Fundie Lite Wife Having Baby with Husband with Severe TBI

[lipstickgoalie]

OK, I'm still saying that there is no way I can, or will, make judgements or assumptions about this situation from cherry-picking Kathleen's blog posts.

All the bolded tells me is that in October 2011 he doesn't want to look at magazine pictures of scantily clad women in the doctor's reception area. And they are Fundie-lite, of course. It doesn't tell me anything at all about his enjoyment of sex or his libido.

On the other hand, in this post: adarlingkindoflife.com/2013/03/farewell-and-new-beginnings.html

Kathleen discusses his improvement in various areas, the limitatopns that are still there, safety planning around his anger issues including calling the police (I was relieved to see that!) and adds right at the end:

What do you make of that? That he hates sex as much as he hates exercise? Or perhaps that he'd much rather have sex than exercise by riding a bike? :)

I am answering to this post and hoping Mrs S reads this too.

I read more recent posts of Kathleen's and found some things troubling so I have gone back to the beginning of the blog and have been reading chronologically. I am only up to Feburary 2012. I made note of the entries I cited because it was the first time Kathleen made note of anything sexual pertaining to Cale. I don't think it is cherry picking because I have stated several times that I have been reading chronologically. If I come across things that indicate my judgement is wrong I am more than happy to admit I was wrong and will be happy to cite the entries.

Here is why I feel that Kathleen, and again I don't think this is the right word but I can't come up with a better one, "engineered" the situation. I don't think Cale's reaction to the magazines in the waiting room was that of an adolescent but rather one of a much younger person. Like a grade schooler saying "Eww. Girls. Gross, cooties" From what I have read in the blog thus far they don't seem to be a modesty obsessed couple. Just thinking about pictures posted in bathing suits and things of that ilk. I could be totally wrong but that is the feeling I get. And as far as the quote about the exercise bike, that was well after multiple forms of intervention prodding him in that direction.

This is a woman who was so desperate for a baby she was talking about it before Cale was even out of the hospital. A woman who wanted a baby so badly she took a pair of baby shoes from outside a McDonalds and saw it as a sign from God endorsing her desire. adarlingkindoflife.com/2011/08/showers-driving-eating-andfamous-people.html

I really feel that she initiated all of the steps for initiating a sex life, not Cale. That she sought out all the therapies and seminars and the like to make it happen. I think she gave Cale more than a little push in that direction. Cale, at least at the point I have gotten to, can't reliably be counted on to remember where he was at any given moment, to take medication, or to even take a shower. I think that it is a situation in which Kathleen repeatedly emphasized her desire for a baby and that sex was how that happened and she then took the steps to make that happen while implying that having a baby was Cale's desire too. I think if she would have talked about having a baby elephant Cale would have agreed. I think she holds an enormous amount of power in Cale's life and he views her as having more knowledge and experience and will try to comply with whatever she wants to make her happy. From what I have read in the blog thus far and from my readings about TBI from my husband's situation I just don't see Cale making the leap to initiating sex and articulating need in that regard. He was having trouble expressing pain and where he hurt a few months before February 2012. That is a huge cognitive leap to expressing a need for sex. I just really don't feel that he got there on his own. Again I think Kathleen strongly nudged him in that direction.

Again I have to say I don't have a real problem with the two of them enjoying a sex life together. I find it a bit ethically complicated but I don't think that it falls under the category of abuse or rape. What I do have a problem with is the choice Kathleen made to have a child. I don't have the entry pulled up and unfortunately don't have time to pull it up but shortly after she announced the pregnancy Cale stated that roughly he didn't want to have a baby with "that". That comment was what made me investigate it further and start reading the entire blog.

Again, I may be totally wrong and I hope I am, really I do. If I find the evidence I will be sure to admit it.

[singsingsing]

I don't think the issue is so much sex per se. It's more what comes along with it. The main biological purpose of sex is to produce a pregnancy and it seems that Cale is not at a cognitive level where he would be able to consent to impregnating his wife. That's the real problem. A neurotypical adult male will understand that unprotected sex will likely lead to pregnancy and even protected sex involves a small risk of conception. He will have some understanding of what goes along with having a child, and the intellectual and emotional capacity to deal with it when it occurs. If this is not the case for Cale (and if he's functioning at the level of a young child, it's not) then it is very wrong of his wife to knowingly conceive a child with him when he cannot consent to the possibility of conception or the role of father.

