Disabled couple seek life together in group home

[The Captain]

news.yahoo.com/disabled-couple-seek-life-together-061801569.html?vp=1

"The mentally disabled couple is not allowed to share a bedroom by the state-sanctioned nonprofits that run the group homes — a practice the newlyweds and their parents are now challenging in a federal civil rights lawsuit."

"The lawsuit contends Forziano's facility refused because people requiring the services of a group home are by definition incapable of living as married people, and it says Samuels' home refused because it believes she doesn't have the mental capacity to consent to sex."
 
So what would happen when the happy couple pops out a baby they are CLEARLY incapable of taking care of (they can't even properly care for themselves).

I think the parents of both these individuals have gone completely over the edge.  Would you want your grandchild raised in a group home surrounded by morons (and the term is used in the historical content of describing someone with a certain IQ range, not intended to be offensive).  At that IQ level there is doubt as to ability to give consent for sex.  Individuals at that IQ level also don't entirely function at a level coming close to adulthood so can't truly understand the sex drives their body may have and don't have impulse control.  Would you want a growing child exposed to adults with adult desires and no impulse control?

Full disclosure - one of my BFF's in HS had an older sister with Downs who was in the moron range for IQ.  She also would try to get guys to "give her a baby" without fully understanding what sex was about.  Real long story there...

I also notice neither one of the parents are offering to let the newlyweds move in with them, it's much easier to demand "rights" when it's someone else's responsibilities to cover the consequences.

[alabamagal]

The article doesn't address the issue of having babies. That can certainly happen without them being married or living together. Hopoefully that issue is addressed. I think any parent who has a daughter who is mentally disabled has to address the pregnancy issue.

I think they should have the right to marry and live together.

[mollyanna58]

This couple are in their 30s.  Their parents are probably in their 60s.  One of the comments on the article mentioned that the waiting lists for services can be years long.  The parents probably don't want to take the couple out of social services housing and into their own homes because when the parents pass away or simply become too old to care for this couple, it might take too long to find a new placement for them.

[Sam_2.0]

I would hope her guardians, and his also, have made decisions regarding their reproductive health. But they should be allowed to live together. Why won't their guardians move them to a facility that will allow it?

[The Captain]

May 7, 2013 13:03:50 GMT -5 Sam_2.0 said:

I would hope her guardians, and his also, have made decisions regarding their reproductive health. But they should be allowed to live together. Why won't their guardians move them to a facility that will allow it?

Guardians do not always have the ability to make decisions about reproductive health.  That's part of the issue as I see it.  If producing a baby was not an issue, then I agree - why not let them live together?

I'm told a doctor cannot sterilize someone unless they can give informed consent, or if there is a health issue.  I do not know if a doctor can administer long term birth control without consent.

[The Captain]

May 7, 2013 13:03:50 GMT -5 Sam_2.0 said:

Deleted stupid double post!

[hoops902]

Curious what people would think if I, as a 33 year old adult without any mental disabilities, decided I wanted to start having sex with the mentally disabled woman who lives in a group home.  Something tells me people would not think that was fine.

[Deleted]

hold up - how were these two able to consent to marry?  And if they can consent to marry, they should be able to consent to sex with one another.  Personally I don't think they should do either.  Seems like a clusterf__k all around....

[The Captain]

May 7, 2013 13:13:15 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Curious what people would think if I, as a 33 year old adult without any mental disabilities, decided I wanted to start having sex with the mentally disabled woman who lives in a group home.  Something tells me people would not think that was fine.

Actually hoops, I hadn't thought of it that way.

Wow...

[wvugurl26]

May 7, 2013 13:26:35 GMT -5 @moneyjenny82 said:

hold up - how were these two able to consent to marry?  And if they can consent to marry, they should be able to consent to sex with one another.  Personally I don't think they should do either.  Seems like a clusterf__k all around....

I was wondering how they were able to legally marry as well.

My cousin is adopting a baby. It was born to a mother who should have never aged out of foster care in SC. The state completely dropped the ball in her case. Dad is a loser who has 4 kids by 2 other women. In that case they were married because no one in the new town paid enough attention to know she wasn't competent. State removed baby from parents, assigned my cousin as foster parent and admitted the mother to a facility for 90 day evaluation.

[Tiny]

May 7, 2013 12:56:49 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

The article doesn't address the issue of having babies. That can certainly happen without them being married or living together. Hopoefully that issue is addressed. I think any parent who has a daughter who is mentally disabled has to address the pregnancy issue.

