Fundie Lite Wife Having Baby with Husband with Severe TBI

[nelliebelle1197]

This has been a very thought-provoking thread.

:think:

I agree but I so hope Pampliset does not disappear over it. Even though she really upset me here, I adore reading her posts and I need my P fix in the Shrader thread. :|

[latraviata]

I agree but I so hope Pampliset does not disappear over it. Even though she really upset me here, I adore reading her posts and I need my P fix in the Shrader thread. :|

This topic is obviously close to her heart and let's be honest we all have our pet peeves.

[nelliebelle1197]

This topic is obviously close to her heart and let's be honest we all have our pet peeves.

Mine is when someone tries to justify Republican policies or claim they are "socially liberal and fiscally conservative"

[latraviata]

Mine is when someone tries to justify Republican policies or claim they are "socially liberal and fiscally conservative"

I am all for the children.

[shedemei]

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.

If only this were true. The US has a sad history of eugenics, and it still happens.

[DGayle]

If only this were true. The US has a sad history of eugenics, and it still happens.

Ah, but it is true. No matter how badly you hurt kids, you can still have more. No matter how many times CPS has to take away your kids for neglect, you can still have more. Even suggesting that someone with an established history of child abuse, including molestation, should be banned from having kids, will be seen as promoting eugenics instead of as protecting the future offspring of someone who keeps hurting kids.

Eugenics is trying to remove undesirable genes from the pool. Frankly it's not eugenics to ban a repeat-molester from having kids. That's banning someone from having more victims of something they choose to do. You don't choose your genetics. You choose your actions.

Also some people say it's eugenics to say Cale shouldn't be having kids, even though not only is there nothing wrong with his genes, but the reason for the lack of support has to do with larger overall factors, including him saying no, and being violent, and the overall situation. If he didn't have TBI and we were all saying he shouldn't have kids because of the overall situation without TBI, it wouldn't be called eugenics, would it? Nope.

Sadly, Cale has fewer right because of his TBI. His yeses matter when they align with his caretaker's desires, and his no's don't count at all. The rest of us can say no, and it damned well better be paid attention to. Cale says no, and he simply doesn't know what he really wants because he says yes every now and then. The occasional yes is irrevocable. The rest of us can change our minds, even in marriage. He's stuck. Yes means yes, no means yes, as long as it's what someone else wants, and defending his right to say no is eugenics.

[DGayle]

I think the bolded is a huge overstatement (though poetic) and assigns a lot more conscious decision making on Kathleen's side than I think is there. I just don't think she did this from anything negative. I think she did it from a deep desire to have the life she was supposed to have.

However, the rest of your observations are great. Your point about the fact that Cale did not make a 100% pure decision to have a baby is really spot on and the evidence on the blog backs you up. The point about the baby not having a choice and being left a caretaker really hit home and I don't think anyone has noticed that yet- and I just had a revelation about myself. I was in a similar but not as bad a situation with a grandparent with severe stroke induced brain damage (I was 10 and giving her shots and changing her and on the receiving end of violent rages; that was NOT my wonderful grandma all of a sudden). I didn't realize how much my grandmother's situation mirrors that of someone with a TBI and how my tween years were affected by that.

I don't think Kathleen is doing this out of malice, but all the same, it's what's happening. She has said that having a baby is what would be best for Cale. It would help Cale. People shouldn't be having babies because they think it'll help someone's therapy along, or because maybe it'll fix the marriage, or make daddy stop drinking, or anything else. This is all assigning a baby a job, and in this case, Kathleen has inadvertently assigned Nora the job of therapy baby. I think she, on some level, is still in denial. Sometimes she can see the reality, but at other times, she goes about things as if everything was as it was before the accident, back when they were making plans for a particular life.

I wonder what kind of therapy, if any, she's receiving. I don't mean the support of being a caretaker, but the support for being a wife with a husband whose cognitive abilities result in a tricky situation. Cale's support team can only do and say so much before they cross a moral, and possibly legal, line. Suggesting no kids for him could cross that line and result in accusations of discrimination, and so all they can really do is try to offer suggestions on how to make everything go smoother. (This is why claims of Cale having a team means this is all okay don't hold water.)