[punkiepie]

Before the accident, they were a married, sex-having couple. So I don't have a real problem with then continuing to have sex (unlike Ian and Larissa). Since they were married, and not engaged, Kathleen's options were very limited. She could have 1. Divorced him and moved on, 2. Stay married and remain celibate, or 3. What she chose. At the very least, thankfully, they aren't trying to push some crazy idea that Cale is is the spiritual head of the household and kathleen playing the subservient role.

BUT, while them having sex isn't abuse, just squicky, to me- having a baby with him is, IMO, akin to child abuse; not for Cale, but the baby. With Ian and Ben, they are very docile and have more severe physical limitations and I wouldn't worry about them actually harming the child. But Cale is described as extremely volitile AND physically stronger than Kathleen. In one post she wrote about how she was glad her brother was there when he became enraged one day and she was worried for her safety.

Unfortunately, they were dealt a shitty hand, and Kathleen was left with only a few crappy choices. Even more unfortunately, she seems to have picked the worst possible one. If having a baby was so important to her, then she should have gotten divorced and remarried to someone who was capable of being a father. She tried to have her cake and eat it to, and it's going to be the baby who suffers the consequences.

[Palimpsest]

I am answering to this post and hoping Mrs S reads this too.

I read more recent posts of Kathleen's and found some things troubling so I have gone back to the beginning of the blog and have been reading chronologically. I am only up to Feburary 2012. I made note of the entries I cited because it was the first time Kathleen made note of anything sexual pertaining to Cale. I don't think it is cherry picking because I have stated several times that I have been reading chronologically. If I come across things that indicate my judgement is wrong I am more than happy to admit I was wrong and will be happy to cite the entries.

Here is why I feel that Kathleen, and again I don't think this is the right word but I can't come up with a better one, "engineered" the situation. I don't think Cale's reaction to the magazines in the waiting room was that of an adolescent but rather one of a much younger person. Like a grade schooler saying "Eww. Girls. Gross, cooties" From what I have read in the blog thus far they don't seem to be a modesty obsessed couple. Just thinking about pictures posted in bathing suits and things of that ilk. I could be totally wrong but that is the feeling I get. And as far as the quote about the exercise bike, that was well after multiple forms of intervention prodding him in that direction.

This is a woman who was so desperate for a baby she was talking about it before Cale was even out of the hospital. A woman who wanted a baby so badly she took a pair of baby shoes from outside a McDonalds and saw it as a sign from God endorsing her desire. adarlingkindoflife.com/2011/08/showers-driving-eating-andfamous-people.html

I really feel that she initiated all of the steps for initiating a sex life, not Cale. That she sought out all the therapies and seminars and the like to make it happen. I think she gave Cale more than a little push in that direction. Cale, at least at the point I have gotten to, can't reliably be counted on to remember where he was at any given moment, to take medication, or to even take a shower. I think that it is a situation in which Kathleen repeatedly emphasized her desire for a baby and that sex was how that happened and she then took the steps to make that happen while implying that having a baby was Cale's desire too. I think if she would have talked about having a baby elephant Cale would have agreed. I think she holds an enormous amount of power in Cale's life and he views her as having more knowledge and experience and will try to comply with whatever she wants to make her happy. From what I have read in the blog thus far and from my readings about TBI from my husband's situation I just don't see Cale making the leap to initiating sex and articulating need in that regard. He was having trouble expressing pain and where he hurt a few months before February 2012. That is a huge cognitive leap to expressing a need for sex. I just really don't feel that he got there on his own. Again I think Kathleen strongly nudged him in that direction.

Again I have to say I don't have a real problem with the two of them enjoying a sex life together. I find it a bit ethically complicated but I don't think that it falls under the category of abuse or rape. What I do have a problem with is the choice Kathleen made to have a child. I don't have the entry pulled up and unfortunately don't have time to pull it up but shortly after she announced the pregnancy Cale stated that roughly he didn't want to have a baby with "that". That comment was what made me investigate it further and start reading the entire blog.

Again, I may be totally wrong and I hope I am, really I do. If I find the evidence I will be sure to admit it.

Well, you and me both on the decision to conceive a child! I'll come clean on that -- Dear Deity! Has she any concept of the risks? To everyone?

