Fundie Lite Wife Having Baby with Husband with Severe TBI

[tkr322]

I didn't read all the responses but one thing that concerns me is that she continually mentions how angry or upset he will get and how she has to calm him down, etc. I think she has NO IDEA what it will be like to have a baby and I think that will especially rock this poor man's world. The constant crying, lack of sleep, etc. is enough to make anyone want meds at points during the newborn stage, I can't imagine being someone in his condition and being thrown into that position. I honestly worry about the safety of their baby. Especially since he can't be left alone himself, what happens if he is left alone with their child?!

[tkr322]

And wow, this post on his birthday really summed it up for his cognitive ability. He is definitely a 3 year old. Honestly my 2 year old says basically the same sort of things. I just cannot imagine. Also the fact that she says she likes that he's a child stuck in a man's body is super disturbing to me.

27 things Cale...

1. I like ice cream.

2. I like video games.

3. I play jokes on people.

4. Reeses Blizzards from DQ is my favorite.

5. I like to look at my wife.

6. I like my birthday.

7. I'm going to be a dad. A cool dad.

8. I help my wife.

9. I like Mt. Dew.

10. Alaska was fun. With the bears. Yeah.

11. I really like hockey.

12. Red Wings are the best.

13. I don't like water. No.

14. I don't like hospitals.

15. I don't like going to the dentist.

16. I like to laugh.

17. I like to make other people laugh.

18. Chicken Nuggets are good from McDonald's only.

19. I like dogs.

20. My cat Scratch is the best cat.

21. I like to hang out with my brother.

22. I like to hang out with friends too. With all people I like.

23. I like my baby. It's small. It's in Kathleen's belly.

24. I like making jokes.

25. I like speaking in Spanish when I can. Some words I know.

26. Maple Bars. Yum. So good.

27. I'm tall. I'm 6'2". That's tall.

Cale's brain injury causes him to think and act as a child would. Over the last year or so we've been very aware of him emerging into more teen-like behavior at times which can be very interesting...and a whole lot of fun! ;)

I've been thinking and watching him lately wondering if him being so child-like is such a bad thing. I know that as his wife I'm supposed to help guide him in life now and help him relearn how to be an adult, but I don't want to focus on "changing" him.

I love that he'll wear a pizza hat to the store. I love that during bible study he'll get down on the ground, work his way to a 5 month old and start talking to her to make her smile. I love that he'll giggle when someone says the word "but" because it sounds like butt. I love that he will have a grape throwing war with our Pastors wife (also a close friend!) on a Sunday morning. I love that he finds such joy in the small things in life, like getting to push the shopping cart.

I love that after me saying Happy Birthday to him this morning, his first words are, "I'm older than you now! Heehee! You're small."

And you know what? I don't think that will ever change for him. Most of us will or have already hit the point that we're excited to not be as old as the next person, but Cale, he'll always love that a few months before me, he's a larger number.

Don't get me wrong, I'm there to help guide when he's inappropriate (if I can hold myself together enough! I usually want to crawl under a table and hide...) or to help when he's out of line. But, his child-like awe over life, I can't steal it. I can't rob him of that treasure.

Happy Birthday to my kid-stuck-in-a-mans-body husband. If only there were more like you..

[Marianne]

And wow, this post on his birthday really summed it up for his cognitive ability. He is definitely a 3 year old. Honestly my 2 year old says basically the same sort of things. I just cannot imagine. Also the fact that she says she likes that he's a child stuck in a man's body is super disturbing to me.

27 things Cale...

1. I like ice cream.

2. I like video games.

3. I play jokes on people.

4. Reeses Blizzards from DQ is my favorite.

5. I like to look at my wife.

6. I like my birthday.

7. I'm going to be a dad. A cool dad.

8. I help my wife.

9. I like Mt. Dew.

10. Alaska was fun. With the bears. Yeah.

11. I really like hockey.

12. Red Wings are the best.

13. I don't like water. No.

14. I don't like hospitals.

15. I don't like going to the dentist.

16. I like to laugh.

17. I like to make other people laugh.

18. Chicken Nuggets are good from McDonald's only.

19. I like dogs.

20. My cat Scratch is the best cat.

21. I like to hang out with my brother.

22. I like to hang out with friends too. With all people I like.

23. I like my baby. It's small. It's in Kathleen's belly.

24. I like making jokes.

25. I like speaking in Spanish when I can. Some words I know.

26. Maple Bars. Yum. So good.

27. I'm tall. I'm 6'2". That's tall.

Cale's brain injury causes him to think and act as a child would. Over the last year or so we've been very aware of him emerging into more teen-like behavior at times which can be very interesting...and a whole lot of fun! ;)

