Licensed to Parent?

Watching how other people behave with their children, now and then we've all had the same sudden thought: How unhealthy/dangerous/annoying/abusive! If only I could rush in and stop it! That person clearly isn't qualified to raise a child. There oughta be a law.

No sooner has this thought flashed across our minds than we rebuke ourselves: Mind your own business. S/he's probably just having a rough day. And of course: Who am I to judge?

But apparently, governments are taking those thoughts to heart. As new requirements and rulings arise and we read about children -- mainly in the UK -- being forcibly removed from their birth-parents by government agencies, it's clear that our private "there oughta be a law" musings have morphed into something public and potentially sinister. These days, there is a law. Lots of them, actually.

Today's Daily Mail has a story about a woman, designated only as "Rachel" for legal reasons, whom the Nottingham City Council has deemed "too stupid" to look after her three-year-old daughter. Rachel lost her battle against the council in court, even though she "has never been accused of physically or emotionally harming" the child and even though a psychiatrist told the court that Rachel, 24, "has good literacy and numeracy and her general intellectual abilities appear to be within the normal range." It all began, the Daily Mail tells us, when Rachel's daughter was born premature and "social workers were sceptical about Rachel's abilities as a mother to care for the baby who had complex medical needs." Now, following a judge's decision, the child "will be placed with adoptive parents within the next three months." Rachel's words to reporters are heart-wrenching: "'I have been totally let down by the system. All I want is to care for my daughter but the council and the court are determined not to let me. The court here has now ordered that my contact with my daughter must be reduced from every fortnight until in three months' time it will all be over and I will never see her again."

It's puzzling, among other things. She's never been accused of malfeasance, much less charged or convicted. Her statement to reporters is reasonably articulate; she doesn't sound "stupid" -- not that inarticulacy is any reason to have your children snatched away.

Or is it? Maybe that's the next thing we'll hear about, in the next case. Who makes these decisions, and how? Admittedly, I'm no expert on either parenting or law.

Last year, British soldier Matthew Dean -- who served in Kosovo with the 1st Battalion Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment -- had his baby removed from him and put into foster care by social workers who claimed that "because he was a man and a soldier ... he was ... more likely to be of a violent disposition, and therefore more capable of abusing his baby son, Louie." Dean and his wife were accused of shaking and harming Louie after the infant, taken to the hospital for an enlarged head, was found to have a blood clot. After the clot was removed and no injuries were found on Louie, the Deans were arrested and Louie was put into foster care. Even after charges were dropped against the Deans for lack of evidence, they spent most of last year in court, battling social services to get their son back. Matthew now says social workers bullied him, that they told him that because he joined the army while still a teenager, "I was more likely to abuse my children." Last November, the court found in the Deans' favor and Louie was returned to them.

Rachel is now taking her fight to the European Court of Human Rights. Her brother and parents have all offered to care for Rachel's child, "but were rejected [by the court] for reasons varying from being too old to having played truant at school."

This month, Vladimir Putin signed an agreement with Russia's Ministry of Education and Science decreeing that all Russian citizens who want to become legal guardians or adoptive parents will have to pass psychological tests. Fair enough.

Or is it? That depends on the tests. Who gets to decide what qualifies and disqualifies human beings to care for the young, especially their own young? Where does child protection end and Big Brother begin? Yes, parenting is the world's hardest job. So should parents be pre-tested and certified, like drivers and plumbers and college students? The next time I see a baby's bottle filled with Snapple -- I have, and I will again -- or the next time I see a parent bribe a smirking, swearing and/or violent child, I will be glad I'm not a social worker, glad I do not have to speak. But I will think, and squirm, and worry just the same.