The whole thing is so problematic. And so sad. I've done a lot more reading of the blog over the last couple of days too. I'm seeing quite a few areas for concern but not so many "red flags" as you. Perhaps.

I still think we can't tell too much from the blog. Kathleen doesn't seem very bright to me, or terribly sensitive. I hate the fact that she equates Cale with a child, but she does seem to be taking good care of him within her own limitations. I also hate that she blogs about him - but I'd also ban 90% of "healthy children" Mommy bloggers from the internetz too for destroying their children's privacy. I'd probably only ban 50% of caregivers of disabled adults and children - because their blogs may at least help others!

I am reading the blog with a lot of professional objectivity although it is a long time since I worked for APS - and even longer since I actually investigated a case (ended up in management and supervision.) This is the sort of case that gives conscientious APS case workers nightmares. Not necessarily because there is going to be a bloody mess and a corpse on the floor (although that is always possible) but because - OMG, what if I get it wrong! Is this guy being sexually abused? What about the baby? This is the sort of case where an APS worker would breath a sigh of relief - or have a nervous conniption - because CPS should probably also be involved now a baby is in the picture. The conniption would be if CPS and APS disagreed.

The goal here is to put interventions and supports in place for the least damage to everyone concerned and the best possible outcome. I do think the decision to have a baby was Kathleen's and probably under the circumstances - unwise - to say that least. But people make reproductive decisions that I don't agree are optimal all the time.

According to some posters on this thread (at various times) it seems that:

- a traumatic brain injury means that you are never again capable of making the decision to have sex.

- people with cognitive disabilites should never have children because they can't parent properly.

- neither should the spouses of people with cognitive disabilities - they are now caregivers to the spouse only.

- divorcing a person with TBI is a good thing because how can Kathleen want to stay with disabled Cale.

- people with a lack of impulse control should never have babies.

- people with problems controlling their anger should never have babies.

- people who have sex with impaired spouses are rapists, even if the spouse enjoys it (and may initiate it).

Honestly, this situation is heart-breaking and so complex. There are really no easy answers. What do people want - for Kathleen to be put in prison for rape, Cale to be institutionalized and baby Nora put in foster care pending adoption? Obviously, we can tell from her blog that this situation is so unsafe we have to intervene. /heavy sarcasm.

My take on Kathleen is that she was pining for a baby - with Cale - long before the TBI. She still wants a baby with Cale because his brain may be damaged but his sperm are not. She still loves him and wants his baby. She desperately wanted a baby.

And she has got a baby. His baby. Her methods may be suspect but the situation is -- as it is.

I come back to the fact that we have a family here who needs massive support: Cale, Nora and Kathleen. Thank goodness for "Mama" and any other supports they have. They are going to need them. Seriously.

[Burris]

I agree with Palimpsest and Mrs S2004.

Some posters here are reacting to Kathleen as if she were sleeping with an actual toddler.

But she’s not; she’s sleeping with a full-grown man who has a TBI. This man isn’t just a cipher for the use and pity of others; he’s a person – a whole person who has the same basic needs as other people his age.

The concept of “mental age†is crude: Cale could have lost anything from motor skills to memory – anything at all, really – and yet still have other capacities intact. His expressive language might be comparable to that of a three-year-old, but his capacity to understand may be far greater than that.

Cale is likely surrounded by mandated reporters. He’s likely seen a neurologist and even a psychologist, as well as the GP who prescribes any medication he may need. And while some people do fall through the cracks and end up trapped in an abusive situation, Cale’s online visibility hopefully makes that outcome far less likely.

The professionals who know Cale and provide needed services are more than likely to be aware he’s sexually active. Despite this, however, there doesn’t seem to be any mention of an investigation into Kathleen’s conduct regarding her husband.

His doctors may be alarmed at Kathleen’s decision to have a child, but they haven’t separated the couple – and nearly any one of them knows far more about this case than all of us here combined.

There also seems to be some confusion as to what Kathleen’s role is since her husband suffered his head injury: Kathleen is not Cale’s nurse; she’s his wife. Cale is not Kathleen’s patient; he’s her husband.

Disability and sexuality is a prickly topic. The flip side of genuinely caring whether people with disabilities are being exploited is that anyone who chooses to remain with a disabled spouse after he’s suffered injury is suddenly suspect. Her motives are called into question, both subtly and openly.

