Oregon seizes kids because parents have low IQ

The parents have not been accused of abuse or neglect. “Both have standard high school diplomas.” But the state of Oregon considers their IQs to be too low and has seized their two sons in what has turned into a nearly four-year battle [Samantha Swindler, The Oregonian]

8 Comments

  • These cases have been overturned in other states. It has been ruled that, unless there is neglect or abuse, they have a right to have and raise children.

  • The State’s reasoning seems sound, dontcha think?

    It’s probably a good idea to IQ-check every Oregon resident.

    Everyone found to have an IQ less than 100 could then be euthanized.

    Start with State employees and their families.

  • Oregon is in the process of passing a law that can take a person’s weapons if a judge determines they are a danger to themselves or others.

    The accused person can’t appear or testify in the hearing at which the judge makes that determination, but hey, Oregon doesn’t appear to believe in the due process, Constitutional rights, or any of those pesky things.

    See more here: http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/07/oregon-cracks-down-on-gun-rights-in-the

    • Washington voters already passed this last cycle. Welcome to the Progressive Northwest.

      • There’s a reason why those of us in flyover country have started calling it the left coast. 🙂

    • California also already has such a law. Penal Code sections 18100 to 18205.

      http://www.courts.ca.gov/33961.htm

  • Of course the specifics of what was observed are unavailable. In my state similar allegations may be the basis of removal where the underlying facts reflect that the parents’ cognitive limitations endanger the child. (Forgetting to test temperature of food or baths, forgetting that the child should not be given certain things to eat, leaving things dangerously within the child’s reach, leaving the child alone in a bath, etc.) Usually the social services approach is to try to ensure adequate support is available given the particular circumstances (which could be daily visits by a relative or moment to moment supervision). That seems to have happened with her older children, who lived with her and her parents. Unfortunately, that level of publicly funded support is not available, so if there is no one in the community who can commit then that is not an option. I’m not saying any of that is true here, and certainly there are too many cases of over-reach. However, the agency can’t provide the specific information on which they have based their requests for protective orders for the children so we can’t be certain of what those facts are.

  • Interesting that these things are happening in our most “Liberal/Progressive” states. I think Jonah Goldberg’s thesis may be correct (see https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000W917ZG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 )