IQ costs Oregon parents their kids, but is that fair? (Column)

[martybegan]

IQ costs Oregon parents their kids, but is that fair? (Column)

I'm sure we are not hearing the whole story, but to me this doesn't seem to really be fair or even moral. Both parents have a high school Diploma, and one even has a Driver's license.

Removing the kids from the parent's care seems like overkill, couldn't the agency just monitor the situation?

For nearly four years, the Redmond couple has been fighting to prove to the state of Oregon that they are intellectually capable of raising their children. The Department of Human Services has removed both of their boys, saying the parents are too mentally limited to be good parents.

Fabbrini, 31, and Ziegler, 38, lost custody of their older son, Christopher, shortly after he was born. Five months ago, the state took their second child, newborn Hunter, directly from the hospital. Both are now in foster care.

 

[RodISHI]

Not a good sign of things to come.

 

[pismoe]

well , it is the lefty state of 'oregon' , don't they already have assisted suicide and abortion on demand for everyone . I think that the parents should probably be left alone to raise their kids based on the little that know Marty .

 

[martybegan]

Not a good sign of things to come.

again, I'm sure there is more to the story, but it does seem a bit heavy handed.

 

[OldLady]

IQ costs Oregon parents their kids, but is that fair? (Column)

I'm sure we are not hearing the whole story, but to me this doesn't seem to really be fair or even moral. Both parents have a high school Diploma, and one even has a Driver's license.

Removing the kids from the parent's care seems like overkill, couldn't the agency just monitor the situation?

For nearly four years, the Redmond couple has been fighting to prove to the state of Oregon that they are intellectually capable of raising their children. The Department of Human Services has removed both of their boys, saying the parents are too mentally limited to be good parents.

Fabbrini, 31, and Ziegler, 38, lost custody of their older son, Christopher, shortly after he was born. Five months ago, the state took their second child, newborn Hunter, directly from the hospital. Both are now in foster care.

The article said "No abuse or neglect was found." I don't believe that can be the case. It certainly isn't the case where I was a Child Protective worker. We had to provide evidence to the court that the child was neglected or abused. My guess is that the first child was in the parents' custody after birth and the child was neglected (that does not mean they did it on purpose). Efforts to educate the parents, provide a safety net/support network to ensure the child's safety would have been tried in my state. However, parents are not obligated to follow through with that, and if this couple dragged their feet or refused or were incapable of learning the things they needed to know, no, the court would not return the child.
I never had a case where a newborn was removed from the hospital unless the parent was an admitted drug addict and other children had been removed from her in the past with no improvement. I had a couple of heartbreaking cases where low functioning parents, who very much loved their babies, couldn't intellectually handle simple safety routines and decisions when an emergency popped up. Children are always confronting us with the unexpected. We take it for granted that we can handle it, but not all people have the cognitive ability for that.
It is sad, but I do question the statement "No abuse or neglect was found." With the second child, they are basing that decision on the parents past performance. So serious risk of harm is what that would be based on. Often, courts overturn it unless the evidence is very strong.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This is all kinda fuked up if true.

 

[RodISHI]

Not a good sign of things to come.

again, I'm sure there is more to the story, but it does seem a bit heavy handed.

Going by personal experience in how I was told growing up how 'useless' I was, 'stupid' and all sorts of derogatory bs. It made even trying difficult at times. As children we tend to believe what we are told. Some can overcome that and some cannot. I have known many people along the road in life that were less endowed with certain skills and thought to be mentally inferior but the fact is many of those I would trust more to take care of another living being than these who believe that they are smarter, more educated, etc... so think that they deserve to have rights above and beyond and over the others. What is the IQ of the gal who left her baby in the car in 100 degree weather?

 

[Jackson]

I agree with monitoring the situation, not just taking them away from the parents unless their IQ's are bordering 50 to 60.

 

[RodISHI]

IQ costs Oregon parents their kids, but is that fair? (Column)

I'm sure we are not hearing the whole story, but to me this doesn't seem to really be fair or even moral. Both parents have a high school Diploma, and one even has a Driver's license.

Removing the kids from the parent's care seems like overkill, couldn't the agency just monitor the situation?