In the case of my own husband, he’s smarter than I am.

He can consent or refuse as he pleases, and yet some people – always those who don’t bother to speak with my husband before coming at me - suspect some hidden taint in my motives. (My motives are quite simple: I love my husband, I swore to provide care when he needed it, and I think – no; I know - the world is a far better place with him in it.)

One of you is sure to point out that our story is different from the one under discussion. It is, except for on one important point: Disabled people are desexualied and dehumanized in a hundred little ways every day – from when the cashier at the checkout takes money from my husband and hands me the change, to the waitress whose ass I chewed out when she asked me, in front of my husband, whether “we†– meaning our companions and me – were going to leave him in his chair or move him to a booth. I explained as calmly and clearly as I could what was wrong with her question, after which she huffed and said she just wanted to know whether we usually moved him out of chair or not. (I reported her conduct to the manager.)

The point: It’s all down to assumptions. This woman probably sees a lot more in her husband, and perhaps the doctors do as well, then she ever writes on her blog.

Yeah - I think Cale’s wife is walking a hard road in adding a child to this mix, but it was her decision to make.

If the situation were reversed, and a woman with the same sort of TBI Cale has remains sexually active, I would be more concerned. Yes, it’s a double-standard, but there’s a reason for it: Unlike a man with a TBI, who only needs to make a deposit and continue as before, a woman with such injuries would have to endure pregnancy; to wrestle with changes to her body she may not understand. She would need to spend time undergoing medical tests and all manner of other potentially invasive procedures. And that isn’t even touching on how labour pains would affect her.

But if a woman with a TBI is found capable of consenting to sex, then her body is her business. Same goes for Cale.

[Three and Done]

Once again, and quite clearly - why the debate on the issue of Cale's sexuality?

His ability to consent to being a parent and fulfilling even SOME of the responsibilities that role entails is the core issue. Per Kathleen's own words, this man IS NOT CAPABLE of being a parent, period. :angry-banghead:

[Burris]

Once again, and quite clearly - why the debate on the issue of Cale's sexuality?

His ability to consent to being a parent and fulfilling even SOME of the responsibilities that role entails is the core issue. Per Kathleen's own words, this man IS NOT CAPABLE of being a parent, period. :angry-banghead:

So, you're saying Kathleen knows Cale cannot consent, and is openly admitting to raping him repeatedly on her blog so that she might become pregnant by him.

Just to be clear, that's what you think Kathleen said on her blog?

Gee, wouldn't the more likely explanation for this be that Kathleen believes Cale can consent, even despite great difficulty in other parts of his life?

[Palimpsest]

Once again, and quite clearly - why the debate on the issue of Cale's sexuality?

His ability to consent to being a parent and fulfilling even SOME of the responsibilities that role entails is the core issue. Per Kathleen's own words, this man IS NOT CAPABLE of being a parent, period. :angry-banghead:

Because they are two separate issues that just happen to combine in this tragic situation. :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:

I guess in your lexicon single mothers are not allowed. Single mothers who care for other children or dependant adults are also not allowed!

And people with brain injuries have no right to have sex or reproduce -- or perhaps live? Why debate their quality of life at all? :angry-banghead:

[theologygeek]

Have you read through her entire blog? She has been baby obsessed for years. It's obvious that she used him for his sperm. I doubt that he cares if the two of them ever sleep together again. How can he agree with sound mind and body to become a father when he doesn't even grasp how babies are made? He is a toddler stuck in a man's body. He should be given dignity and not be used for her selfish wants. And she is irrational. She had a baby by a man who she had to put on alert with the police department. They couldn't even keep a dog. She abused a disabled man. That situation is all kinds of fucked up. I'm surprised that you don't see this clearly. This is an accident waiting to happen. It will be a miracle if that baby makes it to adulthood without one of them hurting her.

[theologygeek]

So, you're saying Kathleen knows Cale cannot consent, and is openly admitting to raping him repeatedly on her blog so that she might become pregnant by him.

Just to be clear, that's what you think Kathleen said on her blog?

Gee, wouldn't the more likely explanation for this be that Kathleen believes Cale can consent, even despite great difficulty in other parts of his life?

