In a state plagued by a “foster care crisis”, it’s hard to believe officials in the state of Oregon would target two loving parents because their IQ wasn’t considered high enough to raise their children.

In November of 2016, Oregon Live published an article based on a report by the was released by the Department of Human Services’ showing the state’s ongoing failure to adopt solutions identified year after year in previous reviews:

Oregon needs to fill a deep shortage of foster homes and programs equipped to care for children with significant trauma and other intensive needs, the report found — echoing warnings documented as recently as 2011. As a result, the state might be certifying foster homes that fall below its standards.

Moreover, Oregon must still work up a strategy for recruiting foster care providers, despite acknowledging in a 2007 federal review that it lacked a process “to ensure the diligent recruitment of foster homes, despite significant shortages of all types.”

“Desperation for placements appears to be increasing the risk of (the human services department) certifying foster homes where abuse is more likely occur,” the report said.

Trending: BREAKING: Hurricane Ian Anticipated Death Toll in HUNDREDS… 2.5 Mil Without Power…Horrifying Images Reveal Causeway Bridge From Sanibel Island to Mainland Collapsed Into Gulf of Mexico [VIDEO]

And inconsistencies in how child welfare workers screen reports of abuse, a problem identified by consultants as far back as 2002, remain today. Children in the foster care system, as well as people who have reported abuse, called the state’s system for tracking and investigating abuse “untrustworthy.”

Given the crisis the state of Oregon has been facing with their foster home program, one has to wonder why they would target two loving parents who are raising their children in a safe and caring environment? Should these children be allowed to stay in their home with their biological parents or does the state have the right to determine that the parents just aren’t “intelligent enough”?

The Daily Mail – An Oregon couple has been fighting a legal battle after they lost custody of their two kids because both were designated not intelligent enough to care for them in a safe and proper manner.

Amy Fabbrini, 31, was reportedly unaware about her state of pregnancy when she grew far into her third trimester with her now eldest son, Christopher.

Fabbrini did not receive formal examination or treatment within the ninth month term and went into advanced labor at the family’s home, where she gave birth Sept. 9, 2013.

Fabbrini’s partner, Eric Ziegler, 38, was receiving financial aid through the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income program on the behalf of a mental disability he was diagnosed with.

Amy Fabbrini, 31, and Eric Ziegler, 38, lost custody of their two children after being deemed ‘not intelligent enough’

Earlier this year, Social Services acquired and fostered the pair’s second newborn baby, Hunter, while he was in the hospital, following past allegations brought against them.

A relative to the couple initially expressed concern in a complaint to authorities regarding the Christopher’s well-being under the care of Fabbrini and Ziegler, according to the Oregonian.

A child welfare report alleged Ziegler had been ‘sleeping with the baby on the floor and almost rolled over on him.’

Fabbrini’s father, Raymond, said he and his wife were acting as the primary caregivers at the time, because he believed his daughter did not possess the ‘instincts to be a mother.’

After taking a required IQ test, Ziegler scored a meager 66 and Fabbrini a 72. The IQ of the average person ranges anywhere from 90-110.

Ziegler’s IQ score categorized him under the mild ‘intellectual disability’ range, while Fabbrini ‘extremely low to borderline range of intelligence,’ according to the report.

Fabbrini had been working as a grocer to help provide for her family at the time. Ziegler was unemployed due to his health condition.

Board member of Healthy Families of the High Desert and advocator for the couple, Sherrene Hagenbach, said the decision to place Christopher and Hunter up for adoption lacks substantial ground work and may be even more detrimental to the family as a whole.

‘They are saying they are intellectually incapable without any guidelines to go by,’ Hagenbach said.

‘They’re saying that this foster care provider is better for the child because she can provide more financially, provide better education, things like that.

‘If we’re going to get on that train, Bill Gates should take my children. There’s always somebody better than us, so it’s a very dangerous position to be in.’

Domestic abuse and neglect were not factors in the custody case.

Fabbrini’s aunt, Lenora Turner, told the Oregonian she believed the decision was unfair in the grand scheme.

‘I honestly don’t understand why they can’t have their children. I go to the grocery store and I see other people with their children and they’re standing up in the grocery cart.

‘I think, how come they get to keep their children? How do they decide whose child they’re going to take and whose child can stay?’ Turner said.

Fabbrini and Ziegler insisted that they have complied to all of the state’s orders over the course of the past several years.

‘We’ve just done everything and more than what they’ve asked us to,’ Fabbrini said.

‘It doesn’t seem like it’s good enough for them … They’re saying, ‘Who would parent Christopher better, the foster parents or the parents?’ is basically what they’re going on.’ Ziegler added.

So long as Oregon’s parental rights law stays in effect, both children will remain under watch by foster care.

The parents will continue to have visitation rights under the supervision of another.



Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.