I've been thinking and watching him lately wondering if him being so child-like is such a bad thing. I know that as his wife I'm supposed to help guide him in life now and help him relearn how to be an adult, but I don't want to focus on "changing" him.

I love that he'll wear a pizza hat to the store. I love that during bible study he'll get down on the ground, work his way to a 5 month old and start talking to her to make her smile. I love that he'll giggle when someone says the word "but" because it sounds like butt. I love that he will have a grape throwing war with our Pastors wife (also a close friend!) on a Sunday morning. I love that he finds such joy in the small things in life, like getting to push the shopping cart.

I love that after me saying Happy Birthday to him this morning, his first words are, "I'm older than you now! Heehee! You're small."

And you know what? I don't think that will ever change for him. Most of us will or have already hit the point that we're excited to not be as old as the next person, but Cale, he'll always love that a few months before me, he's a larger number.

Don't get me wrong, I'm there to help guide when he's inappropriate (if I can hold myself together enough! I usually want to crawl under a table and hide...) or to help when he's out of line. But, his child-like awe over life, I can't steal it. I can't rob him of that treasure.

Happy Birthday to my kid-stuck-in-a-mans-body husband. If only there were more like you..

IF YOU DON'T HAVE SEX WITH KID YOU DON'T HAVE WITH KID-STRUCK-IN-A-MAN-BODY. It is not a difficult concept !

i correct what I say in another post. Our society need to learn that rape is about consent, not about age and gender.

[ILoveJellybeans]

This is disturbing. I cant believe he is a dad :( He is pretty much a kid. I don't think he can cope, he has the mental age of a three year old, and is about to experience big changes. I hope Kathleen doesn't expect too much from him, he isn't going to be a proper dad, he will be more like a three year old sibling-what if he hurts the baby, or is jealous of the baby. Most three year olds get jealous when new babies come along.

[Clementine]

If Cale is a three year old, he is like a three year old with dementia since Kathleen repeatedly writes about how he has no idea about what she just said or where he is or what he is doing.

I can't imagine what it would be like to have a baby where a person like this lives. As a granddaughter of two grandparents who suffered from dementia and Alzheimer's, I am worried about what could happen here.

[halfheartedheroine]

I mean, I think what she's aiming to express is that she likes how free-spirited he is, with that sort of childlike whimsy of being easily entertained by little things. Which can be a good quality in a partner. That's basically the most "benefit of the doubt" I can have for her explanation and the list. But if that's his /only/ operating state and he's got the mental capacity of a child, then that's where the problem with consent lies.

[Palimpsest]

I wasn't familiar with the Cale and Kathleen blog until this thread, but a quite a few of the categorical judgements and assumptions made here have made me uncomfortable. I have skimmed through the blog but links to entries that I missed are welcome.

So, I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a bit. I don't exactly have a dog in this fight, nor do I have much expertise in the area of TBI (other than having known a few people who have recovered to varying degrees from it). I do have experience in APS where a lot of these issues come up all the time.

Anyway, these areas stood out to me in the above discussion as things to think about. I have no conclusions about this particular case:

On TBI

1. TBI is not a static condition. While the majority of recovery happens in the first 6 months, dramatic recovery can continue for around 2 years. After that, progress slows down but people can continue to improve for years.

2. Every single case of TBI is unique.

3. Not enough research has been done on long-term recovery from TBI. A good measurement is the Rancho Los Amigos Scale (and that has limitations) and some rehabs are doing more long-term studies.

4. Advances are being made in TBI treatment all the time.

5. Seriously, the "39 month" cognition determination is just a ball-park figure and a number. It does not mean that Cale "is" the equivalent of a three year old mentally. These numbers are assigned by medical professionals for organizational purposes - to determine treatment and for statistical and insurance. Not only that, the number was assigned a couple of years ago and may longer be appropriate. He is now behaving more like a teen.