I think they should have the right to marry and live together.

Um, it's NOT just an issue for parents with mentally disabled daughters.   Mentally disabled sons often have fully functioning bodies.  Just because a person has the mental capacity of a 6 year old - it doesn't mean they have the body of a six year old.       I suspect BOTH families of the couple involved have had to deal with sexual issues with their children well before they got married.


I do think the rules and regulations and laws do need some updating and changing when it come to children/adults with mental and physical disabilities.  I'm NOT suggesting the good old eugenics saw and enforce sterilization on people.   But I do think, that the parents along with an advocate for the child/adult involved should be allowed to make 'reproductive' decisions for the child/adult.  

I'm not sure what the 'right answer' is for the people involved in the news article - I do think merits discussion and maybe law/rule changes though.

[Tiny]

Also, just because the couple isn't sharing a bedroom - doesn't mean they haven't and aren't having sex together... it sounds like that's the assumption being made - that they haven't 'consumated' their marriage because they aren't living together.

[Tennesseer]

I think the parents of both these individuals have gone completely over the edge. Would you want your grandchild raised in a group home surrounded by morons (and the term is used in the historical content of describing someone with a certain IQ range, not intended to be offensive). At that IQ level there is doubt as to ability to give consent for sex. Individuals at that IQ level also don't entirely function at a level coming close to adulthood so can't truly understand the sex drives their body may have and don't have impulse control. Would you want a growing child exposed to adults with adult desires and no impulse control?

No matter how you are attempting to use the word "moron", it's still offensive.

moron:
A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

medical.yourdictionary.com/moron

Disability and handicap

Connotations easily change over time. Idiot, imbecile, and moron were once neutral terms for a developmentally delayed adult with the mental age comparable to a toddler, preschooler, and primary school child, respectively. [9] In time negative connotations tend to crowd out neutral ones, so the phrase mentally retarded was pressed into service to replace them. [10] This too was considered pejorative and was commonly used as an insult. Terms such as mentally challenged, with an intellectual disability, learning difficulties and special needs are used to replace the term retarded.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism_treadmill

Feel free to search the Internet for other sources which state 'moron' is offensive in the context you are using it.

[The Captain]

Tennesser - the new, current "PC" terms are in place because the old terms were abused.

The old terms were assigned to a specific IQ range and did a better job at identifying the level of ability.

For example:

Borderline Deficiency between 70 and 80
Moron between 51 and 70 (child between 8 and 12)
Ibecile between 26 and 50 (child between 3 and 8)
Idiot between 0 and 25 (child three and under)


www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/03/the-words-moron-imbecile-and-idiot-mean-different-things/

The current term "mentally impaired" does not given any indication of the degree to which the individual can function.  I clearly indicated I used the old term to assign a level of function (child between 8 and 12).  Sorry if it's not PC enough but there are way too many attempts to avoid offending at any cost, and in this instance, it detracts from the ability to gauge the level of functionality.

Saying someone is "mentally impaired" can cover a whole range of issues besides just IQ levels and is not an accurate term to use IMHO.  Someone with Dementia is mentally impaired, is that comparable?

I am actually using the term in the correct medical form in which it was created. 

[Deleted]

One of our summer reading books one year was Riding the Bus with My Sister.  The family convinced the disabled woman to sterilize her.  The disabled woman had to consent, but her parents explained the reasoning.  It's been several years since I read it, but the woman had a "boyfriend," and the family wanted to make certain that there were no unintended consequences.  I do think that below a certain IQ level, the family/guardian should be allowed to make the decision.  A startling number of people with mental disabilities are sexually abused.  I want to say it was like 87 or 97%  (It's been several years since I took that class).

However, I read something similar where a man and a woman were having "consensual" sex in the nursing home.  Her family found out and removed her.  I think if Granny wants to hook up with Gramps, that is their choice.  Being old doesn't take away all rights.  I think Granny had Alzehimer's, but she was a widow and enjoyed Gramps' attention.  She didn't think he was her husband or something like that.  It upset her children, though.

Gramps, I remember, quickly found someone else.  I guess "virile" men at the nursing home is a rare species. 

[zibazinski]

My girlfriend is running into this now. Her sister is mentally handicapped. Her parents are OLD. They tried to get the handicapped daughter sterilized as in she would run naked down the street asking anyone, even women and children, to F her. There are more stories. The woman-child got a court appointed attorney, your tax dollars at work, to represent her and the parents lost their suit. Parents then tried to get siblings to take responsibility for her. Answer is NO. This is sad. I'm sorry but I do believe if you cannot care for yourself, you have no business having a child. I'm not saying no sex, I am saying no reproduction.