For nearly four years, the Redmond couple has been fighting to prove to the state of Oregon that they are intellectually capable of raising their children. The Department of Human Services has removed both of their boys, saying the parents are too mentally limited to be good parents.

Fabbrini, 31, and Ziegler, 38, lost custody of their older son, Christopher, shortly after he was born. Five months ago, the state took their second child, newborn Hunter, directly from the hospital. Both are now in foster care.

The article said "No abuse or neglect was found." I don't believe that can be the case. It certainly isn't the case where I was a Child Protective worker. We had to provide evidence to the court that the child was neglected or abused. My guess is that the first child was in the parents' custody after birth and the child was neglected (that does not mean they did it on purpose). Efforts to educate the parents, provide a safety net/support network to ensure the child's safety would have been tried in my state. However, parents are not obligated to follow through with that, and if this couple dragged their feet or refused or were incapable of learning the things they needed to know, no, the court would not return the child.
I never had a case where a newborn was removed from the hospital unless the parent was an admitted drug addict and other children had been removed from her in the past with no improvement. I had a couple of heartbreaking cases where low functioning parents, who very much loved their babies, couldn't intellectually handle simple safety routines and decisions when an emergency popped up. Children are always confronting us with the unexpected. We take it for granted that we can handle it, but not all people have the cognitive ability for that.
It is sad, but I do question the statement "No abuse or neglect was found." With the second child, they are basing that decision on the parents past performance. So serious risk of harm is what that would be based on. Often, courts overturn it unless the evidence is very strong.

Oregon has some very screwed up crap that goes on.

 

[OldLady]

I agree with monitoring the situation, not just taking them away from the parents unless their IQ's are bordering 50 to 60.

I would bet you a nickel that was done when the first child was born.
IQ scores never came into evidence in our court cases. It was based solely on parents' actual performance.

 

[OldLady]

IQ costs Oregon parents their kids, but is that fair? (Column)

I'm sure we are not hearing the whole story, but to me this doesn't seem to really be fair or even moral. Both parents have a high school Diploma, and one even has a Driver's license.

Removing the kids from the parent's care seems like overkill, couldn't the agency just monitor the situation?

For nearly four years, the Redmond couple has been fighting to prove to the state of Oregon that they are intellectually capable of raising their children. The Department of Human Services has removed both of their boys, saying the parents are too mentally limited to be good parents.

Fabbrini, 31, and Ziegler, 38, lost custody of their older son, Christopher, shortly after he was born. Five months ago, the state took their second child, newborn Hunter, directly from the hospital. Both are now in foster care.

The article said "No abuse or neglect was found." I don't believe that can be the case. It certainly isn't the case where I was a Child Protective worker. We had to provide evidence to the court that the child was neglected or abused. My guess is that the first child was in the parents' custody after birth and the child was neglected (that does not mean they did it on purpose). Efforts to educate the parents, provide a safety net/support network to ensure the child's safety would have been tried in my state. However, parents are not obligated to follow through with that, and if this couple dragged their feet or refused or were incapable of learning the things they needed to know, no, the court would not return the child.
I never had a case where a newborn was removed from the hospital unless the parent was an admitted drug addict and other children had been removed from her in the past with no improvement. I had a couple of heartbreaking cases where low functioning parents, who very much loved their babies, couldn't intellectually handle simple safety routines and decisions when an emergency popped up. Children are always confronting us with the unexpected. We take it for granted that we can handle it, but not all people have the cognitive ability for that.
It is sad, but I do question the statement "No abuse or neglect was found." With the second child, they are basing that decision on the parents past performance. So serious risk of harm is what that would be based on. Often, courts overturn it unless the evidence is very strong.

Oregon has some very screwed up crap that goes on.

Okay. I find it hard to believe it's quite that screwed up, though. One thing to keep in mind is that Child Protective Services CAN NOT respond and give the complete story, even once the case is settled. The court cases remain confidential and even if a case is splashed all across the news with all sorts of wild, "CPS Is the Devil" headlines, they cannot correct the record. So you will probably never know what really happened. I highly doubt these parents will tell you.

 

[RodISHI]

If I recall from an article last year Oregon had a judge and foster home scamming the system taking away children from parents. It was a money deal.