6. Even if cognitive recovery seems stalled then psycho-social functioning can improve with appropriate therapy.

On Consent, Capacity to Consent and "Competency" versus Disability Rights

1. Competency is an intensely complex legal and medical issue. As Burris said earlier, this is not something we can decide by looking at a blog. A person can be determined "competent" in some areas and incompetent in others.

2. By leaping to the conclusion that Cale lacks the Capacity to Consent to sex (and is therefore being sexually abused) then we are also trampling on disability rights.

3. In cases where an adult person is deemed "incompetent" a Guardian is assigned. The Guardian should exercise "substituted judgement" where possible, maximize the autonomy of the adult where possible, and also balance that with "best interest" of the person. That is not always easy.

4) Disability rights: It is not so long ago that people with diminished or impaired mental or physical function were deemed unfit to reproduce, denied sex and loving touch, and forcibly sterilised. Want to go back there? There is a balance to be found here and a lot of gray areas. This should be decided on a case by case basis.

On the decision to have the baby:

1. Is it wrong? I don't know - should be decided case by individual case again. As they were discussing babies before the accident, is she using substituted judgement wisely?

2. Does Kathleen have plenty of support? She seems to. Mama lives with them, they seem to have supportive friends and church. She is able to train for marathons and go on vacations without Cale when he stays with friends.

3. Woud we be as judgemental if Kathleen was a single mother of a disabled child and decided to get pregnant again?

4. Is Cale going to be a danger to the baby? I couldn't find any recent references to Cale being violent when he got angry and confused. I saw a couple of references to him grumbling and complaining and a couple of references to him trying to "bolt" from over-stimulation. Kathleen probably has a better take on that and he seems to interact just fine with nieces and nephews.

Finally, on the dogs, specifically the Service Dog: It seems that Cale and Kathleen have always been dog lovers. The boxer was rehomed because they were hoping to get a Service Dog and did not want to risk confusing Cale. The Yorkie pup was a bad decision (baby substitute?) and was also rehomed -- because not only Cale, but also Scratch the cat and Mama all hated him! No red flags there. Furthermore, I could see no evidence in the blog that they were refused a service dog because Cale was thought to be a risk. Here is the link to where Kathleen describes the visit to CCI adarlingkindoflife.com/2013/04/cci-for-us.html It seems that she understands that a SD may not be the best idea for Cale. It needs to perform tasks for him not be "just something for him to pet." Fair enough.

[Clementine]

I haven't read the whole blog but there are a few passages that makes red flags go up for me.

His explosions now consists of yelling, slamming doors, bolting, and then more physical. It's not pleasant for anyone around but thankfully my brother was there and was able to help out.

I started to talk about being here and his "appointment" as we started to refer to the program, but Cale didn't want to hear anything about how we need to trust God. He said he didn't want to and he was just mad. Within moments he was steaming mad and another explosion had begun. There is no way I would have been able to control him by myself. I have no idea what would have happened if Mama wouldn't have been there to help. It was one of the most intense explosions.

The quotes are from October 2012.

March 2013:

He's able to take a minute and talk about why he's angry rather than automatically explode. He can be angry and not instantly want to put his hands on anyone.

[Rachel333]

When that brain changes significantly, whether because of illness, injury, addiction, whatever, it is no longer the brain you love. It is no longer the brain you entered into a contract with. Yes, we have to account for normal wear, tear, and changes in the brain, but in drastic cases like this, this is fundamentally not the person she married. It is the BODY of the person she married to. It is a sack of meat and bone that used to house the person she married. But it does not house that person anymore.

I... I don't know. I've been thinking about this for the past day or two, and my first inclination is actually to agree, but then I really feel like the mind-body issue is a false dichotomy. Our brain is just as much a part of our body as anything else, and I'm uncomfortable with the idea that leaving someone with a brain injury is different than leaving someone with a different injury. It also concerns me with what that idea implies regarding mental health. If someone's wife becomes completely paralyzed but with full cognition, she too is still surely profoundly different than she was when they agreed to marry, isn't she? The physical aspects of that marriage would be gone, but they're still married. I feel like if you're going to stick to "in sickness and health" that should include brain and mental health.