[Tennesseer]

May 7, 2013 15:30:59 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Tennesser - the new, current "PC" terms are in place because the old terms were abused.

The old terms were assigned to a specific IQ range and did a better job at identifying the level of ability.

For example:

Borderline Deficiency between 70 and 80
Moron between 51 and 70 (child between 8 and 12)
Ibecile between 26 and 50 (child between 3 and 8)
Idiot between 0 and 25 (child three and under)


www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/03/the-words-moron-imbecile-and-idiot-mean-different-things/

The current term "mentally impaired" does not given any indication of the degree to which the individual can function.  I clearly indicated I used the old term to assign a level of function (child between 8 and 12).  Sorry if it's not PC enough but there are way too many attempts to avoid offending at any cost, and in this instance, it detracts from the ability to gauge the level of functionality.

Saying someone is "mentally impaired" can cover a whole range of issues besides just IQ levels and is not an accurate term to use IMHO.  Someone with Dementia is mentally impaired, is that comparable?

I am actually using the term in the correct medical form in which it was created. 

I suppose you are using the correct medical form ...if this were the 1920s.

Let me ask you a question. You are invited to attend an Open House at your local group home for intellectually challenged adults. In attendance will be the home staff, residents and their parents or legal guardians. What do you think your reception would be if you stated to all present 'What a nice home for these idiots, imbeciles and morons.' Do you think you would be welcomed, especially by the staff and parents, or would you be asked to leave. In your mind, you used the correct medical form(s).

So what say you?

[Tennesseer]

By the way Captain, here are the terms used today by the medical and legal communities.

Mild Mental Retardation

At this level, a person:

takes longer to learn to talk, but can communicate well once he or she knows how
fully independent in self-care
has problems with reading and writing
is socially immature
is unable to deal with responsibilities of marriage or parenting
may benefit from specialized education plans
has an IQ range of 50 to 69
may have associated conditions, including autism, epilepsy, or physical disability

Moderate Mental Retardation

At this level, a person:

is slow in understanding and using language
has only a limited ability to communicate
can learn basic reading, writing, counting skills
is a slow learner
is unable to live alone
can get around on own
can take part in simple social activities
has an IQ range of 35 to 49

Severe Mental Retardation

At this level, a person:

has noticeable motor impairment
has severe damage to and/or abnormal development of central nervous system
has an IQ range of 20 to 34

Profound Mental Retardation

At this level, a person:

is unable to understand or comply with requests or instructions
is immobile
must wear adult diapers
uses very basic nonverbal communication
cannot care for own needs
requires constant help and supervision
has an IQ of less than 20

www.healthline.com/health/mental-retardation
:

[The Captain]

I used the description in the context of a discussion on a web forum, and explained the context in which I used it.  I learned the description MUCH later than the 20's so you time reference is way out of date (or my friends family didn't care about being offensive, me, I'll err on their side).  I've already stated where I learned the term and stated that my intent was not to offend.

Some people will go out of their way to find offense even where it does not exist.  If you choose to do so and focus on one word rather than the larger discuss then you've missed the point of the original post.  However I do appreciate you pointing me to the current, more precise, terms in usage.  That is what I was attempting to focus on rather than using an "all encompassing" term.

So as you pointed out in your link above, someone who has mild mental retardation is "is unable to deal with responsibilities of marriage or parenting"  which was the point of my original post.   

Do you disagree with that thought or shall we continue to focus on semantics?  What are your thoughts on what is proposed for this couple?

[Tennesseer]

May 7, 2013 16:46:08 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I used the description in the context of a discussion on a web forum, and explained the context in which I used it.  I learned the description MUCH later than the 20's so you time reference is way out of date (or my friends family didn't care about being offensive, me, I'll err on their side).  I've already stated where I learned the term and stated that my intent was not to offend.

Some people will go out of their way to find offense even where it does not exist.  If you choose to do so and focus on one word rather than the larger discuss then you've missed the point of the original post.  However I do appreciate you pointing me to the current, more precise, terms in usage.  That is what I was attempting to focus on rather than using an "all encompassing" term.

So as you pointed out in your link above, someone who has mild mental retardation is "is unable to deal with responsibilities of marriage or parenting"  which was the point of my original post.   

Do you disagree with that thought or shall we continue to focus on semantics?  What are your thoughts on what is proposed for this couple?

