Fundie Lite Wife Having Baby with Husband with Severe TBI

[Palimpsest]

I suspect all of us have had private thoughts about whether someone is actually capable of rearing a child or not or been judgy about another person's parenting (me, all the time, sadly, not proud). But when it comes to people with disability, there's a nasty, ugly history there, and the reaction is understandable. Slippery slope and all that.

Honestly, something Cale said in that linked blog entry (the one where he said he couldn't be a dad yet because he was hurt) made me think that he'd be a pretty good dad, all things considered. He wouldn't be the kind of dad we think of when we think of dads and he may well be more like an overgrown brother instead of the traditional father figure, but I suspect he'll teach the child a lot about sticking to it, hard work, love, tolerance and acceptance. With the right support, I think he'll do fine.

Yes, not the typical Dad but a presence - and not necessarily a negative presence. Time will tell how positive a presence.

And I have to say -- I've known a few neurotypical Dads throw major anxiety attacks when the reality of a baby (as opposed to theoretical fatherhood and just shooting out sperm) suddenly becomes reality.

Look -- there is going to be a teeny-tiny little helpless person here who will rely on me to be a DAD! Total panic ensues! :)

[meda]

For me the issue is less about Cale's ability to consent to fatherhood (although that issue does give me pause) than it is about the safety and wellbeing of this baby. I see no upside to bringing a baby into a house with a large strong person who lacks impulse control, is easily frustrated, and is prone to violent tantrums. I see no upside to a woman who is a full time caregiver to the aforementioned large, strong person having a baby with a person who lacks the ability to care for her or the baby at really any level.

There seems to be consensus that this guy has the mental capacity of a three year old. Three year olds are not competent caregivers, nor are they able to be safely left alone with a baby. It really does not matter how good the three year old's intentions are, how much the three year old might love the baby, how much everyone else my wish the three year old to not really act three....it is what it is. I think that baby is deliberately getting dealt a crap hand before it's even coming into the world. It is being born into a family where mom already has a full time job caring for dad, and dad is a very real risk to the life of that baby if dad gets upset. If the title of this thread were "fundie lite woman has baby with violent alcoholic" or "addict", or any number of scenarios that put a baby at real physical risk, I doubt many people would be defending her.

Obviously, there are people with TBI who have children, and I am sure that they and their caregivers make it work, particularly when the person who suffered the TBI may already have been a parent prior to the injury. However that is not the case here. This is a deliberate choice to bring a baby into an already volatile situation. Cale couldn't even handle a puppy. Now there will be a baby, which is not so easy to get rid of when Cale can't handle it.

[lilith]

People keep comparing this situation to women choosing to have babies with violent men who lack impulse control.

I had three children with a violent man who lacked impulse control, two of those after these issues were apparent. It certainly wasn't the smartest decision I ever made (although I can't imagine not having my children).

The difference is that I and society in general had a reasonable expectation that my ex husband would deal with his issues and do what needed to happen to create a healthy home environment. When he didn't, after being given chances and support to get his issues sorted, I left with the children to protect myself and them and to raise them in a stable environment.

These expectations can't be placed on Cale - he's not choosing to make unhealthy choices or to not deal with the issues that make him volatile and violent. It seems he's doing the best he can with the cards he's been dealt - but his best still involves a real lack of understanding and self control. Kathleen can't walk away as easily as I did, cause she isn't just responsible for the safety of her and her child like I was - she's also responsible for Cale, not just as his caregiver but as the consistent presence and loved one in his life (I'm curious about where Cale's parents are in all this - they don't seem to be mentioned in the blog)

It's a far more complex situation than that of a parent who is abusive or a substance abuser - these parents can choose to change and self improve in a way Cale can't, and if they choose not to they can be held responsible for they decision.

[Feberin]

For me the issue is less about Cale's ability to consent to fatherhood (although that issue does give me pause) than it is about the safety and wellbeing of this baby. I see no upside to bringing a baby into a house with a large strong person who lacks impulse control, is easily frustrated, and is prone to violent tantrums. I see no upside to a woman who is a full time caregiver to the aforementioned large, strong person having a baby with a person who lacks the ability to care for her or the baby at really any level.