What she believes might not be what is real. Women who are obsessed with wanting a baby are not always rational. I'm sure she does believe that he can consent. That doesn't make it true.

[Three and Done]

Because they are two separate issues that just happen to combine in this tragic situation. :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:

I guess in your lexicon single mothers are not allowed. Single mothers who care for other children or dependant adults are also not allowed!

And people with brain injuries have no right to have sex or reproduce -- or perhaps live? Why debate their quality of life at all? :angry-banghead:

So, you're saying Kathleen knows Cale cannot consent, and is openly admitting to raping him repeatedly on her blog so that she might become pregnant by him.

Just to be clear, that's what you think Kathleen said on her blog?

Gee, wouldn't the more likely explanation for this be that Kathleen believes Cale can consent, even despite great difficulty in other parts of his life?

As I did not say this earlier - Mod hat off.

Did either of you bother to read the previous post I made in this thread? Oh wait, it's quite obvious you didn't.

And BTW, Palimpsest - I happen to be the single parent of three children myself, and find your assumptions quite obnoxious.

[Curious]

I don't see it either. The baby has a father who has the mind of a three year old, and a mother who threw water in the face of a mentally challenged person. How could a professional not intervene?

Maybe it's just me, but I would never throw water on my neurotypical spouse (even if I was upset at him). That's not appropriate adult behavior and it's not very submissive (though I suppose she gets a pass on that since Cale can't really be her headship anymore).

[lipstickgoalie]

Well, you and me both on the decision to conceive a child! I'll come clean on that -- Dear Deity! Has she any concept of the risks? To everyone?

The whole thing is so problematic. And so sad. I've done a lot more reading of the blog over the last couple of days too. I'm seeing quite a few areas for concern but not so many "red flags" as you. Perhaps.

I still think we can't tell too much from the blog. Kathleen doesn't seem very bright to me, or terribly sensitive. I hate the fact that she equates Cale with a child, but she does seem to be taking good care of him within her own limitations. I also hate that she blogs about him - but I'd also ban 90% of "healthy children" Mommy bloggers from the internetz too for destroying their children's privacy. I'd probably only ban 50% of caregivers of disabled adults and children - because their blogs may at least help others!

I am reading the blog with a lot of professional objectivity although it is a long time since I worked for APS - and even longer since I actually investigated a case (ended up in management and supervision.) This is the sort of case that gives conscientious APS case workers nightmares. Not necessarily because there is going to be a bloody mess and a corpse on the floor (although that is always possible) but because - OMG, what if I get it wrong! Is this guy being sexually abused? What about the baby? This is the sort of case where an APS worker would breath a sigh of relief - or have a nervous conniption - because CPS should probably also be involved now a baby is in the picture. The conniption would be if CPS and APS disagreed.

The goal here is to put interventions and supports in place for the least damage to everyone concerned and the best possible outcome. I do think the decision to have a baby was Kathleen's and probably under the circumstances - unwise - to say that least. But people make reproductive decisions that I don't agree are optimal all the time.

According to some posters on this thread (at various times) it seems that:

- a traumatic brain injury means that you are never again capable of making the decision to have sex.

- people with cognitive disabilites should never have children because they can't parent properly.

- neither should the spouses of people with cognitive disabilities - they are now caregivers to the spouse only.

- divorcing a person with TBI is a good thing because how can Kathleen want to stay with disabled Cale.

- people with a lack of impulse control should never have babies.

- people with problems controlling their anger should never have babies.

- people who have sex with impaired spouses are rapists, even if the spouse enjoys it (and may initiate it).

Honestly, this situation is heart-breaking and so complex. There are really no easy answers. What do people want - for Kathleen to be put in prison for rape, Cale to be institutionalized and baby Nora put in foster care pending adoption? Obviously, we can tell from her blog that this situation is so unsafe we have to intervene. /heavy sarcasm.

My take on Kathleen is that she was pining for a baby - with Cale - long before the TBI. She still wants a baby with Cale because his brain may be damaged but his sperm are not. She still loves him and wants his baby. She desperately wanted a baby.

And she has got a baby. His baby. Her methods may be suspect but the situation is -- as it is.

I come back to the fact that we have a family here who needs massive support: Cale, Nora and Kathleen. Thank goodness for "Mama" and any other supports they have. They are going to need them. Seriously.