I also don't believe in souls or that we exist in anyway separate from our body, though, and I think that's going to impact the way someone views this issue quite a bit. Though come to think of it, that might actually make the issue tougher. We do tend to think that we are our mind, so what happens to someone's soul when their personality completely changes? I know a family having a really hard time since their son developed schizophrenia, but one of their concerns is that since he has developed the disease, he no longer believes in God. Before he was ill he was a Christian, so is he still?

I do understand why someone would leave a spouse with a severe TBI and I wouldn't blame them, and I understand why someone would choose to stay, but I feel like my opinion on that really doesn't mean anything until I've actually been in that situation, so I'm in no place to say what someone should or shouldn't do there. I'm just interested in the implications of all of this and I really don't have a solid opinion on it.

[Palimpsest]

I haven't read the whole blog but there are a few passages that makes red flags go up for me.

The quotes are from October 2012.

March 2013:

I'm still playing devil's advocate ...

I see causes for concern but not red flags.

The first: Yelling, slamming doors, trying to run and then getting physical (hitting out when prevented from bolting?) "Not pleasant" but no-one gettng actually hurt. Her brother was there to help.

The second: "Cale didn't want to hear anything about how we need to trust God. He said he didn't want to and he was just mad. Within moments he was steaming mad and another explosion had begun." By this incident he is able to realize the extent of his injury and disability. Anger is a normative stage in TBI, and being preached at when anxious and upset would make me steaming mad too. Why should he trust God? Mama was there to help calm him and, again, no one was hurt.

Both of those incidents were October 2012, so he has had 18 months more recovery time, and by March 2013 (before she got pregnant) she is reporting significant improvement. He is now able to talk about things that make him angry not just explode.

Two more favorable things I see in Kathleen:

1. She is making so many efforts to stimulate him mentally through outdoor and athletic activities. That is incredibly important in recovery from TBI.

2. She is trying to love him for who he now is and what he can do, cognitive impairment and all, not dwelling on the person he will never be again.

[latraviata]

Always dogging my comments with this horseshit - and it's because I think you're not only a racist asshag, but also because I disagreed with how you felt about the death of your adult son.

God damn, am I ever glad you're retired, Latraviata, because I would hate to think someone like you has charge over the mental healthcare plans of other people.

Wow have you ever deluded yourself, Ms. 'Muslims are a great evil because a few of them are part of terrorist organizations.' You think other people should suffer for the mistakes of their kin – but somehow the morality here is different. You just move those goal posts wherever the hell you want, don’t you?

Oh, how nice: Another pot shot at me - because it's apparently unbelievable to you that I can have a rich and fulfilling intellectual relationship with someone who, through no fault of his own, now requires a high level of personal care.

Lori Alexander would call it joy; I don't. I think it sucks and I'll be happy when my husband's physio helps him to regain so many of the skills he lost - but he is never physically going to be the young man I married. If accident hadn't changed him, age eventually would - even as it will change me - and you; a highly educated woman with a knowledge of psychology who, instead of ignoring the posters she hates, decides to pour a bucket load of horseshit on them for no discernable reason beyond that I hurt your fee-fees once approximately a year ago (if not longer).

Get over it.

If you're not going to take your oaths seriously, then don't take them at all. People with disabilities aren't merely commodities to be used then cast aside when they become too inconvenient. You of all people should know that.

Nope - I think people should drop habitual abusers as fast as they can. Daily cruelty isn't a sickness; it's a choice.

That isn't the topic under discussion. But nice try.

Because obviously disability will, in itself, cause marital dysfunction.

Then, once again, I'm glad the clients you once had no longer need to worry about your breaking the oaths you swore before taking a job in human services.

Two things.

One: My husband is my spouse, not my patient.

Two: We access as many community services as we need. My husband is of sound mind and also makes his own arrangements. That doesn't change the fact many of the day-to-day tasks fall on me, and it doesn't change my opinion of people who swear an oath and then break it when it becomes inconvenient to keep their word.

Caregiver burnout is a real thing, as you already know, and so I also seek help for it. (Your assumptions make me sick. You make me sick.)

