973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on May 8, 2013 15:23:49 GMT -5
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,436
|
Post by swamp on May 8, 2013 16:19:06 GMT -5
I don't see it being extraordinarily significant because the disabled person in NY is granted a hearing on guardianship issues.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on May 8, 2013 16:55:02 GMT -5
The only part of this story that give me any hope is Miss Tequila's belief that she can get depo for her daughter. I hope she's right. I hope that she's done all of her homework and dotted all of her "i"s. Hmm, I spoke with her pediatrician and he was the one that recommended depo. I guess I never considered that it might be an issue. Perhaps it is all in documentation...if it is to control her periods it is ok. Forced birth control isn't? I don't know Miss Tequila, it's possible your pediatrician is well aware of the potential issues with getting your daughter birth control and is giving you a broad hint as to the language you should use when you seek it.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on May 9, 2013 18:11:40 GMT -5
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 Would you want your grandchild raised in a group home surrounded by morons (and the term is used in the historical content of describing someone with a certain IQ range, not intended to be offensive).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. Holy shit. I need a minute here to <ahem> digest this.
|
|
Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,082
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on May 9, 2013 21:04:13 GMT -5
I have to side with the homes on this one. If you can't take care of your self (ahem*** You are in a group home**ahem***), you have no business doing something that will bring another human being into this world (i.e. sex). Having sex is not a need to have a happy, healthy life and the consequences here are just too great. I don't understand why these people think they have the right to engage in activities whose results other people have to pay for. How is that a "right"? Maybe I'm just jaded because my aunt has been a foster mother for years. Her last foster child (the one who eventually sent her out of the business) was the child of two people like the ones described. The parents were mentally disabled (I think one had the mentality of an 8 year old, the other an 11 year old) and they thought babies were "cute". So they kept having children and the state would take them away because they couldn't care for them. The kids all had disabilities and no one to take them (except the various foster homes). I believe the boy my aunt got was the 7th or 8th child and he had severe mental and physical handicaps. He stayed the mental age of around 3 for years and had anger issues. He stayed with my aunt for around 10 years until he got to big for her (He would erupt in anger and fight with her but he couldn't tell her what was wrong or what he wanted- he would just throw things, scream, and run into traffic). It was horrible and his life is now relegated to a state hospital somewhere. My aunt stopped taking foster kids after that because she loved him so much and couldn't bear getting attached again only to watch the child grow up and have to move into the hospital. These children all had no parents to love them, no siblings they knew, and very limited care for their disabilities. All because mommy and daddy "loved each other" and thought "babies are soooo cute, we want one"... But I guess that's okay because they kept their reproductive rights...
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on May 10, 2013 20:34:24 GMT -5
"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."
They have every right to challenge this in federal court. If these non -profits receive any federal monies, and I am 99.999% sure that they do, the agency is required to make reasonable accommodations for the couple. They are are legally married in the eyes of the state.
"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." Well, I can tell you that is absolutely incorrect. People who live in group homes by definition are people who may require supervision, may require assistance with activities of daily living such as transportation, money management, medication management, symptom management, social integration for those who have histories of institutionalization, skill building for cooking, cleaning, hygiene and the like. This does not in any way address the issue of the person having the ability or lack of ability to be part of a significant romantic relationship. Frankly, that's just a stupid made up statement on the part of the agency that isn't ready to cope with the issue. As far as her mental capacity to consent to sex, the state felt she had the mental capacity to enter into marriage, so that argument goes right out the window. It is no longer a question. If she doesn't have a legal guardian, and at her age has not had one appointed, it would appear she is presumed competent. 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).
Chances are quite good if the "happy couple" are receiving services in the residential environment, she is on birth control or is sterile. This isn't an issue that was raised in the article as a concern, and it's really not necessary to discuss. If the parents of the couple are not concerned regarding reproductive issues and the group homes haven't raised the issue, it's a non issue. Leave it at that and allow these people some dignity. Their sex life is not anyone else's business but theirs.
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).
