Poll of the Day > These Oregon Parents had their Kids TAKEN because they have EXTREMELY LOW IQ!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

31 y/o Amy Fabbrini and 38 y/o Eric Ziegler had their children TAKEN AWAY from social services and have been in a legal battle to get them back from the state because they were both designated NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH to care for them in a proper manner!!

Amy had no idea she was even pregnant when she grew far into her 3rd trimester with her now eldest son, Christopher.

She did not get a formal examination or treatment within the 9th month term and went into advanced labour at their home where she gave birth on Sept. 9, 2013.

Her partner was getting financial aid through Social Security and Supplemental Security Income program on behalf of a MENTAL DISABILITY he was diagnosed with.

Social Services took custody of their children immediately earlier this year and fostered their second newborn son, Hunter, while he was in the hospital following a past allegation brought on the couple

A relative of theirs blew the whistle on them and filed a complaint to police regarding Christopher's well being and a child welfare reported said that Eric had been SLEEPING with the baby on the floor and almost rolled over him!!

Amy's father said that he and his wife were acting as primary caregivers since Amy didn't possess the "instincts to be a mother"

Both were required to take an IQ test and Eric scored a dismal 66 and Amy didn't do any better at 72 where the Average IQ of a human being is 90-110.

Eric's IQ put him in the intellectually disabled range while Amy is extremely low to borderline range of intelligence

Amy worked as a grocer to provide for her family while Eric was unemployed due to health.

Sherrene Hagenbach who has been an advocate for them said the decision to place them for adoption was outrageous and lacks any substantial ground to do so to break the family apart. She said "They're saying that this foster care provider is better for the child because she can provide more financially, education. If we're going on that train, Bill Gates should take my children because there's always somebody better than us, so it's a dangerous position"

Lenora Turner, Amy's aunt also agrees and said it's not fair that they can't keep their children because of their "low iq" and said who does the government think they are to dictate who can take care of their children?.

Do you agree that people with extremely low iq is dangerous to be raising a child? let's see what people think

Amy and Eric -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/31/19/42DA469500000578-4747316-image-a-6_1501527117895.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/31/19/42DA468900000578-4747316-image-a-4_1501527105500.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/31/19/42DA469900000578-4747316-image-a-5_1501527105740.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/31/19/42DA468500000578-4747316-image-a-7_1501527130511.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/31/19/42DA468100000578-4747316-image-a-8_1501527138073.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/31/20/42DA33D000000578-4747316-image-a-21_1501528277790.jpg
---

Title made me think the parents gave their kids up for because they were too stupid.

Full Throttle posted...

Amy's father said that he and his wife were acting as primary caregivers since Amy didn't possess the "instincts to be a mother"

See, this right here is why I'm against this after putting 30 seconds of thought in.
They knew that the parents were too stupid to function, and they had that kinda under wraps.
---

to answer the poll question itself

Do you agree that people with below the average human IQ should NOT be raising children?

no, "half" of all people have below average IQ by definition.

now, is there sufficiently low IQ such that a person shouldn't raise children? yes, obviously.

then the interesting questions become, how low is too low, and how do we draw a sharp line for something that's really actually very blurry? if 60 is too low, is 61 ok? if 70 is too low, is 71 ok? etc.

so in practice, there should be a range of IQs where things are questionable. above that range, no problem. below that range, instant disqualification. within that range, some investigation is required. who knows what the range should be though.
---

Sahuagin posted...

no, "half" of all people have below average IQ by definition.

Um...no, if everyone's IQ is 100 then the average is still 100.
---

Full Throttle posted...

31 y/o Amy Fabbrini and 38 y/o Eric Ziegler had their children TAKEN AWAY from social services and have been in a legal battle to get them back from the state because they were both designated NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH to care for them in a proper manner!!

Amy had no idea she was even pregnant when she grew far into her 3rd trimester with her now eldest son, Christopher.

She did not get a formal examination or treatment within the 9th month term and went into advanced labour at their home where she gave birth on Sept. 9, 2013.

Her partner was getting financial aid through Social Security and Supplemental Security Income program on behalf of a MENTAL DISABILITY he was diagnosed with.

Social Services took custody of their children immediately earlier this year and fostered their second newborn son, Hunter, while he was in the hospital following a past allegation brought on the couple

A relative of theirs blew the whistle on them and filed a complaint to police regarding Christopher's well being and a child welfare reported said that Eric had been SLEEPING with the baby on the floor and almost rolled over him!!