I think we are in agreement here. This whole situation is really really complex. I think that it is one of those cases in which medical technology outpaced the construction of an ethical framework for society as a whole. As someone, possibly you, said further upthread, not all that many years ago people in Cale's situation would not have survived.

I have a question that isn't necessarily about Cale and Kathleen's situation specifically but touches on something you said. You mentioned institutionalization. Now, I am not saying that it needs to happen in this case, let me be totally clear about that, but are there cases in which someone with a severe TBI would to better in a group home or more structured residential setting? Again this is hypothetical but if Cale does not handle the new baby very well because of disruption, noise, not being Kathleen's primary focus or whatever reason really, would a more regimented structured enivironment be bennificial to him? I ask because I know of cases in which severely autistic children can thrive in a residential environment in a way that they can't at home because home life can be unpredictable. I know the situations are not a direct parallel but there seem to be similarities. I don't know if you can answer but I thought it was worth an ask given your past experience working in the APS environment.

Again, despite using Cale and Kathleen as an example I am not in any way saying that Kathleen should have in the past or should in the future institutionalize Cale. I am merely curious if a structured environment could be beneficial to an individual with a severe TBI.

[Burris]

As I did not say this earlier - Mod hat off.

Did either of you bother to read the previous post I made in this thread? Oh wait, it's quite obvious you didn't.

And BTW, Palimpsest - I happen to be the single parent of three children myself, and find your assumptions quite obnoxious.

Oh, I saw it; I just don’t understand it. It's hard, even with protection, to decouple procreation from sex. I can't imagine how someone can be considered capable of consenting to sex, but incapable of consenting to procreation. That isn't to say an unfit parent who consented to bear a child should be allowed to keep it, but sex and parenthood are otherwise tightly linked.

[Palimpsest]

I think we are in agreement here. This whole situation is really really complex. I think that it is one of those cases in which medical technology outpaced the construction of an ethical framework for society as a whole. As someone, possibly you, said further upthread, not all that many years ago people in Cale's situation would not have survived.

I have a question that isn't necessarily about Cale and Kathleen's situation specifically but touches on something you said. You mentioned institutionalization. Now, I am not saying that it needs to happen in this case, let me be totally clear about that, but are there cases in which someone with a severe TBI would to better in a group home or more structured residential setting? Again this is hypothetical but if Cale does not handle the new baby very well because of disruption, noise, not being Kathleen's primary focus or whatever reason really, would a more regimented structured enivironment be bennificial to him? I ask because I know of cases in which severely autistic children can thrive in a residential environment in a way that they can't at home because home life can be unpredictable. I know the situations are not a direct parallel but there seem to be similarities. I don't know if you can answer but I thought it was worth an ask given your past experience working in the APS environment.

Again, despite using Cale and Kathleen as an example I am not in any way saying that Kathleen should have in the past or should in the future institutionalize Cale. I am merely curious if a structured environment could be beneficial to an individual with a severe TBI.

I snipped above for space reasons. I hope the discussion still makes sense.

Yes, we are largely in agreement. This situation is incredibly complex and we are both very concerned. I honestly can't answer the question about institutionalization properly. I'd have to have a heck of a lot more information from involved professionals and a real study of the home environment and the supports in place, and the potential supports I could put in place, even temporarily, to assess the real needs and give an informed opinion.

Usually institutionalization is thought of as last resort because it "feels" like failure and because a loving home environment with family members is considered better. If the caregivers are overly stressed (to the point of active abuse or potential danger to family members) or if the individual would truly do better in an instititional setting -- yes, it is an option. Re. institutionalization -- it's not warehousing or NF placement, per se. There are options like supportive housing and group homes. The problem is finding places getting people into them because of fiscal restrictions, underfunding, and public perceptions. There are huge waiting lists everywhere.

There are no perfect solutions for any of this. There are just the best solutions we can offer to ameliorate dreadful situations. Temporarily or permanently.

Yes. It's really depressing.

[DGayle]

Exactly. This child is going to have all kinds of issues. Her mother is whacked. Not only is she whacked, but she's an abuser. Throwing water in the face of a mentally challenged person is abuse. A nurse could get fired for that. How does Kathleen get a pass? Because she's stressed? I don't care how stressed a person is. Abusing the disabled is horrid.

She said the baby is good for KATHLEEN. No one has said this is good for the baby. The only beneficiary in this whole mess is Kathleen.