That still doesn’t change my daily reality. It still doesn’t change my having to watch the person I care most about in the world suffer.

The poster to whim I responded opened with a volley concerning how it might bite me in the ass one day because, duh, no one on here could possibly know what she's talking about: She's one of one. I answered her, and then here you are to enlighten me and everyone else as to what sort of person I am. How noble of you.

It's like my posts are your crack, or something.

ETA: Moral paragon? LOL! I know which comments of mine you missed. A while thread of self-incriminating evidence. You'd still harangue me if you knew, but for entirely different reasons.

It is time you decend from your self created Olympus of moral superiority.

[Palimpsest]

It is time you decend from your self created Olympus of moral superiority.

Cheap shot, latraviata. English might not be your first language, but that was ugly and not necessary.

It was a very cheap shot and quite unwarranted within the context.

Meh. I've been vaguely aware of the Burris/latraviata feud for a while but can't remember how it began. When it forces itself on my attention latraviata always seems the aggressor, but I may be wrong about that.

I just wish the two of them would either ignore each other (there is a foe option) or take it to PM because it does neither of them any credit to fight it out in public.

[latraviata]

Cheap shot, latraviata. English might not be your first language, but that was ugly and not necessary.

It was a very cheap shot and quite unwarranted within the context.

Meh. I've been vaguely aware of the Burris/latraviata feud for a while but can't remember how it began. When it forces itself on my attention latraviata always seems the aggressor, but I may be wrong about that.

I just wish the two of them would either ignore each other (there is a foe option) or take it to PM because it does neither of them any credit to fight it out in public.

Ok, fine by me, let's leave it that then.

Cheap shot? Really? Take just this one sentence, she disagreed how I felt by my deceased son, just contemplate what that means and you know how utterly presumptuous she is.

The same she said to Tigerchild...just contemplate and decide what a really cheap shot is.

[Palimpsest]

Ok, fine by me, let's leave it that then.

Cheap shot? Really? Take just this one sentence, she disagreed how I felt by my deceased son, just contemplate what that means and you know how utterly presumptuous she is.

The same she said to Tigerchild...just contemplate and decide what a really cheap shot is.

I think you missed my point.

"I just wish the two of them would either ignore each other (there is a foe option) or take it to PM because it does neither of them any credit to fight it out in public."

The history does not interest me. At all! How you conduct yourselves on other threads reflects on you both. You and Burris both have good things to offer to other (uninvolved in the feud) readers on many threads.

On this thread you and Burris have both indulged in fisticuffs with each other that do not become either of you. Let it go, ladies.

And if either latraviata or Burris responds to this post and prolongs the off-topic discussion -- then that one loses big-time!

Back to Cale and Kathleen, please. :D

[latraviata]

I think you missed my point.

"I just wish the two of them would either ignore each other (there is a foe option) or take it to PM because it does neither of them any credit to fight it out in public."

The history does not interest me. At all! How you conduct yourselves on other threads reflects on you both. You and Burris both have good things to offer to other (uninvolved in the feud) readers on many threads.

On this thread you and Burris have both indulged in fisticuffs with each other that do not become either of you. Let it go, ladies.

And if either latraviata or Burris responds to this post and prolongs the off-topic discussion -- then that one loses big-time!

Back to Cale and Kathleen, please. :D

Let me be the loser for all I care, do us all a favour and shut up already!

[Coconut Flan]

:angry-banghead: :dead-horse: :dead-horse:

[lipstickgoalie]

Palimpsest- regarding Cale and the service dog issue: I don't believe he was turned down because he would react poorly to the dog but rather he was not able to properly utilize the dog. There is a specific set of interactions that needs to happen between service dogs and their person (I don't think that is the right word but I can't think of a better one) and Cale was unable to make the interactions happen. That to me is a big indication of how truly mentally impaired Cale is. I know kids with service dogs but yet Cale can't make it happen. My husband is in the process of getting a service dog and from all the literature I have read from multiple organizations it seems extremely rare for someone to be turned down for inability to properly interact with the dog. The agencies and organizations we have been working with provide dogs for those with TBIs, PTSD and dogs for those with balance issues. From what I can gather the organization Kathleen worked with provided dogs for the same concerns.

