Kaney O'Neill is a quadreplegic and a mother. Her ex however, feels that she can't be a competent mother because of her disabilities.
December 23, 2009 2:28 PM   Subscribe

It is a case that touches on important questions about the rights of the disabled.

A quadriplegic mother is fighting her ex-boyfriend in court to retain custody of their son. The ex-boyfriend claims she cannot be a competent mother because of her disability. It is a case that touches on important questions about the rights of the disabled.
posted by stormpooper (18 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: this is interesting but a single link news post isn't really a great way to present this. -- jessamyn



 
Poop. I posted this wrong. The description was supposed to appear as the home page title. :(
posted by stormpooper at 2:29 PM on December 23, 2009


I think it touches upon important questions about the rights of children, myself. Can a pre-pubescent child get adequate care from a parent who must use a proxy for physical parenting? Probably. But could a child get better care from a parent who needs no proxy? Probably.

O'Neill might well be able to be a competent parent, but my instinct is that she would be a less competent parent than one who needs no assistance, in the same way as a parent who works nights and needs a sitter five days a week is a less competent parent than one who works days and doesn't need evening care.

Less competent does not imply incompetent -- but I think the question has to be: what is best for the child?
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 2:43 PM on December 23, 2009


my instinct is that she would be a less competent parent than one who needs no assistance

This case will be decided in a court of law, with testimony relevant to the specific people in the case, not by the "instincts" of people on the Internet. None of us knows anything about the two biological parents in the case, except that one of them is a quadriplegic and the other is currently able-bodied--there are lots of other factors to be taken into account, and my wish for everyone in the case is that that will be done thoughtfully and thoroughly.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:48 PM on December 23, 2009 [13 favorites]


There is a substantive due process, i.e. constitutional, right to rear children that is of long standing. And the Americans with Disabilities Act provides some additional rights. Many states have additional rights prohibiting discrimination based on disability. Due to all of that, I am very uncomfortable with the idea that the fact that a parent has a disability alone would be a basis to change custody.

Finally, to quote the quote in the article; "I cannot see how someone's inability to use their body makes them unable to be a parent."
posted by bearwife at 3:06 PM on December 23, 2009 [1 favorite]


Excuse me, meant to say many states have additional statutes prohibiting discrimination based on disability.
posted by bearwife at 3:07 PM on December 23, 2009


This case will be decided in a court of law, with testimony relevant to the specific people in the case, not by the "instincts" of people on the Internet.

Amen.
posted by grouse at 3:15 PM on December 23, 2009


It is an interesting case, and really all we can debate here is weather or not the law should allow for disability when deciding custody absent other factors, because that is all the information we know and all that really applies to others from this case. My sympathies are much more in-line with disability should not affect custody except in extreme cases, and even then should only take effect after reasonable attempts have been made to adapt surroundings to allow for custodial care. Hell, we allow the most ignorant, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, anti-social people in our society to raise their kids with little to no interference absent demonstrative abuse.
posted by edgeways at 3:59 PM on December 23, 2009


The ex-boyfriend claims she cannot be a competent mother because of her disability.

I claim that he cannot be a competent father because he's a douche. This shouldn't even go to court at all. The idea that someone's kids can be taken away from them for no other reason than that they have a disability is terrifying.
posted by Lobster Garden at 4:13 PM on December 23, 2009


The only facts offered are that the mother cannot use her legs or "most of" (whatever that means) her arms and that the child in question is five months old. A five month old. Unless she is independently wealthy and can afford superlative 24/7/365 care for both herself and her child, there is no way having her raise that boy will offset the very real danger that trying to safeguard a five month old without being able to use your legs or (most of) your arms entails.

Unless the father is completely unfit (he may very well be given the nature of this journalistic troll), this is a horrendously biased and misleading article, however well-intentioned towards the disabled it may be.
posted by digitalprimate at 4:30 PM on December 23, 2009


Yes. How dare we even begin the question if a woman with no legs and arms is able to give better care to a 5 month old child than a man with all limbs.

Quadriplegics have always been discriminated against. They for example can't drive cars or walk up stairs, because society has thumbed their nose at their plight.

Feels good to be politically correct.
posted by Allan Gordon at 4:30 PM on December 23, 2009


This case will be decided in a court of law, with testimony relevant to the specific people in the case, not by the "instincts" of people on the Internet.

why, it's almost as if we're having a discussion and comparing the merits of each others opinions?!
posted by p3on at 4:32 PM on December 23, 2009 [2 favorites]


A mother with multiple sclerosis may lack energy to deal with a child in the afternoon and need a nap, she said, but she can hire a babysitter and will not have her parenting ability called into question.

How many non-disabled mothers are expected to hire a babysitter to take an afternoon nap in order to not have parenting abilities called into question?

* is a disabled mother
posted by _paegan_ at 4:39 PM on December 23, 2009 [1 favorite]


Needing a nap is not the same thing as not having the use of your arms and legs. Barring mitigating factors unmentioned in the article, this is a question of the extent of her disability, not its kind.
posted by digitalprimate at 4:41 PM on December 23, 2009


They for example can't drive cars

Um, yes, actually many quadriplegics do drive cars with the help of special devices. It is condescending to assume that they can't. It is likewise condescending to assume that they are helpless in all things just because they have some physical limitations. This is exactly the kind of discriminatory bullshit disabled people have to put up with all the time.
posted by Lobster Garden at 4:47 PM on December 23, 2009 [2 favorites]


From the print story I read this weekend in the Tribune, he's also accusing her of being incompetent on the grounds of her depression, anxiety, and sleep apnea (gee, accident caused paralysis, ex boyfriend being an ass, no wonder she's depressed/anxious, etc) as well as her smoking/drinking habits. Her response was "drink? Smoke? How the heck am I pouring the drink and lighting a cigarette?"

For me, this is an obvious case of him being pissed off that the relationship ended. No decent human would pull all stops of paralysis, smoking, drinking, depression if he REALLY cared about the welfare of the child. And for me, the welfare of the child is figure out a good joint custody with equal visitation (which he has 3 days a week and one weekend overnight).

I'm sick of people in divorce court using all ammo necessary, including mental illness when there really isn't one (for example incapacitating depression or schizophrenia) in the name of "oh well, they obviously are unfit." No they're not, you're just pissed off they left your ass.

I wish this woman well as well as her child. Her ex can go fuck himself and focus on enjoying the time he has with his child in an equal time setting.
posted by stormpooper at 5:33 PM on December 23, 2009


all i can say is that this is not an easy case. Hopefully the court appointed social worker is very good. Only he/she can be in a position to assess this mess. We cant.

We can't.
posted by yesster at 5:55 PM on December 23, 2009


Caplan said a court will use one standard for determining custody: "Best interest of the child. The court will not care about the emotions of the parents; the court will only care if the child is put at risk.
So, if there is a way to ensure the 5 month old is phsyically safe - which seems difficult, but not impossible given the mother's disability - there would be no reason for her to lose custody of her child.

I don't see a problem with that.
posted by askmehow at 5:58 PM on December 23, 2009


"I cannot see how someone's inability to use their body makes them unable to be a parent," said Allaina Humphreys, a friend of O'Neill's who has the same level of disability and, with her husband, has three children -- all of whom were born after her injury.

That is honestly intriguing and puzzling.
posted by gottabefunky at 6:05 PM on December 23, 2009


« Older Reformat your FACE!   |   The Horror of Being an Adult is Hilarious Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments