marriage licenses? On what basis did it deny this couple the right to marry?

But as I said, Robertson was pregnant and the same Fife Council decided that her learning disability required it to take her child into foster care immediately after it was born. Somehow, she and McDougall got wind of the Council's intention, so they fled to Ireland where they thought they'd be safe from the clutches of Fife Council. They were wrong.

[J]ust four days after Ben was born, Irish social workers marched into the maternity ward and forced them to hand him over.

Robertson had just finished breastfeeding the healthy infant when he was taken.
Last night Miss Robertson said: ‘When the Irish social workers said I had to give the baby to them, I felt sick.

‘I didn’t want to hand him over and I started crying because I couldn’t believe what they were saying. I thought I had misunderstood.

‘I had just been breastfeeding him.

Just before they took him away, I told Ben I loved him and gave him a kiss.’

Mr McDougall added: ‘Kerry let out a dreadful cry when she realised what was happening – it was terrible. She is just in pieces.

...As the social workers told us the news, the two midwives who have been caring for Kerry were so distressed that they fled the room.’

Whatever her learning disability might be, Robertson and McDougall apparently did all the appropriate prenatal care and their baby is healthy. Reading the article linked to, it's impossible to detect the slightest impairment in Robertson's thought processes. In fact, she seems reasonably thoughtful and well-spoken. For example, she seems to understand the value of breastfeeding.

And what about McDougall? As far as this article tells us, he has no impairments whatsoever. And yet authorities felt perfectly entitled to take his child from him. It's highly ironic in this case, of course, but it looks like Robertson's disability is being used to infringe upon his rights as well as hers. It's as if the Scottish and Irish states look at a mother and father and see only the mother. If she's unable to care for their child, then the child is taken. His capabilities are ignored. It's like he's invisible.

I'm not familiar with U.K. law regarding single fathers, but in the U.S. marriage makes all the difference in a fathers' parental rights. A married father here has presumptive rights to any child born to his wife. Generally speaking, single dads have to prove they're the father and actively take up the responsibilities of fatherhood to establish their rights. If single dads in Scotland are similarly legally impaired, it's totally unacceptable that the Fife Council could intervene to stop this couple's wedding. By doing so it impaired McDougall's parental rights along with everything else.

Finally, unless there is some very important information about Robertson that the article doesn't tell us, the behavior of the Fife Council is beyond outrageous. To deny this couple the right to marry is unsupportable. To take their child before they have any opportunity to demonstrate whether they can care for him or not is unjust in every way. It's an attack on the child's wellbeing, since overwhelmingly, children do better when raise by both biological parents.

Here's a closely-guarded secret: we want couples to marry; everyone's better off when they do. Here's another one: we want children to be raised by two biological parents; again, everyone is better off when they do. Fife Council's actions contradict what we have known for decades to be in the best interests of children, mothers, fathers and society.

As I've said before, governments tend to increase their power if they can. Their increasing power over children and families is an important example of that.
I emailed a number of questions about this case to the Fife Council. I'll let everyone know what they tell me, if anything.

Thanks to Jude for the heads-up.

This article makes me cry. I cannot believe any government wold bar anyone from marrying, then take their baby away from them. How sad for both of them and for baby Ben. How scary.

Hannah

In some large 'social welfare' or 'child protection agency' somewhere, in the bowels of a Government office block where the shite gathers, a Committee sat and discussed this case.

The people around the table were predominantly women. I say that because all government departments are staffed predominantly by women at a ratio of some 60:40%

They brought their innate female 'empathy' to bear. They 'communicated' with one another and 'resolved differences' of opinion. They had a 'process' for it. I doubt that any opinion regarding freedom to marry and have a baby featured though.

Then this female oriented, 'relationship' oriented, process orientated group decided to steal a woman's baby.

They decided to use Power and Authority. To take a baby from its mothers breast.

What a caring, sharing society we have.

Only the other year these same women were decrying 'Power' and 'Authority' as 'Patriarchal' and 'Oppressive'.

Things are so much better now.

well Percy, I do hope you'll upsate this story as you get the info. I'd really like to know how this one shakes out. My sadness is turnin to rage the more I read it.

Hannah

http://media.causes.com/ribbon/708179 I did an article on P.A.I.N in my blog and Alison Stevens who campaigns on behalf of this group that call social services to accout has just celebrated 25 years of this org! see more on my blog below

Imagine that committee. Earnest people. 'Ordinary' people. Charged wth protecting children.

Did any one of them say "This woman has a natural right to bear children" ?

Did any one of them say, "The father has a right to his child, A Natural right"?

Did any one of them say, "Stealing a baby is wrong".

If anyone of them did, it did no good, as the decision was taken to ignore and ride rough-shod over the natural rights of the parents.

Did any one of them say, 'Who the fuck do we think we are"?

I can't believe this. An absolute farce. It seems every second week we're hearing about a child all but tortured to death by some negligent mother of whom these clowns were perfectly aware yet did nothing about in their slothful insolence; all but sanctioning the child's murder themselves, given their characteristic timidity when it comes to separating a woman (however criminal or foul) from her spawn yet here, an example of a man and women, who not only have suffered the indignity of being told they cannot marry but who have had their child stolen from them by the state! An absolutely disgusting abuse. If this doesn't show clearly the priority of the state with regards to children, marriage and all the rest, I do not know what will. At least we can be soothed by that thought; such actions are a testament to our cause, indisputable proof of the evil we're up against, duly recorded they paint our enemies as the arch-villains they are and slander them more blackly within the eye of morality than any accusation or criticism ever could.

the disaster for the couple is not surprising as they are living in a latter day Fascist state a state that assigns levels of worth to various citizens and those in the sub human category well ! are treated as sub humans

It could be worse. If this girl did not know what she was doing when she got pregnant, then the man must have raped her, right? So he could now be in jail, right?