*edited to add- I am having a bit of trouble finding the post where Kathleen said Cale was turned down. When I do I will be sure to post.

[DGayle]

Not interested in drama, so moving on.

If I met a man who was cognitively disabled and had sex with him, I'd rightly be called a rapist since he can't consent. Why is is that a marriage license means that sex with Cale is legal? A spouse has the legal right to consent, which he can't give.

[Burris]

It is time you decend from your self created Olympus of moral superiority.

I see - and you have elected yourself to slay this dragon.

Here's the problem with your claim: I don't see myself as morally superior. It might come off that way sometimes because I'm posting on the ‘net rather than talking face-to-face, but it isn't the illusion of moral superiority that drives me or helps to form my ideas.

Here’s a hint as to what does form my ideas: When I go into the washroom every morning, I look down and away from the mirror before turning on the light, because I'm scared of what sort of thing will be looking back at me. I've been like this for 22 years now. Psychoanalyze that.

I have precisely two purposes in life now, all the rest having been burned away: 1) To produce written material for others, that the next generation might - might - manage to avoid the horrible and costly mistakes we have made. 2) To help my husband - a better person that I will ever be, whose net good in this world cannot be understated.

Now let's get back to what I can only assume is one root of your problem with me: I thought your attitude towards the death of your son was callous, and that you dehumanize people with disabilities (among others). My opinion hasn't changed since I said those words: I still think you're an asshole.

But, unlike you, I don't look for the posts you make just so I can comment with the kind vitriolic crap you spew at me on a semi-regular basis.

I’ve read you talk about yourself and all your superhuman accomplishments before, on this very board: You’re educated, svelte, younger looking than your true age - and yet you can’t bring your massive intellectual power to bear and ignore those of my posts that you dislike.

[Palimpsest]

Palimpsest- regarding Cale and the service dog issue: I don't believe he was turned down because he would react poorly to the dog but rather he was not able to properly utilize the dog. There is a specific set of interactions that needs to happen between service dogs and their person (I don't think that is the right word but I can't think of a better one) and Cale was unable to make the interactions happen. That to me is a big indication of how truly mentally impaired Cale is. I know kids with service dogs but yet Cale can't make it happen. My husband is in the process of getting a service dog and from all the literature I have read from multiple organizations it seems extremely rare for someone to be turned down for inability to properly interact with the dog. The agencies and organizations we have been working with provide dogs for those with TBIs, PTSD and dogs for those with balance issues. From what I can gather the organization Kathleen worked with provided dogs for the same concerns.

*edited to add- I am having a bit of trouble finding the post where Kathleen said Cale was turned down. When I do I will be sure to post.

I don't think Kathleen ever posted about why they never got a SD. I did a search on the blog and couldn't find it. Yes, Cale was turned down for an SD OR Kathleen decided it was not the best option. She was second guessing it after their visit to CCI.

You and I agree on the probable lack of ability to utilize an SD properly. SD's are not for every situation, and the org may have turned them down for any number of reasons --perhaps including Kathleen wanting a pet not an SD for Cale! I've known overly well-meaning Moms to wreck an otherwise perfect SD for an autistic child.

I'm just not seeing any evidence that Cale was an actual threat to an SD. There are so many pictures of Cale snuggling happily with Basil the Boxer and interacting well with Scratch the cat. I think it is probably a pity that they rehomed Basil the Boxer...

I am just saying that Cale is not necessarily a threat to babies and doggies because he was turned down for an SD. SDs are expensive to train and a lot of thought are put into the right matches. I'm not willing to judge on this one.

It is too complex ...

[thekate]

Not interested in drama, so moving on.

If I met a man who was cognitively disabled and had sex with him, I'd rightly be called a rapist since he can't consent. Why is is that a marriage license means that sex with Cale is legal? A spouse has the legal right to consent, which he can't give.

I'm not sure the ethics are so clear cut. It's not equivalent to statutory rape because we would be assigning him a lifetime of celibacy, despite indications that he does want sex.

I think it's reasonable that he could legally and ethically consent to sex, especially since there is a prior sexual relationship and marriage. I'm not as sure he could consent to parenthood, but I admit I don't follow the blog.

