Judge Orders Return of Oregon Boys Taken Because State Deemed Parents Not Smart Enough

No accusations of abuse or neglect, just low I.Q.s.


Fabbrini and Ziegler
Oregonian Video

An Oregon judge has ruled that the state cannot take away a couple's young children and put them into foster homes merely because the parents have low I.Q.s.

Amy Fabbrini and Eric Ziegler of Redmond were not accused of neglecting or abusing their two sons, one of whom is nearly a year old and one of whom is 4. But the parents both had I.Q. levels well below average—72 and 66, respectively—and the state removed their kids pretty much because officials were afraid they wouldn't be raised well.

Right around Christmas, a judge ordered the youngest son returned, determining that the state hadn't proven that the "parenting deficiencies" the government described rose to the level of neglect or abuse. Officials had dinged the couple for things like not applying enough sunscreen to their children and neglecting to wash their hands thoroughly after using the restroom.

On Thursday, Judge Bethany Flint ruled that the state had also failed to make a good case for taking the older son. The Oregonian's Samantha Swindler reports that Flint

determined there wasn't enough evidence to show the couple couldn't safely parent. Fabbrini's attorney, Jamie Gerlitz, said Flint found a key witness for the state not credible, and Flint called omissions in the state's timeline of events "suspicious."…

A review hearing will be held in two weeks. Until then, the parents can have unsupervised visits with Christopher while the state puts in place a plan to gradually reunite Christopher with Fabbrini and Ziegler without abruptly taking the child from his foster parents, whom he's lived with since days after his birth.

"I think the system is broken. [The Department of Human Services] has a lot of power and it's really scary that it's taken these people four years to be heard," Gerlitz said. "I'm glad the case was successful, but it shouldn't have been this hard."

A piece of good news going into your weekend.

NEXT: American Crime Story Takes on Versace's Murder

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. and the state removed their kids pretty much because officials were afraid they wouldn’t be raised well.

    They probably won’t be raised well. But there’s a massive difference between “raised well” and “neglected” or “abused”.

    It’s the parents’ responsibility to take care of and raise these kids, and they certainly should be afforded the chance to do so.

    1. They probably won’t be raised well. But there’s a massive difference between “raised well” and “neglected” or “abused”.

      Also ‘raised well’ and ‘foster care’ are hardly synonymous. I kinda wonder what the average IQ of the number-wise average of foster parents or foster home admins/owners is. Not that there aren’t good people out there doing good work but, Illinois has had some chronic turnover issues with DCFS the past several years; and at least some of the interviews I’ve heard with people who manage foster homes full of kids an 80-90 IQ sounded… high brow.

      1. Yeah, I don’t know what the stats are, but my opinion of DCFS and “Foster Families” is terribly low. That shit needs to be left to “emergency” or “last resort” status.

        In reality it is very difficult to love someone else’s child as if they were your own. Almost no one is really cut out for it. And it is usually even more difficult if the kid is over 2, because they’ve had someone else raising them.

    2. They could possibly be raised better than you were. It doesn’t take intelligence to raise children. It takes love. (sappy comment of the month quota reached)

      1. It takes both. But most importantly it takes invested time with attention devoted to the task.

        It wouldn’t take much to raise someone better than I was. My family fucking sucked.

    3. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…
      Read more here,….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. If they have low IQs then why are they even allowed in the country in the first place?

    1. Indeed, we already have Hugh.

    2. Oregon is a shithole, it is known.

  3. By ‘raised well’, Oregon means ‘raging liberal’.

  4. “”[The Department of Human Services] has a lot of power and it’s really scary that it’s taken these people four years to be heard,”

    In liberal land it’s a feature, not a bug.

    1. They should all be fired and the Department should be shut down.

  5. If we had anything approaching a just media, this would shoved into everyone’s fat fucking faces. This is such a plain atrocity in my eyes. And the worst thing is these small atrocities are committed by the government everyday in a million different ways.

    1. Shhhh, they only want to talk about Trump. If he did it, it would be 24/7

      1. If he did it, it would be 24/7

        ‘he did it’ like he would have to forcibly remove kids from their parents to illicit such a response. He’d do something as mundane as pay the kids to mow his lawn and people would be outraged.

        1. He’s teaching my kid to be a capitalist!!

          1. Horrors!

        2. Trump would then refuse to pay your kid and explain how he can afford to be in court longer than your kid because Trump can outspend him or he would claim your kid is Polish and refuse to pay him or perhaps you’re black and therefore Trump wouldn’t even hire your kid since your child would be at least half black so half bad in Trumps world view.

          Trump is a maggot, stop trying to defend him.

  6. Yo Shack,

    Raymond Fabbrini is the Grandad and has effectively sicced family services on these people. Presumably, such an upstanding citizen would be more than willing to have his name associated with these actions. Especially, after your source already outed him for being such a stand up guy and loving (grand)parent.

    1. He could have just not given them birthday gifts. This seems like a really extreme way to avoid that.

  7. I hope they are smart enough to sue.

  8. If Progressivism is not allowed to practice eugenics, then what good is it for? Jeepers H Cripes, the phrenology charts don’t lie! It’s time to purify the race!

    1. More seriously, this highlights that modern progressives are still the progressives of old. They’re all about engineering the species and its societies. Everything must be planned, and the progressives are the people to do the planning. This is ideologically only half a degree removed from outright eugenics.

      The only difference between then and now, is that progressivism got a MASSIVE influx of liberalism. Nowadays they are mostly touchy feely liberals a bit confused about boundaries between the group and the individual, but occasionally stories like this reveal the monster that lurks underneath. I have no problem with liberalism, either classic or modern, but progressivism is a cancer that needs to be cut out, drowned in formalin, and put on display in the Mutter Museum.

      1. Modern liberalism is progressivism.

        1. No, because to a true progressive, social justice is about sterilizing brown skinned people and rounding up the homeless.

  9. Lets be honest. People with the average IQ of 100 aren’t very smart either.

  10. It’s probably for the best. At this point no matter what happens the kids will likely have a strong distaste for government. Once the kids are old enough and learn that the state took them away only for the courts to give them back it will likely build an inherent distrust for either the social welfare side of government or the court system. Win – win.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.