Talking about Nora's rights toe a line since she didn't have any rights before she was born, so all we could do is discuss the situation as far as Cale is concerned. We couldn't even talk about her rights after birth without crossing a line. But now she's here, and it's fair game to talk about how this is going to impact her life. I know children have parents who are injured like this after they're born, and that's hard enough. But how will it affect her knowing she was conceived a dad who said many times he didn't want a baby (it's all on the blog, which she will one day see), and conceived by a mother who should have given thought to how abnormal life will be?

It's unlikely Nora will be able to have sleep-overs at her home, and her friends will have to be prepped on how to handle her dad in case he gets violent or, again this is a tricky subject, but gets aroused. I bring that up because no one thought about how a cousin of mine would be affected in the presence of teen girls. Kyle's profoundly disabled, yet he still has hormones, and he doesn't always know how to control his hormones. This is one of those times when a man may literally be unable to control himself. Cale already has violence issues. Add testosterone to it, and it's not a situation Nora's friends should be around.

How likely will it be that Kathleen will be able to do typical mother-daughter activities with her? Go on class field trips, participate in scouts, do class projects? Something a lot of caretakers have a hard time with is not getting enough time away from the person needing care. A common complaint among children of profoundly disabled parents is not getting much time with the other parent. Nora was born to a mother who should realize these challenges. Already Kathleen doesn't have much time without Cale. How is she going to have time to do things one-on-one with Nora? Care for the disabled is hard to find, expensive, and it isn't going to be fair to her own mother if her own mother will be expected to step up to the plate and become solo-caretaker and miss out on her granddaughter's activities too. If it comes down to it, Cale's needs will necessarily trump Nora's activities.

I'm concerned that poor girl may feel a need to hide her home life, and may be ashamed, and angry that she was purposefully brought into it.

I'm less concerned about Cale than I am about the innocent child brought into a situation so far from ideal that it's irresponsible. I know kids are born into less-than-ideal situations all the time, but there's a difference between being born to a poor single mother, and being born into a house with violence where you will absolutely end up being a caretaker of your own parent.

As a kid who had to take care of my parents because if their drinking, I feel a lot of resentment on Nora's part. I know what it's like to not be able to have friends over because it was never known if my parents could control themselves, and that made me feel ashamed, and I did wonder, with anger, why my parents had me at all if they were just going to drink a lot, and if it was so they could have a free caretaker. I wanted to grow up and get married faster (and ended up in a bad relationship for it) because I was desperate to have a typical family life of a mom and dad (this was the 90's, give me a break for thinking mom and dad instead of "alternative" situations) who both doted on a kid or two, had plenty of time for them, and were liked and respected by all the friends instead of hidden away like a shameful secret. Nora might be lucky and absolutely love her home life and think she's the luckiest little girl ever to be taking care of her dad while mom's taking a break, but I think that's asking her to be an exception, especially since the issues were active years before she was born, with no realistic chance of it ever really getting any better. I am so deeply sad for this little girl.

[shedemei]

Just saying, the right to have a kid isn't an absolute right in the US for all populations. That's all.

[anjulibai]

Just saying, the right to have a kid isn't an absolute right in the US for all populations. That's all.

Where currently is this a systemic issue and not isolated incidents or a self-contained group of social workers or healthcare providers working on their own authority?

[shedemei]

Where currently is this a systemic issue and not isolated incidents or a self-contained group of social workers or healthcare providers working on their own authority?

I'm not saying it's widespread. I'm just saying that it happens. I think it's wrong, but its the reality. It's better than it used to be.

Regardless, it's not relevant in direct relation to Cale's situation. I don't really have a clear opinion on that, because it's just a difficult situation all around.

[nelliebelle1197]

I'm not saying it's widespread. I'm just saying that it happens. I think it's wrong, but its the reality. It's better than it used to be.

Regardless, it's not relevant in direct relation to Cale's situation. I don't really have a clear opinion on that, because it's just a difficult situation all around.

Yeah, it happens. What about the 150 women sterilized in California over the last decade?

[latraviata]

Yeah, it happens. What about the 150 women sterilized in California over the last decade?

Why???!!???

