Parents of Adolf Hitler Campbell lose custody
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 07:40
VIEWED: 6729
PAGE 1 of 1
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/parents-of-adolf-hitler-
lose-custody-of-newborn/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
If they're not taking these children because of their names, then they really need to provide some actual reasons for doing so.
These parents sound like loons, but if the state is allowed to confiscate their children without a reason, that sets a bad precedent for parents rights in general, and does indeed place the state in the role of kidnapper.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
A DYFS spokesperson told ABCNews.com in 2009 that she could not comment on a specific case, but said children are only taken into custody if there is a suspicion of abuse or neglect.
“We would never remove a child simply based on their name,” the spokeswoman said.
Neighbor Lori Dilts told ABCNews.com at the time the children were taken that it was certainly not because of their names.
“Those children look outwardly healthy, but they didn’t have much freedom,” Dilts said. “Occasionally, the little boy would come over here and would hate having to go back to his house.”
They don't have much freedom ? Really? Cause I knew some kids who had some pretty strict parents when I was growing up who'd fit that same scenario. Knew a family of Mormans who wouldn't let their kid drink soda. That's HORRIBLE! How dare them, limit them to drinking food w/ out too much sugar or caffeine ? What monsters!
"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They shoulda hamed him Adolf Hitler Schicklegruber Rothschild, cuz nobody fucks with da Juice.
This is your police on crack
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bah, CPS doesn't give a fuck about logic, reason, or accountability, they'll do what they'll do, and it's only when some bastard with an axe to grind steps in the way that this kind of thing even gets noticed.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/11/federal-judge
-should-hear-arlington-cps-case
Problem is that due to piss poor wages, insane levels of job stress, secondary trauma, and caseloads no sane person could handle, CPS is rife with folks who've cracked under the pressure, were batshit crazy in the first place, or have an agenda of some kind for good or ill, NONE of which has a bloody thing to do with the actual best interests of the child in question most days - which is why the Guardian Ad Litem program exists, and despite its use as a stop-gap bandaid measure, actual professional legal representation would be a far cry better, but these days we will take what we can get.
Speakin of which...
Maryanne Godboldo - charges dismissed, appeal to have charges re-instated, shredded.
Not that it does poor Arianna any good now, having been effectively psychologically/emotionally destroyed by the very system supposed to protect her, and of course the REASON the charges were quietly pitched out was cause it brought into question whether one has legal right to resist so-called "authorities" with lethal force when they are clearly in the wrong and acting in blatant contravention of law.
The powers that be around here were NOT going to like the answers comin to that if it went to appeal and a decision was made, so they pre-emptively ensured that such a precedent could not be set, essentially using their own malice against them in a legal fashion and forcing them to let Mary walk...
But again, fat lot of good that does Arianna.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Those names are so horrible, I kind of laughed. Wow. Sorry.
But, yeah, really bad judgement on the parents part aside, not a good idea taking the kids.
Frem: Dang. I don't think I'll forget when you first posted about them taking Arianna away.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Frem, how is Arianna doing these days?
Yeah, stupid naming practices are a dumb reason to take kids away, once the kid is old enough he'll make sure to tell no one NO ONE, his middle name. Adolf Campbell is acceptable, though Adolf isn't so common in the US, but at least he won't have four other Adolfs in his class.
In Norway they have rules about what you can name your kids, isn't taht disgusting. My best friend's husband's sister and her husband couldn't name their daughter Samantha like they wanted to, I mean, what's wrong with naming your kid Samantha? Samantha is a perfectly respectable name. But yeah, the Naming Commission is a creepy concept and this situation makes me think of that.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Hi Frem, how is Arianna doing these days?
Not good, I mean there's always hope, but not a lot of it - those windows of opportunity just ain't there no more due to the repeated betrayals from the folks supposedly "helping" her, and any familial bonds were severely damaged by those same dickheads demonizing her own mother to her in a fashion I consider downright brainwashing, and of course they threw in molesting her as a side order...
And heaven only knows whatever chems they dumped into her on top of the existing neuro problems from the vaccine reaction in combination with risperdal, so there's that on top of everything else - cause SOP for these places when you do pull a kid out is to load them up heavy on chems before they pitch em out at you in order to sabotage any potential testimony against them and so that the resultant weird behavior supposedly "proves" that they're crazy, lairs, manipulators, yadda fekkin yadda.