It is offensive. Those are terms which really haven't been used since the eugenics movement. We no longer use these terms to describe those with intellectual disabilities. We do however use those terms to insult others. The terms you have used are not clinical terms and have no place in this kind of discussion.
At that IQ level there is doubt as to ability to give consent for sex. I don't really think you know what you are talking about here.
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?
Again, I really don't think you know what you are talking about here. You have absolutely no idea whether these people have impulse control problems or not. Having a low IQ does not automatically make a person some sort of impulsive instant gratification machine. IQ is a number and really does not describe the person. These are people with unique qualities and different abilities.
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...
Save it. Not interested.
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.
These are their rights as human beings. They are adults, not children and should not be expected to live with their parents. It's that simple. It is our obligation to insure their rights are preserved.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on May 10, 2013 21:02:59 GMT -5
In 1973 the (American) Rehabilitation Act became law; Sections 501, 503, and 504 prohibited discrimination in federal programs and services and all other programs or services receiving federal funds. Key language in the Rehabilitation Act, found in Section 504, states “No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States, shall, solely by reason of his [sic] handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”[9][10] This was the first civil rights law guaranteeing equal opportunity for people with disabilities.[11]
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on May 11, 2013 5:37:14 GMT -5
Good, then YOU take care of their offspring. YOU'RE so interested in THEIR rights, put YOUR time and money where YOUR mouth is. It's easy to say other people should take care of the helpless but not so easy for YOU to step up to the plate. How about your taking care of that offspring of that relationship. It's just sickening. I'm not saying to kill the mentally handicapped or mentally ill but no way should they be reproducing, period. That should not even be on the table for discussion.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on May 11, 2013 5:38:40 GMT -5
This bullshit ranks right up there with abortions for minors. You can't force your daughter to have an abortion but you can be forced to support her choices. Such nonsense.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on May 11, 2013 7:18:56 GMT -5
Good, then YOU take care of their offspring. YOU'RE so interested in THEIR rights, put YOUR time and money where YOUR mouth is. It's easy to say other people should take care of the helpless but not so easy for YOU to step up to the plate. How about your taking care of that offspring of that relationship. It's just sickening. I'm not saying to kill the mentally handicapped or mentally ill but no way should they be reproducing, period. That should not even be on the table for discussion. How about I never said one single word about caring for their offspring. I do believe that I stated it shouldn't be up for discussion in this particular case since I didn't see it cited as a concern by any of the parties in the article. But since you brought it up, I do spend quite a bit of my time and money defending and advocating for the rights of folks who are mentally ill and intellectually disabled from those persons or agents who continue to view them as less than human beings. There are many, many people who live with mental illness or an intellectual disability who are living in the community, working jobs, and having families, successfully, and have been for a very long time. Try to keep up, this is the year 2013 and I am quite sure you personally would never be approached to give care or support to someone who you seem to view as "less than" yourself.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on May 11, 2013 8:33:41 GMT -5
Cereb,
I respect your position, your passion and your work in this area. This really is one of the most difficult issues to navigate not only because of the intricacies of the subject but also because it's tough to find solutions when the rights of one human overlay or impact the rights of another human. While I do not see people with mental illness of intellectual disability as "less than", I also believe that the rights of any human they might create and of any human who will be responsible for dealing with the results of their choices should be considered.
