Despair: Kerry Robertson is 29 weeks pregnant by Mark McDougall and the couple have already named the unborn child Ben. She 'out of her mind with worry'
Posted on 11/07/2009 12:02:06 PM PST by Stoat
Kerry Robertson, 17, and Mark McDougall, 25, had been told that she was not bright enough to raise their child and that they would have to give him up.
It was another blow for the couple, whose wedding this year was halted just 48 hours before the ceremony in a row over whether Miss Robertson was intelligent enough to marry.
Desperate to keep their family together, the pair fled their home yesterday for a secret safe house.
(edit)
'But by fleeing while pregnant, Miss Robertson has not broken any law, as far as I'm aware.
'If she has her baby outside the jurisdiction of Fife council, they no longer have any power to take the child into care.
'Rather, they would have to locate her and alert the relevant council who would have to apply for a removal order themselves.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Already HERE!
Tyranny is what happens in a country without a Second Amendment...ooops sorry, without a Constitution.
When my son was due we attended some birthing classes at the hospital. One of the couples in the class were clearly retarded. You had to worry about the kid’s future, and yet they actually seemed like they were going to be much better parents than a lot of other people.
you’re too conservative to have children. not enough empathy. how soon before government health care makes that proclamation?
Indeed, although it may be a short-lived victory unless they are able to settle in a place that has different laws.
One sad aspect of this matter is that the father has stated that he would take responsibility for raising the child, and a 'grandmother-to-be' has stated that she would raise the child as well. These options were rejected because of the judgment that the woman does not understand what marriage means and so they are not allowed to marry. Without their being married, the father would not be allowed to raise the child, nor would the grandmother.....the only option allowed would be of taking the baby from the family entirely and placing it into an unrelated foster home which, as Jim Wayne mentioned above, could even be a homosexual 'couple'. This is deemed by the Government as being the best route.
A heart-wrenching situation all 'round.
liberals have 50% of their babies, and the government doesn’t qualify them as being too stupid.
Of course, in Obama’s re-education camps, the scale will be much larger, and the taking of children based on religious beliefs rather than intelligence.
“Without their being married, the father would not be allowed to raise the child,...”
Why the heck not? Don’t fathers have rights in England? What if the woman died giving birth? It’s his own child, I don’t see why he wouldn’t have 100% rights to that child.
What am I missing here?
We have Washington DC full of people that aren’t intelligent enought to be there, maybe we could send them all to England and let their social service take them and find a place to warehouse them..
wow...top 1% never knew I was so intelligent...now if only I could be smarter...
Well, she obviously was able to "grasp" something! :)
Why the heck not? Don’t fathers have rights in England? What if the woman died giving birth? It’s his own child, I don’t see why he wouldn’t have 100% rights to that child.
What am I missing here?
Whatever you may be missing, it seems that I am in the same boat. I believe that in the matter of divorces, fathers are 'occasionally' given custody of a child, and sometimes a baby, when the woman is shown to be unfit, as well as in the case of the death of a mother as you have said. Since the father has apparently not been shown to be legally unfit due to any other reason than his not being married to the mother, it is all a rather baffling, convoluted matter, and it seems that the Government's greatest wish in this case is to remove the child from the family entirely.
Just astonishing.
Good comment.
Weird. Dumb people have rights too. Why do they think they can take away her child? Without any evidence of maltreatment or anything?
F-ing Communist. Dictating everything.
God has blessed me richly. 4 children, 12 grands, 3 great grands and another on the way. I’ll be 65 in June if I make it. I’ve been married since I was a baby.
From what I have read of the matter so far, it seems that the Government is acting entirely upon its judgment that the only thing that is valid is the certificate of marriage, which, being lacking in this case, renders the child a ward of the State regardless of the fact that there is an apparently legally-competent father who is willing to raise the child as well as a legally-competent grandmother. These aspects of the matter are not considered relevant because of the lack of the marriage certificate.
I had thought that a 'social services' agency is one that is tasked with helping to do what is truly best for society...finding a human solution to a matter when the law may be unclear or inappropriate for a complex circumstance. It seems that in this case, the 'social services' should be renamed as a law enforcement agency as it appears that they are only considering the strict interpretation of the law from only one viewpoint...that of the State.
I don't know how legitimate this South African blog is, but it raises interesting questions and concerns as to the motivations of an apparent incentive to social workers in increasing adoption numbers. If the assertions made in this blog are even partially true, it certainly raises troubling concerns. Perhaps our friend Manc is familiar with the notion of 'incentives' for social workers placing more and more children into the adoption / foster home system?
Britain stealing children for higher adoption numbers Fromtheold
WOW - interesting article thank you for posting.
From your linked page:
Sterilization rates under eugenic laws in the United States climbed from 1927 until Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). While Skinner v. Oklahoma did not specifically overturn Buck v. Bell, it created enough of a legal quandary to discourage many sterilizations. By 1963, sterilization laws were almost wholly out of use, though some remained officially on the books for many years. Virginia's state sterilization law was repealed in 1974.
Fifty years ago, much because the Nazis were considered right-wing, the U.S. eugenics movement was often called a right-wing phenomenon. Today, many conservative writers are calling it a left-wing or progressive or whatever thing. I think the truth may be that too many groups had a hand in it to call it anything but government overstepping its bounds.
Despair: Kerry Robertson is 29 weeks pregnant by Mark McDougall and the couple have already named the unborn child Ben. She 'out of her mind with worry'
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.