[shedemei]

Why???!!???

http://fusion.net/culture/story/doctors ... dxv1aUeZjY

[latraviata]

Thanks for the link, shocking!!!

[DGayle]

Yeah, it happens. What about the 150 women sterilized in California over the last decade?

Which is seen as a VIOLATION of their rights, not as something acceptable, because it removes their right. What happened in those prisons isn't something sanctioned by the state. Investigations have been showing this is something some of the prison doctors and other staffers have been doing, and rather than strapping down fighting women, they're trying to justify it by saying the women consented. Yeah...no. Consent as the result of manipulation isn't consent.

Regardless, this isn't government-sanctioned, and the participants have acted outside the scope of their duties, and should be brought up on assault charges.

[Arete]

DGayle perfectly articulated what bothers me so much about this situation when she summed it up in the expression:

Cale's 'yes' seems to mean 'yes' but his 'no' only means 'no' some of the time.

That is scary.

[anjulibai]

Which is seen as a VIOLATION of their rights, not as something acceptable, because it removes their right. What happened in those prisons isn't something sanctioned by the state. Investigations have been showing this is something some of the prison doctors and other staffers have been doing, and rather than strapping down fighting women, they're trying to justify it by saying the women consented. Yeah...no. Consent as the result of manipulation isn't consent.

Regardless, this isn't government-sanctioned, and the participants have acted outside the scope of their duties, and should be brought up on assault charges.

Yeah, I wouldn't say that is a systemic issue, and it was contained to one group acting under it's own authority.

There's a difference, and I think it's inappropriate to equate the two.

[Mama Mia]

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.

Your going on and on about his being raped is ridiculous. You have absolutely, positively no reason to think that the sex is not consensual and is coerced.

This is solely coming from your inability to process that a person with a TBI is NOT a child. He very likely has normal sexual drives like any other adult male. His wife, on her blog, probably uses a specific child age in order to make it easier for her readers to have some idea of where he is at cognitively at that particular time. Especially as this was an acquired injury she probably finds it easiest to use terms most people can relate to and that can be modified as he progresses. Since she is probably unaware that there are people on the Internet speculating on the appropriateness of her sexual relationship, she likely didn't think ahead to the possible connotations of using children's ages as developmental markers.

That is not remotely the same thing as viewing him as a child sexually. While there are people who like to role play being an "adult baby" as a fetish, there is absolutely no reason to assume this is what is happening here.

Your social worker friend is right that there is nothing that would be done legally, but NOT because it's okay to rape someone if you're married to them. But because there is nothing wrong or illegal about having sex with an adult who wants to have sex with you. However I think she is wrong that some big scandal would occur if a mentally disabled woman got pregnant by her neuro-typical partner. Pregnancy and parenting and sexual activity by people with varying degrees of cognitive impairment is really not that uncommon. Your social worker friend also seems to be using one set of state consent standards in Cale's case and an entirely different set for this hypothetical woman.

Also, there is a reason that there are workshops on sexuality after a TBI, and it isn't for some shady "engineered" motive. It's because sex is considered perfectly normal and healthy for people with TBI, or any other form of mental impairment.

Many communities have centers specifically for people who have had a stroke or TBI or have other functional/medical impairments where a variety of workshops and counseling sessions will provide information on everything from nutrition to how to dress independently to sex. Presumably no one thinks Cale's desire to eat isn't " engineered" by Kathleen if she attends a workshop on nutrition.

As far as the impulse control/ violence issues, yes obviously they need to have a very good safety plan and lots of resources in place, and obviously Cale is never going to have a typical type of Dad role, but as others have said- it doesn't necessarily have to be a bad relationship.

I think there are some clear advantages an addict with impulse control issues would have over Cale as far as future behavior. But there are also some advantages that Cale has: he has continued to make progress, there are medications that can be helpful for some people, there are more programs that will provide physical help, there is a lot less stigma-which leads to more help, there is greater financial stability, and Cale is not likely to have deeply entrenched destructive patterns. There is a common belief substance abuse field that might apply here ( I have no idea if it's technically true or scientifically proven, but it's one of those common knowledge kind of things ) . The belief is that their is no one harder to keep in recovery than someone very intelligent, because they can rationalize themselves into anything. Someone with more limited mental functioning will often do very well in recovery, because they'll just work their program without coming up with a thousand reasons not to. Obviously Cale is not in the same situation as someone with addiction issues- but he might, with time and training, do very well with learning very clear cut behavior guidelines and anger management techniques.