[Palimpsest]

Oh, I saw it; I just don’t understand it. It's hard, even with protection, to decouple procreation from sex. I can't imagine how someone can be considered capable of consenting to sex, but incapable of consenting to procreation. That isn't to say an unfit parent who consented to bear a child should be allowed to keep it, but sex and parenthood are otherwise tightly linked.

Yes, I saw it too. I thought it interesting and informative re. your experiences with TBI but not necessarily integral to the understanding of this specific discussion. Or more memorable than many other posts on this interesting thread.

I am so very sorry I inadvertantly offended you, Three and Done. I had no idea of your single-motherhood status --nor do I find it relevant. I was merely responding to your last post as it stood. I found extremely obnoxious in it's disregard for Cale's rights and it's dismissal of Kathleen's ability to parent by herself. Does your Helpmeet hat being on or off have anything to do with this either?

[Mama Mia]

Have you read through her entire blog? She has been baby obsessed for years. It's obvious that she used him for his sperm. I doubt that he cares if the two of them ever sleep together again. How can he agree with sound mind and body to become a father when he doesn't even grasp how babies are made? He is a toddler stuck in a man's body. He should be given dignity and not be used for her selfish wants. And she is irrational. She had a baby by a man who she had to put on alert with the police department. They couldn't even keep a dog. She abused a disabled man. That situation is all kinds of fucked up. I'm surprised that you don't see this clearly. This is an accident waiting to happen. It will be a miracle if that baby makes it to adulthood without one of them hurting her.

He is NOT a toddler trapped in a mans body, he is a grown man with limited cognitive functioning. Those are two entirely different things. You seem to be equating his approximate age of mental development ( which is just th easiest to understand measure that is given...it isn't really equivalent) with a corresponding age of sexual functioning- and that just isn't how it works.

Do I think it was the wisest decision in the world to have a baby when his impulsivity and anger issues aren't fully under control? No. But they seem to have supports in place and are able to access resources, so hopefully they will deal with any issues that arise. There are millions of people who I think are bringing children into less than ideal situations...would you want to regulate who can and who can not have children? Who gets to decide? Perhaps you'd like to go back to when people with cognitive impairments were involuntarily sterilized? And you would definitely have to get rid of sperm banks. How about if a family has one severely impaired child who requires intensive help, should they be allowed to have more children?

[lipstickgoalie]

Palimpsest- thanks for the answer earlier. And thank you for snipping the thread. I was posting on my phone again and to be completely honest I mess up snipping every time I try it.

I have really enjoyed the discussion even when we haven't agreed at first. I think that I am viewing this through the lens of a wife with a husband with a minor TBI and PTSD. The lines are really blurry for us sometimes and we are kind of a best case scenario. When I say blurry lines I mean what is helping and what is enabling, what reaction is the result of the TBI and what is just being a dick. The other night I really think that my PMS got into a verbal altercation with his PTSD and the results were pretty much a disaster and I was still crying the next morning. And like I said we are the best case scenario. It is entirely possible, no, probable, that I am projecting but I am really trying to be objective.

[Palimpsest]

Palimpsest- thanks for the answer earlier. And thank you for snipping the thread. I was posting on my phone again and to be completely honest I mess up snipping every time I try it.

I have really enjoyed the discussion even when we haven't agreed at first. I think that I am viewing this through the lens of a wife with a husband with a minor TBI and PTSD. The lines are really blurry for us sometimes and we are kind of a best case scenario. When I say blurry lines I mean what is helping and what is enabling, what reaction is the result of the TBI and what is just being a dick. The other night I really think that my PMS got into a verbal altercation with his PTSD and the results were pretty much a disaster and I was still crying the next morning. And like I said we are the best case scenario. It is entirely possible, no, probable, that I am projecting but I am really trying to be objective.

Can I just give you a massive cyberhug (((((lipstickgoalie)))))

You named it. The lines on all of this are always so blurry because with TBI (and especially compounded with PTSD) the goal posts are always moving.

No, we didn't always agree at first because I was deliberately playing devil's advocate. Not against you exactly, but against you and other perceptions and value judgements that I didn't agree with. These situations are so complex -- we just have to try our best not to jump to conclusions or value judgements. But we always do - me included! And professional objectivity is hardly perfect. APS workers project too - that is why it is so important to have layers of supervision. :)

You have said a couple of really important things here that are relevant to the Cale and Kathleen situation.

