One plot hole in the movie that bothers me..

When the woman testifying in court in support of Sam was talking about her ''mentally challenged'' mother and how she raised her I noticed this. She said her Mother had an I.Q in the ''low 70's'' - well by definition that is not a low enough I.Q to meet the standard definition of an intellectual disability. It is defined as being BELOW 70.

Which would mean her mother was just a person with a below average I.Q, not anything like Sam. Let's get back to this mental age thing too, if Sam was said to have a mental age of ''7'' then his I.Q is looking like something closer to about 49 based on psychological literature about intellectual disabilities.

It really was no comparison to make. Given all of this should this man have really had custody of this child? I know it's just a sappy movie but considering all the variables it makes NO SENSE to have him keep the little girl.