There seems to be consensus that this guy has the mental capacity of a three year old. Three year olds are not competent caregivers, nor are they able to be safely left alone with a baby. It really does not matter how good the three year old's intentions are, how much the three year old might love the baby, how much everyone else my wish the three year old to not really act three....it is what it is. I think that baby is deliberately getting dealt a crap hand before it's even coming into the world. It is being born into a family where mom already has a full time job caring for dad, and dad is a very real risk to the life of that baby if dad gets upset. If the title of this thread were "fundie lite woman has baby with violent alcoholic" or "addict", or any number of scenarios that put a baby at real physical risk, I doubt many people would be defending her.

Obviously, there are people with TBI who have children, and I am sure that they and their caregivers make it work, particularly when the person who suffered the TBI may already have been a parent prior to the injury. However that is not the case here. This is a deliberate choice to bring a baby into an already volatile situation. Cale couldn't even handle a puppy. Now there will be a baby, which is not so easy to get rid of when Cale can't handle it.

I agree the dogs are what really gets me. If he couldn't handle a dog how is he going to handle a baby? I think she is being extremely irresponsible and while yes there are single mother and non-traditional families who make it work this isn't the case here. If she was going to have the baby on her own and live separately that would be one thing but the baby is going to be in a house where she could possibly meet physical harm.

Well they've had the baby now. It seems like so far things are going all right. I hope things continue going well for them. I really do hope that he adjusts and they are a happy little family.

[DGayle]

You are absolutely right.

Apart from Kathleen who shares her story in extenso on the internet, what does sex mean to her? It is not just a body function. To me she applied some sort of dressage, to tame him as her personal studd horse.

Everybody is free to do as they see fit, but don't expect other people to not have an opinion about it.

I find the whole situation quite disturbing.

Agreed. Even before he was out of the hospital, she was already going on about having babies. She had a goal, and NOTHING was going to get in the way of that.

She, not he, initiated therapy to get their sex life going so she could have a baby.

They had a parent-child relationship. She's the one who called him a child. Children naturally want to please their parents, especially parents they trust. We know for absolute fact that real parents do sometimes use this trust to get their young children to do sexual things that those children not only wouldn't have done otherwise, but couldn't consent to. Cole's consent in this case is dubious as it's tainted by the power differential they have, and the parent-child dynamic.

Using the marriage as a way to back the morality of this causes a new problem. "They're married, so I'm sure he'd be fine with it." Guess what. Spouses have the right to say no. It's harder to say no when you think you have to say yes.

Cole can't consent to having babies. He does not have the cognitive ability to think through the consequences. Kathleen has said he doesn't always know where pain is that he feels, and he doesn't always know where he is. Someone who can't keep track of these most basic of basics is not going to be able to think through the long-term ramifications of having kids.

Cole has a problem with getting violent when he's frustrated. Even if we take a completely neurotypical man, someone who flies off the handle and starts hitting is not someone who should be a father. Unlike a neurotypical man, Cole's ability to control this is tied to the training of the people around him. Kathleen can learn to head off tantrums to lessen, but not eliminate, the chance. An infant can't learn this. When Kathleen sometimes can't control him on her own, what the fuck is going to happen when they're alone and he gets frustrated because Nora is crying, and Kathleen can't control him? Is she going to hold the baby and be pummeled, or toss the baby aside to try overpowering Cole?

We can hope Kathleen has though this through because we know Cole doesn't have that ability. We have Kathleen's rose-tinted view on Cold wanting babies, but we know it's tinted because she admits he can't understand the most basic of concepts. I also question Kathleen's ability to think about this rationally, considering her husband's survival still wasn't a certainty and she was already posting about how wonderful it'll be when they have babies. She's obsessed, and it's dangerous.