As the child of a single mother with severe mental illness, I think it's reasonable to consider the rights of the children that might be created by people with severe mental illness or intellectual disability. That doesn't mean that the potential parents don't have any rights, just that it's reasonable to balance their rights with the rights of their children as well. In this particular case, as there isn't a potential for children, then this isn't an issue. In other cases, it might be an issue and should be discussed.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on May 11, 2013 8:46:20 GMT -5
I don't view them as less than myself. Did I say kill them? No, I said they have rights because they are alive and those rights include sex. They should not include reproduction, period. If you are unable to care for yourself without assistance and/or supervision, your rights to bring another responsibility into this world should not exist. Judging by your quote, I see where you are coming from. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/tongue.png)
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on May 11, 2013 9:04:02 GMT -5
I "think" this also may have more to do with the legal way they are lisenced as a group home, than the group home feeling that they shouldn't be allowed to be happy. I know nursing homes here are not allowed to have coed rooms regardless of if they are married. Their lisence just doesn't allow coed rooms. I think it was never thought about married people ending up in a nursing home together. I understand from the people running the place's point of view I wouldn't want to have to have people having sex in a place where I had a responsibility to be physically taking care of people, and probably could/would walk in on them at some point. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/yikes.png) What about the other residents? Do they have a right not to have to hear that? Even skipping the part of if they could get pregnant this is a crazy big can of worms for the group home! I wouldn't want to have to add that to my responsiblities if I was them either and I don't think that makes me a monster either. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/shocked.gif)
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on May 11, 2013 9:09:08 GMT -5
"As the child of a single mother with severe mental illness, I think it's reasonable to consider the rights of the children that might be created by people with severe mental illness or intellectual disability. That doesn't mean that the potential parents don't have any rights, just that it's reasonable to balance their rights with the rights of their children as well. In this particular case, as there isn't a potential for children, then this isn't an issue. In other cases, it might be an issue and should be discussed."
It is certainly reasonable and right as well as prudent to consider the rights of children born to those with intellectual disabilities and mental illness. My position is that these persons are indeed individuals and everyone's situation is different. Consideration needs to be on a case by case basis and blanket statements to the effect of " these people have no business having children" are not only not helpful, but create an environment of discrimination and potential abuse of persons rights.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on May 11, 2013 9:11:43 GMT -5
I "think" this also may have more to do with the legal way they are lisenced as a group home, than the group home feeling that they shouldn't be allowed to be happy. I know nursing homes here are not allowed to have coed rooms regardless of if they are married. Their lisence just doesn't allow coed rooms. I think it was never thought about married people ending up in a nursing home together. I understand from the people running the place's point of view I wouldn't want to have to have people having sex in a place where I had a responsibility to be physically taking care of people, and probably could/would walk in on them at some point. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/yikes.png) What about the other residents? Do they have a right not to have to hear that? Even skipping the part of if they could get pregnant this is a crazy big can of worms for the group home! I wouldn't want to have to add that to my responsiblities if I was them either and I don't think that makes me a monster either. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/shocked.gif) It seems like this is the issue more than the marriage aspect. I mean, whether they are married or not they are having sex. All this talk about birth control has nothing to do with marriage or their living situation - people have sex without living together all the time. But I could see licensing and logistics being an issue.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on May 11, 2013 9:16:34 GMT -5
"I understand from the people running the place's point of view I wouldn't want to have to have people having sex in a place where I had a responsibility to be physically taking care of people, and probably could/would walk in on them at some point"
If the group home staff are working appropriately in an environment which fully supports the rights of the persons they serve, there should be zero chance of staff "walking into" clients having sex. Staff should never just "walk into" any persons room, they should be knocking on the door and asking for permission to enter. These people have a right to privacy in their own bedrooms.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on May 11, 2013 9:26:48 GMT -5
"It seems like this is the issue more than the marriage aspect. I mean, whether they are married or not they are having sex. All this talk about birth control has nothing to do with marriage or their living situation - people have sex without living together all the time. But I could see licensing and logistics being an issue."
Correct.
I am not familiar with the state of NY licensing policies, but I am very familiar with several other states in New England. It is my experience that licensing dictates the number of persons who are allowed to live in the home and whether they are able to self preserve independently, not what the sex or marital status of those individuals may be. This would also cover nursing homes. Whether a facility "allows" for married couples cohabitation would be under the separate policies of the agency running the home. I am aware of married couples sharing a nursing home room as far back as 1980 in the state of MA and it isn't an uncommon thing.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on May 11, 2013 9:52:04 GMT -5
"They should not include reproduction, period. If you are unable to care for yourself without assistance and/or supervision, your rights to bring another responsibility into this world should not exist."
This is one of those very unhelpful blanket statements.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on May 11, 2013 10:20:42 GMT -5
Thank God my granddaughter's chromosone disorder has the side effect of infertility. Of all the headaches a family of a disabled person has to deal with, this issue is the icing on the cake.
|
|