*sigh*
Some stories don't have happy endings, people.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Another article
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/mp/11886713/parents-of-adolf-hitl
er-lose-custody-of-newborn/
Quote:
Court records said that abuse and neglect, and the physical and mental disabilities of the parents were behind the children being taken away.
Back in 2009, Ms Campbell said: "I'm sorry if I hurt the world but it's just a name to us. Maybe when he [Adolf Hitler Campbell] gets older they'll just see that he loves everybody and they'll say, 'You know, maybe we did misjudge'."
Despite the children's names, the couple deny they are neo-Nazi supporters.
Of course I know very little about this, but it appears the parents have limited mental capacity to look after their kids. And naming your child after the most hated figure in modern history is a form of abuse.
I know a number of celebrities guilty of similar, but I guess that had nannies to make up for their mental deficiencies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't know. Making sure that people don't name their kids something stupid is not the worst idea I've ever heard. Might stop names like Kalel (or however the Cages spell it) from being used.
"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Woodstock icon and counter-culture figure Wavy Gravy named his son 'Howdy Do-Good Gravy Tomahawk Truckstop Romney', and managed to keep him. Howdy later changed his name to Jordan.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Abuse? What the heck kind of definition of abuse is this? Locking your kid in a closet for years on end is abuse, starvation rations are abuse, chains are abuse, beating them black and blue is abuse, molesting them is abuse. Giving them a really bad name? That's like someone saying their parents were abusive because mommy didn't hug them enough.
People will make fun of perfectly good names, let alone awful names like these. The parents may really be Neo-Nazis (and it's kind of funny they're trying to deny it, "Aryan Nation?" Seriously?) and the scum of the Earth, but these nonsense names actually strike me as a free speech thing.
Someone names their kids Campbell End Corporate Corruption and Alicia Bring This Mother Down Joneson, you don't think there's a problem with the state taking away the kids for that?
In the very least, the kids living with those names and their dumbass parents would cause them to turn against their own parents' beliefs. But they get taken to an adoption shelter and told "We took you away from your parents because they were Neo-Nazis," what do you think these kids are gonna grow up into?
I'm calling shenanigans on this whole justification. "Making sure that people don't name their kids something stupid is not the worst idea I've ever heard. Might stop names like Kalel" is your selling point for a totalitarian nanny state? Come ON. I have a name I hate, but you don't see me out kidnapping babies 'cause of it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The parents were not neo nazis. That is the point, kind of. They just thought it would be a heck of a good idea to call their child after a reviled historical figure because.....who the hell knows?
You see abuse as being only physical, but the scars of emotional and pyschological abuse are very real as well and sometimes harder to deal with because people don't understand or believe in them like yourself.
And we don't know the full picture, but you might ask if naming their kids was any indication of the care they could give them, I'd say there could be a whole lot more to this story.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The parents were not neo nazis. That is the point, kind of. They just thought it would be a heck of a good idea to call their child after a reviled historical figure because.....who the hell knows?
You see abuse as being only physical, but the scars of emotional and pyschological abuse are very real as well and sometimes harder to deal with because people don't understand or believe in them like yourself.
And we don't know the full picture, but you might ask if naming their kids was any indication of the care they could give them, I'd say there could be a whole lot more to this story.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Standing ovation.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm calling shenanigans on this whole justification. "Making sure that people don't name their kids something stupid is not the worst idea I've ever heard. Might stop names like Kalel" is your selling point for a totalitarian nanny state? Come ON. I have a name I hate, but you don't see me out kidnapping babies 'cause of it.
You go, girl!
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That is heartbreaking.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Some stories don't have happy endings, people.
Sometimes I think I might crumple into a fetal position from all the injustice in the world.
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I didn't get that from Byte at all.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You see abuse as being only physical, but the scars of emotional and pyschological abuse are very real as well and sometimes harder to deal with because people don't understand or believe in them like yourself.
I hear her questioning 2 things. 1) Bad names are not good care, but do bad names alone constitute "abuse"? After all, "abuse" is a serious criminal allegation. 2) Even if bad names are emotional abuse to some extent, are there not less drastic interventions than taking custody of the children?