[DGayle]

Mrs S2004, I got as far as you saying you don't think there'd be a big to-do if the sexes were reversed, the stopped reading. If a neurotypical man was so obsessed with having a baby that he was focused on it while his wife may be dying, and then he talked her into it sometimes, yet she still adamantly said no at other times, and he got her pregnant anyway, there would be a HUGE fuss raised because her NO's were ignored in favor of the times she said yes. Cale has said no, he doesn't want a baby. His physiological responses are used to get him to have sex. In case you don't know, even victims of forcible rape have physiological responses. It doesn't mean they'd say yes otherwise.

We're not talking about people with close, yet different, cognitive abilities, but rather someone who can't ever be left along again because of the severity of his condition, and someone typical in every way. That typical person hyperfocused on having a baby, and nothing was going to stop in her way, which begs the question of how much did Cale consent to even sex, and how much did he do just because his body became physiologically aroused.

It's a huge massive "might" to pin hope on him becoming a calm individual one day. That's the sort of thing that should happen before someone becomes a parent. It's very important to not expect change from what you have. You don't stay with someone who beats you because you think he might change in positive ways one day. You accept what you have, and realize it could be for good. Having a baby on the off chance someone improves, and then calling it "for the violent person's own good," is really irresponsible.

[nelliebelle1197]

Your going on and on about his being raped is ridiculous. You have absolutely, positively no reason to think that the sex is not consensual and is coerced.

This is solely coming from your inability to process that a person with a TBI is NOT a child. He very likely has normal sexual drives like any other adult male. His wife, on her blog, probably uses a specific child age in order to make it easier for her readers to have some idea of where he is at cognitively at that particular time. Especially as this was an acquired injury she probably finds it easiest to use terms most people can relate to and that can be modified as he progresses. Since she is probably unaware that there are people on the Internet speculating on the appropriateness of her sexual relationship, she likely didn't think ahead to the possible connotations of using children's ages as developmental markers.

That is not remotely the same thing as viewing him as a child sexually. While there are people who like to role play being an "adult baby" as a fetish, there is absolutely no reason to assume this is what is happening here.

Your social worker friend is right that there is nothing that would be done legally, but NOT because it's okay to rape someone if you're married to them. But because there is nothing wrong or illegal about having sex with an adult who wants to have sex with you. However I think she is wrong that some big scandal would occur if a mentally disabled woman got pregnant by her neuro-typical partner. Pregnancy and parenting and sexual activity by people with varying degrees of cognitive impairment is really not that uncommon. Your social worker friend also seems to be using one set of state consent standards in Cale's case and an entirely different set for this hypothetical woman.

Also, there is a reason that there are workshops on sexuality after a TBI, and it isn't for some shady "engineered" motive. It's because sex is considered perfectly normal and healthy for people with TBI, or any other form of mental impairment.

Many communities have centers specifically for people who have had a stroke or TBI or have other functional/medical impairments where a variety of workshops and counseling sessions will provide information on everything from nutrition to how to dress independently to sex. Presumably no one thinks Cale's desire to eat isn't " engineered" by Kathleen if she attends a workshop on nutrition.

As far as the impulse control/ violence issues, yes obviously they need to have a very good safety plan and lots of resources in place, and obviously Cale is never going to have a typical type of Dad role, but as others have said- it doesn't necessarily have to be a bad relationship.

I think there are some clear advantages an addict with impulse control issues would have over Cale as far as future behavior. But there are also some advantages that Cale has: he has continued to make progress, there are medications that can be helpful for some people, there are more programs that will provide physical help, there is a lot less stigma-which leads to more help, there is greater financial stability, and Cale is not likely to have deeply entrenched destructive patterns. There is a common belief substance abuse field that might apply here ( I have no idea if it's technically true or scientifically proven, but it's one of those common knowledge kind of things ) . The belief is that their is no one harder to keep in recovery than someone very intelligent, because they can rationalize themselves into anything. Someone with more limited mental functioning will often do very well in recovery, because they'll just work their program without coming up with a thousand reasons not to. Obviously Cale is not in the same situation as someone with addiction issues- but he might, with time and training, do very well with learning very clear cut behavior guidelines and anger management techniques.