One size does not fit all (mild mental retardation). Individual consideration.

[Deleted]

Does that work now? You can say shit that you know to be offensive, but follow it with "but I mean no offense" and that makes it okay?

[973beachbum]

May 7, 2013 16:46:08 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I used the description in the context of a discussion on a web forum, and explained the context in which I used it.  I learned the description MUCH later than the 20's so you time reference is way out of date (or my friends family didn't care about being offensive, me, I'll err on their side).  I've already stated where I learned the term and stated that my intent was not to offend.

Some people will go out of their way to find offense even where it does not exist.  If you choose to do so and focus on one word rather than the larger discuss then you've missed the point of the original post.  However I do appreciate you pointing me to the current, more precise, terms in usage.  That is what I was attempting to focus on rather than using an "all encompassing" term.

So as you pointed out in your link above, someone who has mild mental retardation is "is unable to deal with responsibilities of marriage or parenting"  which was the point of my original post.   

Do you disagree with that thought or shall we continue to focus on semantics?  What are your thoughts on what is proposed for this couple?

I doubt that the couple in question is capable of handling everything in the course of day to day living by themselves.  That said I do think raising a child would put the child at a disadvantage so I would agree that they shouldn't have one.  That said they are also far from pets to be told exactly where to sleep and what to wear and eat etc for the entire rest of their lives.  I don't know what smarts getting married actually requires but if it makes these two people happy I think they should be allowed to do it. I don't know where they should reside but I am sure there are other options that could allow them to both be together and get the help they need at the same time.  I'm sure money is actually the biggest issue with them not logistics.  There are only so many options available to them and the one that is doens't have housing for married couples.
I wouldnt want to be the person in the next room from the two newlyweds getting it on everynight.

Again if being married makes them happy I think they should be allowed. They are human beings.  They should have the same rights as the rest of us to be happy.

[The Captain]

The woman had moderate mental retardation.  

Would it be appropriate for a person with a normal IQ to engage in sexual activity with her?  If the answer is no then why is it ok for someone with a lower than average IQ?

Is she is capable of giving consent (equivalent child's age of 3-8)?  Would it be ok if she engages in sexual activity because she "likes" her husband.

If there is a child produced what happens then?

[Tennesseer]

May 7, 2013 17:03:05 GMT -5 The Captain said:

The woman had moderate mental retardation.  

Would it be appropriate for a person with a normal IQ to engage in sexual activity with her?  If the answer is no then why is it ok for someone with a lower than average IQ?

Is she is capable of giving consent (equivalent child's age of 3-8)?  Would it be ok if she engages in sexual activity because she "likes" her husband.

If there is a child produced what happens then?

Because the two would be equals while the example you provide would be someone taking advantage of someone who is at a disadvantage and not mentally equal.

[kittensaver]

::  If there is a child produced what happens then? ::

========================

Like other mothers out there, she takes her child home and cares for it, with or without help (like other mothers).

Like other mothers, if she is unable to care for it a social worker will come in and do an evaluation, and probably remove the child from the home.

[Deleted]

Generally, a person with normal intelligence would not be on an equal footing with a person with an intellectual disability.  That power imbalance has the potential for coercion, which is why that particular relationship is problematic.  Two mutually consenting adults who are on equal footing can do whatever floats their boat in the privacy of their own home or room.

I suppose that the group home has the right to refuse cohabitation, but that doesn't make it right.  Sex and love are pretty fundamental pieces of the human experience - we shouldn't deny people that aspect of their lives.

If the couple is sexually active, someone should encourage them to use contraception, but it cannot be forced on them.  It is probably a pretty high bar to clear to document the woman's capacity to provide informed consent to a permanent procedure like tubal ligation.  It is probably much easier to pursue something like an IUD or Norplant or Depo shot - procedures which can be reversed if she changes her mind.  (Coercion is also a big concern here)

At the end of the day, if she has a baby, she has a baby.  If the parents are not able to care for the child, then they could lose custody just like anyone else who neglects a baby.  In this case, the risks to the child would be pretty minimal since there would be so many support personnel to step in if they couldn't care for the baby.

[zibazinski]

That's cruel. 

[Deleted]

What's cruel?

[zibazinski]

Taking the baby way from her. If she isn't capable of caring for a child, then she shouldn't be allowed to have a child. Once she has it, its mean to take it from her. The situation shouldn't arise to begin with.

[Deleted]

It's not any meaner than taking the child of any other parent who neglects their child.