Amy's father said that he and his wife were acting as primary caregivers since Amy didn't possess the "instincts to be a mother"

Both were required to take an IQ test and Eric scored a dismal 66 and Amy didn't do any better at 72 where the Average IQ of a human being is 90-110.

Eric's IQ put him in the intellectually disabled range while Amy is extremely low to borderline range of intelligence

The bigger issue is that they had kids in the first place, now they're just a burden on the system...what to do about that problem however, is a bigger conversation.
---

Sahuagin posted...

no, "half" of all people have below average IQ by definition.

I'm not sure you understand how averages work.
---

Sahuagin posted...

no, "half" of all people have below average IQ by definition.

No, they don't, by definition.
---

Hey Sahuagin did you know that you said something that someone inhumanly pedantic could technically correct?
---

It's not really like that. The average is expressed in a range. The range holds the majority of people. They are both far outside of that range. I work in mental health. It's terrible to say, and probably unethical, but I saw multiple kids in similar situations that I wished I could have put somewhere else.

Full Throttle posted...

Her partner was getting financial aid through Social Security and Supplemental Security Income program on behalf of a MENTAL DISABILITY he was diagnosed with.

Folk with mental disabilities can cause problems when bringing up kids. On the other side of the coin though some do completely fine. I guess it depends what the mental disability is.

Full Throttle posted...

Social Services took custody of their children immediately earlier this year and fostered their second newborn son, Hunter, while he was in the hospital following a past allegation brought on the couple

I generally can't stand social services but if one of you kids gets taken off you and you have more than the rest will be taken too so this isn't surprising. Trying to get them back is difficult to say the least.

Full Throttle posted...

A relative of theirs blew the whistle on them and filed a complaint to police regarding Christopher's well being and a child welfare reported said that Eric had been SLEEPING with the baby on the floor and almost rolled over him!!

How do they know this? Did they sit and watch it happen? I'd take this claim with a pinch of salt.

Full Throttle posted...

Amy's father said that he and his wife were acting as primary caregivers since Amy didn't possess the "instincts to be a mother"

Was that just their opinion or a medical fact? I would wager it's the former.

Full Throttle posted...

Amy worked as a grocer to provide for her family while Eric was unemployed due to health.

Seems fair in my book. At least one of them were working to provide for their family.


Full Throttle posted...

Do you agree that people with extremely low iq is dangerous to be raising a child? let's see what people think.

I don't see how IQ has any baring on bringing up children.
---

am I missing something? what is the technical reason that that was wrong? I used scare quotes for a reason.

IQ is on a bell curve is it not? which is split into two symmetrical halves? the below half and the above half?

Parvenu posted...

It's not really like that. The average is expressed in a range. The range holds the majority of people.

ok, yes, I see, so 90-110 is "average". "below average" is only half when compared directly to above average.

the rest of what I said still holds.
---

Sahuagin posted...

am I missing something? what is the technical reason that that was wrong?

Because of fringe cases where literally everyone is identical! Ha! Take that, wrong man!
---

Syntheticon posted...

Sahuagin posted...

no, "half" of all people have below average IQ by definition.

I'm not sure you understand how averages work.

You're thinking of median. Stay in school.
---

If they aren't capable of taking care of a child, that's one thing. An IQ test is a really stupid way to determine that, though, and is a terrible justification to take their children away. If they really are a danger to their children, then it shouldn't matter whether or not they can pass an IQ test.
---

Sahuagin posted...

no, "half" of all people have below average IQ by definition.

Not really how it works. Average IQ isn't a fixed number, it's a range. And it's average because the vast majority of the population fall into that range. There's no requirement for a certain number above or below.

Sahuagin posted...

then the interesting questions become, how low is too low, and how do we draw a sharp line for something that's really actually very blurry? if 60 is too low, is 61 ok? if 70 is too low, is 71 ok? etc.

The delineation is relatively clear.

Golden Road posted...

If they aren't capable of taking care of a child, that's one thing. An IQ test is a really stupid way to determine that, though, and is a terrible justification to take their children away. If they really are a danger to their children, then it shouldn't matter whether or not they can pass an IQ test.

You're forgetting that welfare concerns extend beyond basic safety issues.
---

Good.

I'm for mandatory sterilization of long-term welfare recipients, the intellectually inferior (well below average), and anyone that has a life-threatening hereditary genetic disorder.
---

Zeus posted...

You're forgetting that welfare concerns extend beyond basic safety issues.

It's not "forgetting" so much as "I have no idea what you're getting at." What concerns are there?
---