Therapists are limited in what they can say on certain topics, and it comes down to balancing how having babies is seen as a human right, even for child molesters and rapists, and trying to steer a wife away from intentionally conceiving with someone who has problems with violence and who can't consent to conceiving. It's a fine line to toe, and when you've got someone who is baby-rabid as Kathleen, there's not much you can do. Nothing was going to deter her. All the therapists are going to be able to do is try to help keep him from getting violent. They sure can't tell her not to have kids since she still has the legal right too. Can anyone really imagine therapists green-lighting a woman conceiving with someone severely impaired who has violence issues and can't consent to conception?

[DGayle]

What people say is that they want over-sight by a third-party in Cale and Kathleen's case. We can, and some of us have, argued ourselves blue in the face about there being any number of mandated reporters involved with Kathleen and Cale who haven't seemed to have objected so far.

Depending on the laws of their state, this all may be legal, though it sure as hell isn't morally right to conceive with someone who can't consent to becoming a parent. So there may not be anything legally actionable. That doesn't mean third-parties are condoning what's going on.

[latraviata]

I read some interesting reasons why Kathleen and Cale should have the right to have children, albeit it, according to Kathleen own words, Cale is a 3 year old trapped in a man's body.

There are many fathers out there with anger controle issues.

Fair enough, why not expose yet another child to a father like that, who cares....

The most 16 year olds are excellent parents....??? Really??

There is a differnce between a three year old and a 16 year old.

But even Cale has the mental capacity of a 16 year old, I would like to see some the result of a study on the success of the 16-year-old parent.

He could make a wonderful father, a sort like an older brother.

He is not her brother but her father How is she going to call him Bro or Dad?

It all boils down to the subject of the right of having a child. Is it a right? And to what extent?

A few years ago this was a discussion on Dutch telly in a serie of documentaries with some examples of people mentally handicapped granted the right of having children, although the immediate family was mordicus against it.

Well, one couple, both mentally handicapped, he had a simple job in a social workplace, which highly supervised and he managed well. She stayed home and was able to manage (supervised) the basic skills that are required to maintain a household.

The chidren were born and team of 14, yes 14 persons (on the expense of the taxpayer, but that aside) was assigned to help out, assist and supervise.

Well, it sort of worked out. During summer supervisors, assistents and helpers went on summer break for a month, 4 at the time in a rotation schedule.

After the break the children were admitted to hospital, severely dehydrated.

Another couple, married and mildly mentally challanged had 12 children, all were taken away by the Dutch CPS for very good reasons, abused, underfed, affectively neglected and so on. They were interviewed and they said to the camera, we are going to have children until they let us keep one.....

Children with mentally handicapped parent(s) were interwiewed. How the children were forced parenting their own parent(s), no childhood whatsoever.

One girl with a mentally handicapped father decided she was never going to have children at all and we learned that she commited suicide succesfully. She couldn't cope with the violence, always be on guard while parenting a parent.

All the parents and family of these vulnarible people were not heard and in the end of the day, they were obliged to take responsibility of the (grand) children, because their parents were granted the right to have a child.

I agree, to deny people the right to have a child is a slippery slope, but sometimes one wonders.....

[polecat]

It all boils down to the subject of the right of having a child. Is it a right? And to what extent?

My body, my business. I do not want anyone else involved in my reproductive rights at all unless they are invited there (i.e., my husband).

In the U.S., people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. They cannot have their reproductive rights taken away because they *might* not be good parents. There are all kinds of situations in which one would presume that someone might not be a good parent. But that does not make it fact. We cannot (and should not) take away someone's reproductive rights without having a damn good reason for it.

Child abuse spans all socioeconomic statuses and all walks of life. Plenty of people are outwardly good -- even great -- parents (on paper and to all appearances), but inside their home, behind closed doors, it's another matter entirely. Sometimes the most unlikely people become solid, devoted parents. Sometimes those who seem best suited for parenthood turn out to be selfish, negligent parents.

The government needs to keep its nose out of my uterus and its laws off of my body.

[latraviata]

My body, my business. I do not want anyone else involved in my reproductive rights at all unless they are invited there (i.e., my husband).