I agree with her that if the kids had other bad names, such as the lefty ones she suggested, the parents would not have likely lost custody. The kids could be encouraged to have counseling, use nicknames at school, etc. It sounds to me like they are punishing the parents for having the audacity to be offensive and stupid. It is a free speech issue.
I also don't think it is fair to assume that just because the parents chose offensive names, that they naturally would bad parents otherwise. So far, I saw no hard concrete evidence that abuse or neglect was occurring other than their horrible judgment in names. This is a case where the public presumes guilt until evidence of innocence because of ideological bias.
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't really see "these people are not competent enough parents to be trusted with a child" as "nanny-state." Social services takes kids away all the time. If there's neglect or mental instability leading to abuse, I don't think those types of people should be raising children.
If they hadn't named their child something weird, no one would be demanding answers before the agency is free to speak about specific reasons. (Most case specifics are kept quiet, in case there's a trial and the jury needs to be unbiased)
Why is it hard to believe that the parents might have some competence or stability issues that have led to their children being taken away? What if it's actually true that the children's names are not a prominent reason?
What if the parents are violent alcoholics or have borderline personality disorder? Would it still be a point of debate that they shouldn't have a fragile newborn infant in their care?
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As a side note: "Bring This Mother Down" as a middle name almost makes me want to have kids so I can name one that.
And then have them immediately taken away, because, yeah, no. I'm not motherly material.
Quote:
So far, I saw no hard concrete evidence that abuse or neglect was occurring other than their horrible judgment in names. This is a case where the public presumes guilt until evidence of innocence because of ideological bias.
This.
I believe in emotional abuse, but most of what people seem to think constitutes emotional abuse gets no where NEAR my definition. Any clueless parent can screw up a kid through a misunderstanding, underreaction, or overreaction that snowballs. It takes malice to commit abuse, otherwise it's just incompetence overlapping into "not fit to raise a child." And not fit to raise a child can only be demonstrated through evidence of harm, such as behavioural or more obvious signs.
I don't believe that a name is enough proof to demonstrate malice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
PR: same thing.
Quote:
I don't believe that a name is enough proof to demonstrate malice.
If it's incompetence or not fit to raise a child, CALL IT THAT. Don't lighten the concept of abuse by fitting in stuff that is not actually abuse. It is offensive to the abused, it diminishes their suffering.
And it's doubly offensive when kids are taken away from parents (or family that might be willing to take them) for spurious reasons and fed to a machine that WILL EAT THEM ALIVE.
I think that it's a messed up sign of the way the system works that CPS can't reveal their justifications for removing kids - they're trying to protect the kids and the privacy, but it ends up protecting the abusers (and potentially enabling it). If someone really deserves to have their children taken away, it should be on the grounds that competence is in question or that they can be charged with a crime. That's all CPS has to say on the matter. Instead, we hear nothing, and have no way of knowing if such removals are legitimate or some kind of political power-play.
CPS brings on such distrust on themselves.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't say the names demonstrated malice. Did I say anywhere that I thought that? I said it was likely that specific details of the case are confidential. The only fact the public really has is the name thing, but that doesn't mean that's all there is to it. And like I said, without the name thing, no one would be demanding answers before there's been a trial that might free up confidential information.
I don't find it improbable that there's good reason for this. Not because the name scheme is insane, but because a lot of people in the world just aren't fit to be parents. Their insistence on naming a child after Adolf Hitler may be an indication that they are not entirely stable, but it's possible - and even likely - that there are many other indications that we don't know because they are not matters of public record at this time, whereas the names of the children clearly are.
"Court records said that abuse and neglect, and the physical and mental disabilities of the parents were behind the children being taken away."
We don't have access to those court record, or the specific problems they cite. That doesn't mean they don't cite anything, just that we don't know what.
So I will ask again, if these people are in fact mentally unstable, is there any question about this? If the case was about a child named Janet Luise Smith, would it be causing so much stink? Or would you still insist on specific reasons beyond, "abuse, neglect, and the physical and mental disabilities of the parents"?
It seems to me that the public's own focus on this name scheme is what's causing accusations that Social Services is focused on the children's names.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I didn't say the names demonstrated malice. Did I say anywhere that I thought that?
