I suspect there is more to this story than what we are being told, but nevertheless, what a mess:
A MOTHER is taking her fight to the European Court of Human Rights after she was forbidden from seeing her three-year-old daughter because she is not “clever enough” to look after her.
The woman, who for legal reasons can be identified only by her first name, Rachel, has been told by a family court that her daughter will be placed with adoptive parents within the next three months, and she will then be barred from further contact.
The adoption is going ahead despite the declaration by a psychiatrist that Rachel, 24, has no learning difficulties and “good literacy and numeracy and [that] her general intellectual abilities appear to be within the normal range”.
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.
Rachel said last night: “I have been totally let down by the system. All I want is to care for my daughter but the council and the court are determined not to let me.
“The court here has now ordered that my contact with my daughter must be reduced from every fortnight until in three months’ time it will all be over and I will never see her again.”
There are times when it feels like we live in a society that is absolutely determined to destroy the normal bond between mother and child. And another thing: What makes you think typical government bureaucrats know what being “clever enough” to care for your own child even is?
_______________________
Andrea adds: I recall going to see The Danish Play way back when (about a woman who resists the Nazis) and at one point the main character’s daughter is taken away because, I believe, the Nazis deem her unfit to care for her.
I note one of the comments to this post is dismissive of your concern here, Brigitte, but I stand firmly in the “freedom is not free” camp and if we aren’t vigilant on such matters we’ll lose our liberty. Europe may not be our society, no, but it is our roots (in particular, it certainly makes up my immediate heritage), and many Canadians look up to the European model.
by 
Great Moments in Socialism!
There are times when it feels like we live in a society that is absolutely determined to destroy the normal bond between mother and child.
Since when is Europe “our society?”
If you go looking for reasons to terrify you, I hope you don’t have, and never have children. They’ll grow up to be as terrified as you.
I agree with Brigitte’s concerns – and Andrea’s support of same.
Our society constantly looks to the example of others and precedents are just that, precedents. We need only look to the example of euthanasia. Every time the topic is brought to our attention, proponents hold up the Netherlands as an example of how “it works”. (Despite the fact that many of us know about the injustices being performed there under the auspices of euthanasia, many in the public realm are unaware, so they are snowed by the argument that a European society already has “a system” in place.)
The point is, not only are our own society’s roots founded in Europe, but we tend to think of the bulk of the European community as fairly forward-thinking and certainly enlightened. Precedents established there certainly hold sway with the public here.
Thanks to all of you ladies (and in this instance, Brigitte) for doing the leg-work to find out the types of things that are going on globally – and giving us a taste of the sorts of things we need to be informed about, and therefore vigilant about in our own society. We need not let them “terrify us”. But being informed (and even somewhat concerned) about them is certainly warranted. I, for one, am a grateful mother.
This IS terrifying. What’s more, I think that if this young, supposedly uneducated (I didn’t read the linked article…I’m assuming this was part of the government’s grounds for removing the child?) mother had CHOSEN to abort her baby instead of deal with the difficulties of motherhood, her government would have backed her 100%. Then, I imagine she’d have been called clever, selfless, and intelligent. A shame.
That case is just normal in the uk.
Things may begin to change now, thanks to the successful campaign waged by Camilla Cavendish of The Times. I recommend reading some of her archives if you want to see how bad state control of family life can get in a modern democracy.