This article, despite being about elderly people with dementia, addresses similar issues to what we've been discussing.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_ ... homes.html

[lilith]

I've just started reading this thread and the blog....

They were planning a home birth? Even though Cale was confused enough about the process to think a midwifes appointment meant that Kathleen would be coming home with the baby? A home birth could be absolutely terrifying for him to witness.

[polecat]

Not interested in drama, so moving on.

If I met a man who was cognitively disabled and had sex with him, I'd rightly be called a rapist since he can't consent. Why is is that a marriage license means that sex with Cale is legal? A spouse has the legal right to consent, which he can't give.

Someone else said it better earlier, but bringing my own personal experience (to a degree) into this ... someone close to me has cerebral palsy and impaired cognitive function. He is not really able to live fully independently, but he does have a girlfriend. His girlfriend has similar issues, and since they live together, it's probably a fair assumption that they have at least some degree of physical intimacy (both are over 30, fwiw). Intimacy, physical interactions, love and sex are all important parts of our lives, our social lives, as human beings. This couple is well-matched, and I don't see them as doing anything wrong or even ethically improper. They both have disabilities, but there is no imbalance of power. It is a consenting (and apparently mutually beneficial and positive) relationship.

But there's a major difference between a developmentally typical adult and a cognitively impaired (and if that's the wrong term, I do apologize -- I use it not out of spite but out of ignorance of any other appropriate terms) adult. There's a vast imbalance of power even if those two are married. I struggle to see any way that I could find this ok. The pregnancy aspect is even more problematic. I would like to think that he has an advocate who has a more inside view of what's going on and is looking out for him.

It's such a hazy ethical issue, but for me, if this was my husband in a similar situation, I cannot imagine any scenario in which I'd feel fully comfortable engaging in sexual activity with him and certainly not in having more children with him. I also cannot imagine leaving him unless our existing children were somehow at risk due to the situation.

So easy making these judgments from afar ... but in the end, I just don't know.

[shedemei]

This article, despite being about elderly people with dementia, addresses similar issues to what we've been discussing.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_ ... homes.html

I'm on board with much of that, but this portion makes me uncomfortable:

A teenager's coerced or unfortunate dalliance might produce decades of distress as she grows into an adult. But someone with dementia has no dawning awareness after the fact; there's no way for a psychic wound to mangle her developing brain.

So, unwanted sex is OK if the person won't remember it? No. That's not OK with me at all.

[lipstickgoalie]

I don't think Kathleen ever posted about why they never got a SD. I did a search on the blog and couldn't find it. Yes, Cale was turned down for an SD OR Kathleen decided it was not the best option. She was second guessing it after their visit to CCI.

You and I agree on the probable lack of ability to utilize an SD properly. SD's are not for every situation, and the org may have turned them down for any number of reasons --perhaps including Kathleen wanting a pet not an SD for Cale! I've known overly well-meaning Moms to wreck an otherwise perfect SD for an autistic child.

I'm just not seeing any evidence that Cale was an actual threat to an SD. There are so many pictures of Cale snuggling happily with Basil the Boxer and interacting well with Scratch the cat. I think it is probably a pity that they rehomed Basil the Boxer...

I am just saying that Cale is not necessarily a threat to babies and doggies because he was turned down for an SD. SDs are expensive to train and a lot of thought are put into the right matches. I'm not willing to judge on this one.

It is too complex ...

I don't think he is a threat to a service dog necessarily, just a really really bad candidate for one. I do think that he is somewhat of a danger to the baby based on Kathleen's ongoing descriptions of volatility and combativeness. At a very minimum living with that level of stress is going to be very tough on the kid. I think I am a bit more pessimistic about Cale's progress than you are. As I said before he reacts very poorly to change and a baby is a huge change.

The way I look at it is this. Kathleen only so seems to want to give glowing reports about Cale and even when setbacks have happened she minimizes them or presents them as failings on her behalf and asks for prayers. Her saying Cale was "stressed out" about his impending fatherhood struck me as minimizing to the greatest degree. He seemed distraught about the decision that, and this is only my opinion here, Kathleen made for him. I think what bothered me most about that post was that it seemed like the first time Kathleen realized Cale had feelings in the matter.