The authorities missed a trick on that one. Getting the father banged up for rape would have made their job of grabbing the baby much easier, would it not?

Not on the same level, but I'm in Scotland, so I know how "important" my government views me in my son's life. When he went for his hearing test, the one all babies get, my signature was not welcome on the consent form because I'm not married, and therefore not considered to be a real father in the governments eyes.
His mother did not need to be married to have the rights I was denied for not being married, equality eh?

I don't believe in marriage, I'm dead against it, but according to my government, I have to take on a whole new system of beliefs in order to count as a real father, it's absurd, and again I point out, the mother does not in any way have to be married, yet still retains full rights over her child, for me to get the same rights, or close to the same rights, as his mother, I'd have to marry her, this is the very definition of unfair.

What I'm thinking now is, what if something terrible happened to his mother, would he be taken from me because I'm not married? That's a sure-fire way to turn someone into a one-man army and go postal on their government.

What I'm thinking now is, what if something terrible happened to his mother, would he be taken from me because I'm not married?

Tick one box only:

a) Yes, and you would be called a deadbeat and TOLD to step up and pay for its upkeep with a foster parent

b) Yes, and you won't hear about it until you read it in a newspaper when a tragedy happens.

c) No, you will MADE to look after the child under supervision of a Zozhial Verker and called a deadbeat and TOLD to step up as though your never intended to.

d) No, and no one will ever notice or speak about it and just accept it as natural.

25 points and a cigar from TMOTS for the correct answer: 5 extra points if you can spot the joke answer.

Quote from 6ame

Not on the same level, but I'm in Scotland, so I know how "important" my government views me in my son's life. When he went for his hearing test, the one all babies get, my signature was not welcome on the consent form because I'm not married, and therefore not considered to be a real father in the governments eyes.
His mother did not need to be married to have the rights I was denied for not being married, equality eh?

I don't believe in marriage, I'm dead against it, but according to my government, I have to take on a whole new system of beliefs in order to count as a real father, it's absurd, and again I point out, the mother does not in any way have to be married, yet still retains full rights over her child, for me to get the same rights, or close to the same rights, as his mother, I'd have to marry her, this is the very definition of unfair.

What I'm thinking now is, what if something terrible happened to his mother, would he be taken from me because I'm not married? That's a sure-fire way to turn someone into a one-man army and go postal on their government.

Can you please explain this in more detail because I don't understand how this works and I have not ever heard of this before. I feel like asking single fathers who aren't married in NZ how it is they won family court cases and get financial assistance. Maybe NZ has such a law but most don't know of it.

Also I hope you don't mind a few questions. I only ask to get a clearer picture.

1. Are you on the birth certificate?
2. Were you at the birth?
3. Where was the test done? Was it at the hospital the baby was born or at your local doctor?

4. Did they actually ask if you were married?
5. Do you know the law or policy in your country that states an unmarried father is not a custodian?

Quote from julie

1. Are you on the birth certificate?

Yes.

Quote from julie

2. Were you at the birth?

At the hospital, her mother was with her during the birth/C-section.

Quote from julie

3. Where was the test done? Was it at the hospital the baby was born or at your local doctor?

At the hospital where he was born, about two weeks after he was born.

Quote from julie

4. Did they actually ask if you were married?

No, it is clearly stated on the consent form that either the mother's, or both married parents' signatures are to be put, unmarried fathers don't have any right to consent to their own child's hearing test.

Quote from julie

5. Do you know the law or policy in your country that states an unmarried father is not a custodian?

My first experience of this was a couple of weeks after he was born, only on the consent form, I know of no law.

I wrote this short blog at the time if you're interested;

A Sign Of What I Can Expect
We took baby Alexander for his hearing test yesterday, which he passed with flying colours, it was quicker than I expected, no more than 2 minutes, which was good.

What was not good however, was finding out that I have less rights over my own child and as a father in general, compared to a married father, simply because I'm not married. Seems a little unfair to me for non-religious fathers to be treated like this, I mean, marriage is not in my future because I'm not going to take part in a religious ceremony when I'm not even religious, I think that in itself would be very disrespectful.

Anyway, let me explain my annoyance, on the consent form that had to be signed so the hearing test could take place, my signature counted for squat, in fact, less than squat. It states on the form, permission from a parent or parents must be given, unless the parents are unmarried, then only the mother can sign it. So simply because I'm not married, I'm considered "not much of a father", certainly not enough to sign a consent form for my own child.

I see this as a total mistreatment of me because of the choices I made in life, how can me not being married mean I don't have the right to sign a consent form for my child? I'm his father, that's right, his father, yet I'm told "Sorry, your signature is meaningless, we don't see you as this child's father because you are not married", surely this is wrong?

Here's another thing, his bloody mother isn't married either, why is she allowed to sign the form then? Why is she given more parental rights than me, 2 bloody weeks into parenthood?
I am so angry because it seems like such a small thing, but it's the principle, I am his father, and it seems society will not see me as "really" a father unless I take part in a religious ceremony, it's absurd, and unfair.

I know people (idiots) will say "Just get married then, problem solved", but I shouldn't have to go through with that to be seen as a father to my son, especially since his mother doesn't have to go through with it, it's clearly unfair, and it's anti-father, or at least anti-non-religious father.

Rant over.

Thanks 6ame for the info. I too am shocked.

I see a man from Germany took Germany itself to the European court to have unmarried fathers gain custodian status in Germany.

I didn't realise it was a policy in other countries. I better do some research tomorrow to see if NZ is now the same.

Once again thanks. I don't blame you for being angry about this. It is disgusting. Also, nice rant. I may need to use your story.