 

[RodISHI]

IQ costs Oregon parents their kids, but is that fair? (Column)

I'm sure we are not hearing the whole story, but to me this doesn't seem to really be fair or even moral. Both parents have a high school Diploma, and one even has a Driver's license.

Removing the kids from the parent's care seems like overkill, couldn't the agency just monitor the situation?

For nearly four years, the Redmond couple has been fighting to prove to the state of Oregon that they are intellectually capable of raising their children. The Department of Human Services has removed both of their boys, saying the parents are too mentally limited to be good parents.

Fabbrini, 31, and Ziegler, 38, lost custody of their older son, Christopher, shortly after he was born. Five months ago, the state took their second child, newborn Hunter, directly from the hospital. Both are now in foster care.

The article said "No abuse or neglect was found." I don't believe that can be the case. It certainly isn't the case where I was a Child Protective worker. We had to provide evidence to the court that the child was neglected or abused. My guess is that the first child was in the parents' custody after birth and the child was neglected (that does not mean they did it on purpose). Efforts to educate the parents, provide a safety net/support network to ensure the child's safety would have been tried in my state. However, parents are not obligated to follow through with that, and if this couple dragged their feet or refused or were incapable of learning the things they needed to know, no, the court would not return the child.
I never had a case where a newborn was removed from the hospital unless the parent was an admitted drug addict and other children had been removed from her in the past with no improvement. I had a couple of heartbreaking cases where low functioning parents, who very much loved their babies, couldn't intellectually handle simple safety routines and decisions when an emergency popped up. Children are always confronting us with the unexpected. We take it for granted that we can handle it, but not all people have the cognitive ability for that.
It is sad, but I do question the statement "No abuse or neglect was found." With the second child, they are basing that decision on the parents past performance. So serious risk of harm is what that would be based on. Often, courts overturn it unless the evidence is very strong.

Oregon has some very screwed up crap that goes on.

Okay. I find it hard to believe it's quite that screwed up, though. One thing to keep in mind is that Child Protective Services CAN NOT respond and give the complete story, even once the case is settled. The court cases remain confidential and even if a case is splashed all across the news with all sorts of wild, "CPS Is the Devil" headlines, they cannot correct the record. So you will probably never know what really happened. I highly doubt these parents will tell you.

I am keeping in mind a family friend who went through tons of shit in Oregon that was utterly ridiculous. CPS isn't always full of angelic like creatures unless you can consider them as fallen ones.

 

[martybegan]

IQ costs Oregon parents their kids, but is that fair? (Column)

I'm sure we are not hearing the whole story, but to me this doesn't seem to really be fair or even moral. Both parents have a high school Diploma, and one even has a Driver's license.

Removing the kids from the parent's care seems like overkill, couldn't the agency just monitor the situation?

For nearly four years, the Redmond couple has been fighting to prove to the state of Oregon that they are intellectually capable of raising their children. The Department of Human Services has removed both of their boys, saying the parents are too mentally limited to be good parents.

Fabbrini, 31, and Ziegler, 38, lost custody of their older son, Christopher, shortly after he was born. Five months ago, the state took their second child, newborn Hunter, directly from the hospital. Both are now in foster care.

The article said "No abuse or neglect was found." I don't believe that can be the case. It certainly isn't the case where I was a Child Protective worker. We had to provide evidence to the court that the child was neglected or abused. My guess is that the first child was in the parents' custody after birth and the child was neglected (that does not mean they did it on purpose). Efforts to educate the parents, provide a safety net/support network to ensure the child's safety would have been tried in my state. However, parents are not obligated to follow through with that, and if this couple dragged their feet or refused or were incapable of learning the things they needed to know, no, the court would not return the child.
I never had a case where a newborn was removed from the hospital unless the parent was an admitted drug addict and other children had been removed from her in the past with no improvement. I had a couple of heartbreaking cases where low functioning parents, who very much loved their babies, couldn't intellectually handle simple safety routines and decisions when an emergency popped up. Children are always confronting us with the unexpected. We take it for granted that we can handle it, but not all people have the cognitive ability for that.
It is sad, but I do question the statement "No abuse or neglect was found." With the second child, they are basing that decision on the parents past performance. So serious risk of harm is what that would be based on. Often, courts overturn it unless the evidence is very strong.

