Amethyst Gibson brought her son home from St Charles hospital in Bend, Oregon, just five days before Christmas in 2022.
Gibson, also known as Abbi, was renting a room from Tina Berlin-Dungan, the owner of a one-story house in a nearby town, for $400 a month. The two women had prepared the home with all the essentials for the baby, Dean, including a Pack ’n Play crib, clothes, bottles, a baby bath, and other necessities.
One evening, Berlin-Dungan and her friend Dena Singleton were spending time with the baby while Gibson briefly stepped outside to meet her then-boyfriend, Singleton’s adopted son. They were startled by a loud knock on the door, signaling the arrival of a caseworker from the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) accompanied by police officers.
Berlin-Dungan immediately recognized the purpose of their visit as the caseworker presented a court order to remove Dean from his mother.
Witnessing the distressing scene, Gibson rushed back home, overcome with emotion. Berlin-Dungan, a retired 911 dispatcher known for her resilient attitude, was taken aback by the perceived show of force. She expressed her shock at the removal of the baby from his breastfeeding mother.
This was not the first time Gibson, 25, had experienced having her children taken away. Her firstborn, Seronica, was removed in 2020, followed by her son Octavian in 2021, both times due to concerns about her cognitive abilities. A psychological evaluation conducted by DHS revealed a borderline IQ score of 79, leading to doubts about her parenting capabilities.
Despite previous challenges, Gibson had taken proactive steps to prevent Dean’s removal, including securing a job at McDonald’s, finding support from Berlin-Dungan, and engaging in therapy to address her mental health struggles.
However, the agency still decided to intervene, citing her cognitive limitations as a barrier to safe parenting. Gibson’s efforts to create a stable environment for Dean were overshadowed by the agency’s concerns, ultimately resulting in the removal of her third child.
Gibson’s situation reflects a broader issue faced by the 1.6 million parents in the US with cognitive disabilities, who often encounter heightened scrutiny from child welfare agencies. Research indicates that parents with intellectual disabilities are more likely to have interactions with child protective services, leading to higher rates of child removal compared to the general population.
The reliance on IQ tests to assess parental fitness has been a longstanding practice within child welfare agencies, despite concerns raised by experts about the validity of using intelligence scores as the sole measure of parenting abilities.
Dr. Maurice Feldman, a leading figure in parenting education research, emphasizes the need to move away from IQ tests as a determining factor in child welfare decisions. Studies have shown a disproportionate focus on IQ scores in cases involving parents with intellectual disabilities, raising questions about the adequacy of such assessments in evaluating parenting skills.
The story of Gibson and other parents like her underscores the complex intersection of disability rights, parental capacity, and child welfare practices. As advocates push for a more supportive and inclusive approach to parenting for individuals with disabilities, the need for proactive interventions and community-based support becomes increasingly evident.
Gibson’s journey to regain custody of Dean highlights the ongoing struggles faced by parents with cognitive disabilities within the child welfare system. Despite her efforts to create a stable environment for her child, external challenges and misconceptions about her abilities continue to impact her parental rights and well-being.