So where is your absolute proof he CAN consent and he did want a baby? You have none, and there is no reason to question other posters' mental faculties. If anything DGayle has quotes where Kathleen says Cale does not want a baby. I don't think anyone here actually thinks Cale is a three year old. What Kathleen has presented is that his cognitive functioning is on the level of a 39 month old. Not the same thing as being three. Also, posters like you are really jumping all the sex consent issue when for me and many others it is the parental consent issue and the fairness to the baby.

Also, there is really no reason to be rude. That has been established in several posts.

[latraviata]

So where is your absolute proof he CAN consent and he did want a baby? You have none, and there is no reason to question other posters' mental faculties. If anything DGayle has quotes where Kathleen says Cale does not want a baby. I don't think anyone here actually thinks Cale is a three year old. What Kathleen has presented is that his cognitive functioning is on the level of a 39 month old. Not the same thing as being three. Also, posters like you are really jumping all the sex consent issue when for me and many others it is the parental consent issue and the fairness to the baby.

Also, there is really no reason to be rude. That has been established in several posts.

Exactly!!

[shedemei]

Yeah, I wouldn't say that is a systemic issue, and it was contained to one group acting under it's own authority.

There's a difference, and I think it's inappropriate to equate the two.

In this case, yes. But I suggest doing some history research. Up until the 70s thirty states had programs of forced sterilization. I have no problem believing it probably continues today to a lesser extent, mostly situation like the one in CA where it's happening more in the private sector (because we also have a bunch of private for-profit prisons in the US, yay!).

So no, if you molest kids you're free to continue making your own. But if you're poor, mentally handicapped, disabled, or have problems with addiction then you were definitely vulnerable to coerced sterilization in the past and still may be now.

[shedemei]

So where is your absolute proof he CAN consent and he did want a baby?

No one can have absolute proof either way, and anyone hoping to get that out of this discussion is going to be disappointed since we're all just bystanders getting a very narrow glimpse into these people's lives. That particular argument unfortunately can't go anywhere but around in circles.

[dianapavelovna]

In this case, yes. But I suggest doing some history research. Up until the 70s thirty states had programs of forced sterilization. I have no problem believing it probably continues today to a lesser extent, mostly situation like the one in CA where it's happening more in the private sector (because we also have a bunch of private for-profit prisons in the US, yay!).

So no, if you molest kids you're free to continue making your own. But if you're poor, mentally handicapped, disabled, or have problems with addiction then you were definitely vulnerable to coerced sterilization in the past and still may be now.

I don't disagree, but I want to note that there is a lot of overlap between these groups (parents involved in child welfare & the poor, mentally handicapped, disabled, and people struggling with addiction) - meaning that a large number of CW-involved parents have one or more of those characteristics, not the other way around. I don't have statistics to back that up, but I'm pretty sure they exist (especially regarding poverty and addiction. So people who molest and abuse kids are not automatically excluded from those populations vulnerable to coerced/forced sterilization.

[DGayle]

In this case, yes. But I suggest doing some history research. Up until the 70s thirty states had programs of forced sterilization. I have no problem believing it probably continues today to a lesser extent, mostly situation like the one in CA where it's happening more in the private sector (because we also have a bunch of private for-profit prisons in the US, yay!).

So no, if you molest kids you're free to continue making your own. But if you're poor, mentally handicapped, disabled, or have problems with addiction then you were definitely vulnerable to coerced sterilization in the past and still may be now.

We definitely had programs that were run by the government that actually forced people into sterilization, but that ended decades ago. What we have today is some outliers acting of their own accord to coerce and manipulate people into it. The government has laws against this, and doesn't sit idle.

It would help, I think, if we got rid of for-profit prisons (those sterilizations meant more money for the prison-owners, and bonuses for the participants), and had all non-profit prisons.