So it is better to institutionalize the kids and separate them from their parents rather than risk potential accidents due to the parent's low IQ? I'm sorry but where does the line get drawn? Does Child Services now get the right to remove kids because of the parent's politics, or child rearing ideas? What about all these cases where "Free Range Kids" are targeted for review by over-zealous Child Protective people?

One cannot remove the risk for every potential situation. Government should only be involved in cases of abuse, not poor parenting.

 

[RodISHI]

IQ costs Oregon parents their kids, but is that fair? (Column)

I'm sure we are not hearing the whole story, but to me this doesn't seem to really be fair or even moral. Both parents have a high school Diploma, and one even has a Driver's license.

Removing the kids from the parent's care seems like overkill, couldn't the agency just monitor the situation?

For nearly four years, the Redmond couple has been fighting to prove to the state of Oregon that they are intellectually capable of raising their children. The Department of Human Services has removed both of their boys, saying the parents are too mentally limited to be good parents.

Fabbrini, 31, and Ziegler, 38, lost custody of their older son, Christopher, shortly after he was born. Five months ago, the state took their second child, newborn Hunter, directly from the hospital. Both are now in foster care.

The article said "No abuse or neglect was found." I don't believe that can be the case. It certainly isn't the case where I was a Child Protective worker. We had to provide evidence to the court that the child was neglected or abused. My guess is that the first child was in the parents' custody after birth and the child was neglected (that does not mean they did it on purpose). Efforts to educate the parents, provide a safety net/support network to ensure the child's safety would have been tried in my state. However, parents are not obligated to follow through with that, and if this couple dragged their feet or refused or were incapable of learning the things they needed to know, no, the court would not return the child.
I never had a case where a newborn was removed from the hospital unless the parent was an admitted drug addict and other children had been removed from her in the past with no improvement. I had a couple of heartbreaking cases where low functioning parents, who very much loved their babies, couldn't intellectually handle simple safety routines and decisions when an emergency popped up. Children are always confronting us with the unexpected. We take it for granted that we can handle it, but not all people have the cognitive ability for that.
It is sad, but I do question the statement "No abuse or neglect was found." With the second child, they are basing that decision on the parents past performance. So serious risk of harm is what that would be based on. Often, courts overturn it unless the evidence is very strong.

So it is better to institutionalize the kids and separate them from their parents rather than risk potential accidents due to the parent's low IQ? I'm sorry but where does the line get drawn? Does Child Services now get the right to remove kids because of the parent's politics, or child rearing ideas? What about all these cases where "Free Range Kids" are targeted for review by over-zealous Child Protective people?

One cannot remove the risk for every potential situation. Government should only be involved in cases of abuse, not poor parenting.

This whole thing sounds like the system and the court has totally violated these peoples rights. The more the society allows inept attorneys, fascist style government workers and judges who ignore peoples rights that we get into the system the more this type thing will happen.

 

[OldLady]

IQ costs Oregon parents their kids, but is that fair? (Column)

I'm sure we are not hearing the whole story, but to me this doesn't seem to really be fair or even moral. Both parents have a high school Diploma, and one even has a Driver's license.

Removing the kids from the parent's care seems like overkill, couldn't the agency just monitor the situation?

For nearly four years, the Redmond couple has been fighting to prove to the state of Oregon that they are intellectually capable of raising their children. The Department of Human Services has removed both of their boys, saying the parents are too mentally limited to be good parents.

Fabbrini, 31, and Ziegler, 38, lost custody of their older son, Christopher, shortly after he was born. Five months ago, the state took their second child, newborn Hunter, directly from the hospital. Both are now in foster care.

The article said "No abuse or neglect was found." I don't believe that can be the case. It certainly isn't the case where I was a Child Protective worker. We had to provide evidence to the court that the child was neglected or abused. My guess is that the first child was in the parents' custody after birth and the child was neglected (that does not mean they did it on purpose). Efforts to educate the parents, provide a safety net/support network to ensure the child's safety would have been tried in my state. However, parents are not obligated to follow through with that, and if this couple dragged their feet or refused or were incapable of learning the things they needed to know, no, the court would not return the child.
I never had a case where a newborn was removed from the hospital unless the parent was an admitted drug addict and other children had been removed from her in the past with no improvement. I had a couple of heartbreaking cases where low functioning parents, who very much loved their babies, couldn't intellectually handle simple safety routines and decisions when an emergency popped up. Children are always confronting us with the unexpected. We take it for granted that we can handle it, but not all people have the cognitive ability for that.
It is sad, but I do question the statement "No abuse or neglect was found." With the second child, they are basing that decision on the parents past performance. So serious risk of harm is what that would be based on. Often, courts overturn it unless the evidence is very strong.