In the U.S., people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. They cannot have their reproductive rights taken away because they *might* not be good parents. There are all kinds of situations in which one would presume that someone might not be a good parent. But that does not make it fact. We cannot (and should not) take away someone's reproductive rights without having a damn good reason for it.

Child abuse spans all socioeconomic statuses and all walks of life. Plenty of people are outwardly good -- even great -- parents (on paper and to all appearances), but inside their home, behind closed doors, it's another matter entirely. Sometimes the most unlikely people become solid, devoted parents. Sometimes those who seem best suited for parenthood turn out to be selfish, negligent parents.

The government needs to keep its nose out of my uterus and its laws off of my body.

Exactly my point.

[twinmama]

The idea of consent to become a parent is an interesting one because non-brain injured adults don't have that right or expectation, so I don't necessarily see why someone with a TBI shouldn't be a parent because he can't consent to it. If I get pregnant by a non-TBI male, he has no choice about whether he's becoming a parent or not. I suppose he knew before he had sex that pregnancy was a possibility since nothing is 100%, but I could easily lie about birth control and bam, pregnancy without consent to parenthood.

As long as the baby is safe and everyone's main priority is keeping the baby safe, whatever floats their boat. I'm sure Cale has plenty of unbiased adults in his life (doctors, therapists, family on his side) that could/would step in if the sexual relationship with Kathleen was inappropriate for him or detrimental to him.

[Ariel]

People keep comparing this situation to women choosing to have babies with violent men who lack impulse control.

I had three children with a violent man who lacked impulse control, two of those after these issues were apparent. It certainly wasn't the smartest decision I ever made (although I can't imagine not having my children).

The difference is that I and society in general had a reasonable expectation that my ex husband would deal with his issues and do what needed to happen to create a healthy home environment. When he didn't, after being given chances and support to get his issues sorted, I left with the children to protect myself and them and to raise them in a stable environment.

These expectations can't be placed on Cale - he's not choosing to make unhealthy choices or to not deal with the issues that make him volatile and violent. It seems he's doing the best he can with the cards he's been dealt - but his best still involves a real lack of understanding and self control. Kathleen can't walk away as easily as I did, cause she isn't just responsible for the safety of her and her child like I was - she's also responsible for Cale, not just as his caregiver but as the consistent presence and loved one in his life(I'm curious about where Cale's parents are in all this - they don't seem to be mentioned in the blog)

It's a far more complex situation than that of a parent who is abusive or a substance abuser - these parents can choose to change and self improve in a way Cale can't, and if they choose not to they can be held responsible for they decision.

I've been reading this thread an agreeing with points from both sides (and really, ultimately, no one is right), but this argument is probably the one that sways me the most to one side or the other.

[snarkykitty]

They're married, so consent isn't really an issue as I understand it.

Really thought this was Larissa/Ian at first...

1. Consent, at least in the US, IS an issue, whether the two people are married or not. I believe that legally, marriage does not necessarily mean that there is always implied consent. What if you don't want to do it, and your spouse ignores your requests to stop or that you don't want to do it, and continues his attempts - trying to remove your clothes, touching your genital areas, physically nudging you in a particular direction such as the bed, over the couch, against a wall?

2. Is the husband able to consent to the desired or potential consequences of the sex act? The wife wants to get pregnant, she has a cognitively impaired husband, someone who (as it appears thus far) can function sexually on the physical side of it. But what if he doesn't understand that this particular act on this particular night is part of his wife's plan to get pregnant?

Then what?

[Alice_Fraggle]

I had a friend who had a box with condoms in it in her son's top drawer that she checked and then added more when needed. She told me that it was handy to know that there were always some there b/c sometimes, in a pinch, she actually needed to use one from the drawer!

I get annoyed when I'm at the store and the condoms are in those locked cases because I'd rather pay more for groceries if they're stolen then have kids have babies because they were too embarrassed / afraid to buy condoms. I like the jar idea!