1. What is the result of his TBI and what is his just being a dick?

FFS! Having TBI does not necessarily mean that the person doesn't retain the ability to be a dick! Even nice people are sometimes dicks. Even with TBI, he can brilliantly and knowingly be a dick or his TBI can bring out a hitherto suppressed dickishness! Does having a disability mean that one can never be confronted with behaving like a dick?

2. Since when did being the spouse/significant other of a person with a disability automatically turn a person into a saint? Again, FFS! You are entitled to PMS. You had a verbal altercation. BFD! At least you didn't throw water on him. Forgive yourself. It is also quite possible that you wouldn't have let yourself go - if you had not thought he could cope.

Back to Kathleen and the water throwing incident: I think I said earlier that it was "not optimal but not serious abuse." I'll stand by the not serious abuse. It didn't exactly hurt him. It did confuse and stop him being dickish and (this is important) potentially humiliated him.

Actually, I think it was pretty damn bad and one of my causes of concern because it could escalate into serious abuse.

On the other hand, in this context: If Kathleen and "Mama" arm themselves with glasses of water to chuck at Cale if he approaches the baby violently -- it is a whole lot better than many other alternatives.

As I said, this whole situation is dreadful. In order of most need of protection: Baby Nora, Cale, "Mama," and then Kathleen.

[happy atheist]

He is NOT a toddler trapped in a mans body, he is a grown man with limited cognitive functioning. Those are two entirely different things. You seem to be equating his approximate age of mental development ( which is just th easiest to understand measure that is given...it isn't really equivalent) with a corresponding age of sexual functioning- and that just isn't how it works.

Do I think it was the wisest decision in the world to have a baby when his impulsivity and anger issues aren't fully under control? No. But they seem to have supports in place and are able to access resources, so hopefully they will deal with any issues that arise. There are millions of people who I think are bringing children into less than ideal situations...would you want to regulate who can and who can not have children? Who gets to decide? Perhaps you'd like to go back to when people with cognitive impairments were involuntarily sterilized? And you would definitely have to get rid of sperm banks. How about if a family has one severely impaired child who requires intensive help, should they be allowed to have more children?

Holy hyperbole Batman!

[Palimpsest]

Holy hyperbole Batman!

The only "holy hyperbole Batman!" I see here is the sperm banks. I'm really not sure where those come in.

Otherwise, I can rather see where Mrs S2004 is coming from and could debate the issues.

And I must say that I rarely agree with Mrs S2004. :D

[Marianne]

Perhaps you'd like to go back to when people with cognitive impairments were involuntarily sterilized?

Godwin point... We never say this. We say our concern about the fact that someone who say "my husband is a child" have sex and children with this child (her world, not mine).

[Mama Mia]

The only "holy hyperbole Batman!" I see here is the sperm banks. I'm really not sure where those come in.

Otherwise, I can rather see where Mrs S2004 is coming from and could debate the issues.

And I must say that I rarely agree with Mrs S2004. :D

The sperm banks would be if the requirement is to have two parents. I understand all of it is far fetched, but once you start down a road of limiting who can have children it really opens the door to a wide range of possible restrictions. And considering it was in the fairly recent past that singles and gay couples were unable to adopt, I don't know that it is neccessarily out of the question that things could become that extreme.

[Curious]

The only "holy hyperbole Batman!" I see here is the sperm banks. I'm really not sure where those come in.

Otherwise, I can rather see where Mrs S2004 is coming from and could debate the issues.

And I must say that I rarely agree with Mrs S2004. :D

Just a guess, but I'd say the bold is at least part of what HA was saying is hyperbole. I don't think anyone has suggested REGULATING who can and can't have children and it's certainly not been discussed on a general level which is what she is implying by saying there are millions of people who she thinks are bringing children into less than ideal situations. Millions is a pretty big number, though I don't doubt it's the case, if you are going to include the world at large, this thread has been pretty much restricted to a single case at hand. When it has expanded it's been with an eye on cognitively disabled folks and whether they are able to consent to parenthood or not.

I've pretty much stayed out of this thread for personal reasons, but I decided to answer this one because I also think this OP is not really what anyone in this thread has said at all.