So it is better to institutionalize the kids and separate them from their parents rather than risk potential accidents due to the parent's low IQ? I'm sorry but where does the line get drawn? Does Child Services now get the right to remove kids because of the parent's politics, or child rearing ideas? What about all these cases where "Free Range Kids" are targeted for review by over-zealous Child Protective people?

One cannot remove the risk for every potential situation. Government should only be involved in cases of abuse, not poor parenting.

Depends on what you call "poor parenting." It can be deadly. I have told you what it seems like, from my perspective. You can continue to jump to conclusions and make up the facts that aren't provided to shore up your conclusion that CPS wants any right winger's children. Or whatever it is you're arguing. Sounds to me something like that. But I'm not going there. I've told you facts. I can't tell you facts about the case and you can't tell them, either. You were right at the beginning, when you said there is more to this story. And there is. You can bank on that.

 

[martybegan]

IQ costs Oregon parents their kids, but is that fair? (Column)

I'm sure we are not hearing the whole story, but to me this doesn't seem to really be fair or even moral. Both parents have a high school Diploma, and one even has a Driver's license.

Removing the kids from the parent's care seems like overkill, couldn't the agency just monitor the situation?

For nearly four years, the Redmond couple has been fighting to prove to the state of Oregon that they are intellectually capable of raising their children. The Department of Human Services has removed both of their boys, saying the parents are too mentally limited to be good parents.

Fabbrini, 31, and Ziegler, 38, lost custody of their older son, Christopher, shortly after he was born. Five months ago, the state took their second child, newborn Hunter, directly from the hospital. Both are now in foster care.

The article said "No abuse or neglect was found." I don't believe that can be the case. It certainly isn't the case where I was a Child Protective worker. We had to provide evidence to the court that the child was neglected or abused. My guess is that the first child was in the parents' custody after birth and the child was neglected (that does not mean they did it on purpose). Efforts to educate the parents, provide a safety net/support network to ensure the child's safety would have been tried in my state. However, parents are not obligated to follow through with that, and if this couple dragged their feet or refused or were incapable of learning the things they needed to know, no, the court would not return the child.
I never had a case where a newborn was removed from the hospital unless the parent was an admitted drug addict and other children had been removed from her in the past with no improvement. I had a couple of heartbreaking cases where low functioning parents, who very much loved their babies, couldn't intellectually handle simple safety routines and decisions when an emergency popped up. Children are always confronting us with the unexpected. We take it for granted that we can handle it, but not all people have the cognitive ability for that.
It is sad, but I do question the statement "No abuse or neglect was found." With the second child, they are basing that decision on the parents past performance. So serious risk of harm is what that would be based on. Often, courts overturn it unless the evidence is very strong.

So it is better to institutionalize the kids and separate them from their parents rather than risk potential accidents due to the parent's low IQ? I'm sorry but where does the line get drawn? Does Child Services now get the right to remove kids because of the parent's politics, or child rearing ideas? What about all these cases where "Free Range Kids" are targeted for review by over-zealous Child Protective people?

One cannot remove the risk for every potential situation. Government should only be involved in cases of abuse, not poor parenting.

Depends on what you call "poor parenting." It can be deadly. I have told you what it seems like, from my perspective. You can continue to jump to conclusions and make up the facts that aren't provided to shore up your conclusion that CPS wants any right winger's children. Or whatever it is you're arguing. Sounds to me something like that. But I'm not going there. I've told you facts. I can't tell you facts about the case and you can't tell them, either. You were right at the beginning, when you said there is more to this story. And there is. You can bank on that.

it's convenient that CPS can hide behind the privacy thing. And while poor parenting can be deadly, competent parenting can be deadly as well. This is just another function we have given the State with good intentions to see the State run rampant with it.

And since the government isn't willing to provide the facts (hiding behind privacy regulations CREATED by the same government) one can assume the worst.

 

[RodISHI]

Medical kidnap Oregon Couple Labeled “Incapable” Parents by Social Workers – 2 Day Old Baby Kidnapped

"...............A week before Christopher was born, Amy’s mother died from Alzheimer’s. After the baby was born, Amy wanted to bring the baby home to live with her, her father, and the twins, but her father would not allow it. So, Amy decided to take her three children and live with her boyfriend Eric Ziegler, Christopher’s father. But, her father threatened her. She said:

Every time I mentioned to Dad that I wanted to move in with Eric, he would make me feel bad by saying that if I did, he would turn me into CPS, and that we would never get to see the twins. He even told the twins this.

Amy feared that her father would call CPS, so she nixed her plans.

But, shortly after that, the couple learned that Eric’s former roommate called CPS to report the couple, after reportedly getting mad at Eric. CPS came to the home and seized Christopher.............."

VaXism

 

[Vastator]

Reason number 2043 why CPS agents should be double tapped and left to feed the vultures...

 

[OldLady]

IQ costs Oregon parents their kids, but is that fair? (Column)

I'm sure we are not hearing the whole story, but to me this doesn't seem to really be fair or even moral. Both parents have a high school Diploma, and one even has a Driver's license.

Removing the kids from the parent's care seems like overkill, couldn't the agency just monitor the situation?

For nearly four years, the Redmond couple has been fighting to prove to the state of Oregon that they are intellectually capable of raising their children. The Department of Human Services has removed both of their boys, saying the parents are too mentally limited to be good parents.

Fabbrini, 31, and Ziegler, 38, lost custody of their older son, Christopher, shortly after he was born. Five months ago, the state took their second child, newborn Hunter, directly from the hospital. Both are now in foster care.

The article said "No abuse or neglect was found." I don't believe that can be the case. It certainly isn't the case where I was a Child Protective worker. We had to provide evidence to the court that the child was neglected or abused. My guess is that the first child was in the parents' custody after birth and the child was neglected (that does not mean they did it on purpose). Efforts to educate the parents, provide a safety net/support network to ensure the child's safety would have been tried in my state. However, parents are not obligated to follow through with that, and if this couple dragged their feet or refused or were incapable of learning the things they needed to know, no, the court would not return the child.
I never had a case where a newborn was removed from the hospital unless the parent was an admitted drug addict and other children had been removed from her in the past with no improvement. I had a couple of heartbreaking cases where low functioning parents, who very much loved their babies, couldn't intellectually handle simple safety routines and decisions when an emergency popped up. Children are always confronting us with the unexpected. We take it for granted that we can handle it, but not all people have the cognitive ability for that.
It is sad, but I do question the statement "No abuse or neglect was found." With the second child, they are basing that decision on the parents past performance. So serious risk of harm is what that would be based on. Often, courts overturn it unless the evidence is very strong.

So it is better to institutionalize the kids and separate them from their parents rather than risk potential accidents due to the parent's low IQ? I'm sorry but where does the line get drawn? Does Child Services now get the right to remove kids because of the parent's politics, or child rearing ideas? What about all these cases where "Free Range Kids" are targeted for review by over-zealous Child Protective people?

One cannot remove the risk for every potential situation. Government should only be involved in cases of abuse, not poor parenting.

Depends on what you call "poor parenting." It can be deadly. I have told you what it seems like, from my perspective. You can continue to jump to conclusions and make up the facts that aren't provided to shore up your conclusion that CPS wants any right winger's children. Or whatever it is you're arguing. Sounds to me something like that. But I'm not going there. I've told you facts. I can't tell you facts about the case and you can't tell them, either. You were right at the beginning, when you said there is more to this story. And there is. You can bank on that.

it's convenient that CPS can hide behind the privacy thing. And while poor parenting can be deadly, competent parenting can be deadly as well. This is just another function we have given the State with good intentions to see the State run rampant with it.

And since the government isn't willing to provide the facts (hiding behind privacy regulations CREATED by the same government) one can assume the worst.

Okay. You can look at it that way, but if one of your grandchildren was removed from one of your kids, would you want CPS discussing the details of the abuse or neglect in the newspaper? Just another way to look at it.