[Palimpsest]

For me the issue is less about Cale's ability to consent to fatherhood (although that issue does give me pause) than it is about the safety and wellbeing of this baby. I see no upside to bringing a baby into a house with a large strong person who lacks impulse control, is easily frustrated, and is prone to violent tantrums. I see no upside to a woman who is a full time caregiver to the aforementioned large, strong person having a baby with a person who lacks the ability to care for her or the baby at really any level.

There seems to be consensus that this guy has the mental capacity of a three year old. Three year olds are not competent caregivers, nor are they able to be safely left alone with a baby. It really does not matter how good the three year old's intentions are, how much the three year old might love the baby, how much everyone else my wish the three year old to not really act three....it is what it is. I think that baby is deliberately getting dealt a crap hand before it's even coming into the world. It is being born into a family where mom already has a full time job caring for dad, and dad is a very real risk to the life of that baby if dad gets upset. If the title of this thread were "fundie lite woman has baby with violent alcoholic" or "addict", or any number of scenarios that put a baby at real physical risk, I doubt many people would be defending her.

Obviously, there are people with TBI who have children, and I am sure that they and their caregivers make it work, particularly when the person who suffered the TBI may already have been a parent prior to the injury. However that is not the case here. This is a deliberate choice to bring a baby into an already volatile situation. Cale couldn't even handle a puppy. Now there will be a baby, which is not so easy to get rid of when Cale can't handle it.

On your first paragraph - there is definitely reason for concern for baby Nora in this situation. Kathleen has to commit to keeping the baby safe and caring for both her and Cale. A massive task, but she does have live-in help in the form of her mother, who I hope is delighted to have a baby to look after as well, and a supportive family and friends.

On paragraph 2. There is not consensus here that Cale has the "mental capacity of a three year old." That was a label assigned 3 years ago by Kathleen. I cannot think what assessment tool she got that from! Assessment tools deciding capacity by age are not used these days for adults. They are considered dated, wildly inaccurate and cause the kind of thinking that is demonstrated though out this thread. Cale is not a 3 year-old and should not be treated as one. Kathleen's referring to him is as a child is reprehensible, IMO - and very unscientific! I don't know where Cale would be placed on the DRS (Disability Rating) or FAM (Functional Assessment) or even on the Glasgow Outcome Scale - although he might be a 3 on a 1-5 on that last. Using the Revised Rancho Los Amigos Scale and looking at evidence of improvement in Kathleen's blog, I'd say he was at a Level VII or even perhaps a level VIII. Significant improvement as he started as a Level I. I'm :dead-horse: here, I know.

There is no indication on the blog that Cale will ever be left alone with the baby (that would verge on child endangerment) or be expected to parent in any meaningful way. I'm not defending Kathleen's decision here at all and never have. I think she is taking significant risks. I'm just saying that the situation may not be quite as dire as people here want to believe, and using the "three year old" comparison is wrong in many ways.

As to the puppy issue, that was discussed up-thread a way. The is no proof that Cale "couldn't handle" the puppy, or was turned down for a Service Dog due to his anger issues. Mama and the cat couldn't stand it either. Let's hope they like the baby better than the Yorkie!

[punkiepie]

I don't know if this new news, I didn't see it mentioned, but Baby Nora is here- born April 23. She posted it last night.

[DGayle]

We cannot (and should not) take away someone's reproductive rights without having a damn good reason for it.

We don't. At all. A repeat-child molester is allowed to have kids. Someone who loses custody permanently repeatedly because of abusing their kids can still have kids. This is literally the one right treated as an absolute in the US. It's arguable if we should have access to birth control, and if gay people should have equal rights or be executed. But when it comes to having kids, even if you are literally incapable of caring for them, incapable of caring for yourself to the point that someone else has to sign your medical consent forms, or only want them to abuse them, you can have all the kids you want. We don't let people who are incapable of dogs or who only get them to abuse them have dogs. In the US, we protect animals more than we protect kids.

In this situation with Kathleen and Cole, the problem we have is someone who is neurotypical using the body of an adult who can't consent to intentional conception as her personal sperm bank. Cole can not consent to this, and don't try telling me that someone who has the mental capacity of a 3-year-old can consent to becoming a father. Kathleen herself says that is the degree of his ability to reason. Having the physical body of an adult man doesn't mean he has the mental ability to consent. He is impaired. We have laws against sex with drunk people because consent matter. Why do we protect people who choose to get drunk more than we're protecting someone who is permanently severely brain-damaged?

[DGayle]

The idea of consent to become a parent is an interesting one because non-brain injured adults don't have that right or expectation, so I don't necessarily see why someone with a TBI shouldn't be a parent because he can't consent to it. If I get pregnant by a non-TBI male, he has no choice about whether he's becoming a parent or not. I suppose he knew before he had sex that pregnancy was a possibility since nothing is 100%, but I could easily lie about birth control and bam, pregnancy without consent to parenthood.

As long as the baby is safe and everyone's main priority is keeping the baby safe, whatever floats their boat. I'm sure Cale has plenty of unbiased adults in his life (doctors, therapists, family on his side) that could/would step in if the sexual relationship with Kathleen was inappropriate for him or detrimental to him.

If you skip the pills or poke a hole in a condom to get pregnant by a man who thought there was protection in place, you would be seen as vile because, while he knew there was a small risk, you had the ulterior motive of doing everything to make sure a conception happened. This is deceit.

There may be a lot of unbiased third-parties around, but in a state where all you need for consent with a mentally disabled person is that person knowing a penis goes into a vagina, there's not much anyone can do.

[DGayle]

1. Consent, at least in the US, IS an issue, whether the two people are married or not. I believe that legally, marriage does not necessarily mean that there is always implied consent. What if you don't want to do it, and your spouse ignores your requests to stop or that you don't want to do it, and continues his attempts - trying to remove your clothes, touching your genital areas, physically nudging you in a particular direction such as the bed, over the couch, against a wall?

2. Is the husband able to consent to the desired or potential consequences of the sex act? The wife wants to get pregnant, she has a cognitively impaired husband, someone who (as it appears thus far) can function sexually on the physical side of it. But what if he doesn't understand that this particular act on this particular night is part of his wife's plan to get pregnant?

Then what?

There is this underlying current that because Cale wanted kids before all this happened, and because he willingly consented to sex before, that that consent is permanent. That's a very fundy mindset, that marriage means irrevocable consent. If a woman doesn't want sex, being married or wanting it at an earlier time doesn't mean anyone has the right to make her have sex. Yet because Cale wanted sex and kids before, some people here are hedging on the argument that that means it's okay to make him be a father without explicit informed consent to intentionally conceiving now.

On point 2, they might get him to understand that sex tonight might make a baby appear, but that still isn't consent. Consent requires being informed, and he can't understand the ramifications of a baby in the household. Kathleen puts him at mentally 3. Go talk to a typical 3-year-old and see if you can get them to truly understand what it would mean to have a newborn in the house who's going to need all the attention. The little kid might think it'll be fun sometimes, but they're not going to grasp the sleepless nights and feedings and diapers. So no, per Kathleen's own statements, Cole doesn't understand, making any potential consent null and void.

She's uprooting his life for her own desires, and no, third parties around them can't stop it. In fact, I'm pretty disgusted that people who are normally so into uncoerced consent and who are so concerned about fundy women backed into having kids are in favor of Kathleen forcing Cole to be a dad. The requirements for consenting to intentionally conceiving for a woman are a true desire, and for a man, the ability to get it up. It's okay to say these fundy women with so many kids they can't spend time with them all shouldn't be having more kids, but saying someone who can't wipe his own behind properly shouldn't be in a position of parenthood is eugenics.

[twinmama]

If you skip the pills or poke a hole in a condom to get pregnant by a man who thought there was protection in place, you would be seen as vile because, while he knew there was a small risk, you had the ulterior motive of doing everything to make sure a conception happened. This is deceit.

There may be a lot of unbiased third-parties around, but in a state where all you need for consent with a mentally disabled person is that person knowing a penis goes into a vagina, there's not much anyone can do.

Ah shit. I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

[DGayle]

I don't know if this new news, I didn't see it mentioned, but Baby Nora is here- born April 23. She posted it last night.

I'm reading that. There are already red flags. He's adjusting "the best he can" and is already having "hard days and moments that make it clear that brain injury is in this home." Hate to break it to her, but the first few weeks are some of the easiest, partly because they're mot mobile and partly because there are a lot of extra hands willing to be on board. When that extra help starts to fall away and babies become mobile, the REAL work starts, and the exhaustion of it all builds up. Things started off good with the dog, until the novelty wore off.

[DGayle]

Ah shit. I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

I pointed a social worker friend of mine to this blog, and she's been reading from the beginning. She told me she's alarmed, but that there isn't anything social workers or doctors could do since Cole isn't being actively harmed and is in a situation where all that's required for sexual consent is something you could get a toddler to understand, even if they forget it in an hour. She confirmed that even telling Kathleen not to have kids with him because it could harm Cale in the long run could be construed as discrimination against the disabled, and that is they hadn't been married prior to this, then the game would be different and more could be done to protect Cale against forced parenthood. Because of that marriage license, the only protection he has is protection from being physically restrained for sex. Basically his consent doesn't matter because he can't give or revoke it at this point, so the default setting is marriage license = consent if the wife says so.

She also pointed out that is a neurotypical man and his mentally disabled wife had sex with condoms and she ended up pregnant unintentionally, that there would be a huge fuss and probably some laws changed, even if conception wasn't on purpose, because she couldn't consent to the possibility of having kids with all that parenthood entails (she said you need to understand that to give informed consent), and consent for sex at all would be dubious because she couldn't consent to that possibility.

She also said that if Kathleen and Cole break up, Cole, as the father, would be on the hook for child support, though what Kathleen could get probably wouldn't be anything if Cole's only income is something not garnishable and he can't work. That opens up a whole bunch of other problems.

She also just posted that what could a social worker do anyway, report to the authorities that a wife is having sex with her husband, when already so many jurisdictions treat marital rape as non-existing, and so many courts would want to know who is really being hurt anyway? It's hard enough getting convictions against men, even when the victim is underage (look at that Montana case where a teacher got one single month for raping a teen), and so would hardly be worth trying it against a wife who can argue that her husband at least likes it while it's happening.

[Mela99]

Wait, so these are not the same couple from... a different thread? There was Ian and Larissa, and I thought the other couple was Katie and Brandon?

[2xx1xy1JD]

Re consent to sex with a brain-injured spouse:

I know people who evaluate ability to consent to various things, and it really is something that varies from one thing to another. For example, you can be competent to give medical consent but incapable of managing finances. Also, evaluating capacity to consent involves much more than reading a blog from a wife.

In terms of power imbalance - it can still be an issue, but as long as there is still a basic capacity to consent to sex, I find it less disturbing where the couple was married before for the simple reason that nobody deliberately choose a partner with diminished capacity specifically in order to take advantage of a power imbalance. It's more "I'll always love you no matter what", and less "I'll look for someone who doesn't function that well so that they are less likely to be able to turn me down."

[Bethella]

Wait, so these are not the same couple from... a different thread? There was Ian and Larissa, and I thought the other couple was Katie and Brandon?

Yes this is a third couple, Kathleen and Cale (short for Caleb), they were already married when he was injured. I'm not familiar with Katie and Brandon but IIRC Ian and Larissa were engaged when he was injured and married after the fact.

[louisa05]

Yes this is a third couple, Kathleen and Cale (short for Caleb), they were already married when he was injured. I'm not familiar with Katie and Brandon but IIRC Ian and Larissa were engaged when he was injured and married after the fact.

I believe that Ian and Larissa were not engaged but had just talked (rather vaguely) about a possible marriage. That situation is much worse than this one in so many ways. As I said earlier in the thread, give Kathleen some credit for not pretending that Cale is normal and having deep conversations about life and theology and such things.