No, I was just defining what I considered abuse.
It sounds like you agree with my definition.
Quote:
but because a lot of people in the world just aren't fit to be parents.
This concerns me. I consider myself one of those people unfit to be parents, but until we can demonstrate harm, who are WE to judge?
Quote:
no one would be demanding answers before there's been a trial that might free up confidential information.
I responded to the confidentiality thing, I think it's a load of bull that we give CPS the benefit of the doubt. They are public servants. They are not allowed to operate with no transparency. If they must, if there are privacy issues to consider, they can use TACT, but the blue code on their part is unacceptable. Heck, the blue code in ANY public service organization is unacceptable.
Frankly, like I said, if it were neglect, physical abuse, or molestation, they would have been charged with a crime, confidentiality or no. This confidentiality argument is potentially a smokescreen, and I don't like it.
They say there has been abuse and neglect, but we hear nothing about criminal charges. Without criminal charges, we are given to think that the primary objection (what is being called "abuse and neglect") are the names.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
but because a lot of people in the world just aren't fit to be parents.
This concerns me. I consider myself one of those people unfit to be parents, but until we can demonstrate harm, who are WE to judge?
I'm not sure what your issue is, here. I didn't say anything about judging without observing harm. I don't define harm as simply bruises, though, perhaps that's your concern? Even if judgement was solely on a child having bruises, however, I would stand by my statement. Expand the definition to not providing nutritious food, letting a preteen roam heavily trafficked streets unsupervised (especially if they haven't been taught to look before crossing a street), or verbally insulting a child on a regular basis, and a lot of people are not fit to be parents. If you haven't seen this sort of behavior running rampant, well, then you probably haven't worked retail.
Also, confidentiality laws are incredibly strict. In cases involving children, non-disclosure is standard. This isn't the choice of Social Services, it's the bindings of law. The wrong kind of "tact" could easily lose a person their job, if not send them to prison. I would hate to be in that position.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't define harm as simply bruises, though, perhaps that's your concern?
Please don't mischaracterize me. I may have mentioned mostly physical abuse in a previous post, but that does NOT mean that I only consider physical abuse to qualify as abuse. Magons made this mistake as well.
My issue is the "not fit to be parents" argument. I know that incompetence CAN actually cause demonstrable harm, yet at the same time, I'm not sure incompetence alone (without demonstrable harm) is a sufficient reason to remove children. And I also know in the past that people who have been in the position to make judgments on whether someone was fit to be a parent have abused that power. I think this is very dangerous territory. I can only be sure of the rightness of the decision by some indication that there is sufficient evidence to justify it - such as there being sufficient evidence to take the case to trial.
If we don't hear an indication of sufficient evidence, ulterior motives becomes a concern.
Quote:
This isn't the choice of Social Services, it's the bindings of law.
The bindings of law in this case may very well be flawed. They can create additional dangers and concerns for the children.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Magons made this mistake as well.
It's possible that the way you're expressing yourself lends itself to that conclusion.
If your concern isn't solely with physical abuse, I don't really understand why you're arguing with me. I gave specific examples of some behaviors I thought fell into the domain of unfit parents. These behaviors cause harm or have incredibly high odds of causing harm (i.e. children often in situations where they could be hit by cars) but they aren't strictly illegal. If, for example, parents were not feeding their children more than necessary to keep them alive, that would be a red flag, whether serious damage had been done or not. If a parent lapses into tearful breakdowns or screaming fits, that would be a red flag, whether they insulted or hit their child or not. Such behavior would likely be causing some harm, but it might not be criminal in nature. If parents are mentally unstable or have shown themselves to be incompetent, I don't think it's wrong to take action, even if their actions don't fall into the realm of criminal behavior. It's important to learn lessons of history when it comes to what level of incompetence is most likely to cause a problem; there's nothing wrong with trying to prevent serious harm to health or well-being.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The bindings of law in this case may very well be flawed. They can create additional dangers and concerns for the children.
Whether that's true or not, it's not something the organization should be blamed for. They can't break those laws without penalty, so unless the laws are changed, they're bound by them. If they refuse to obey those laws, their job will be filled by someone who will. I'm not saying that's a good thing, just that I think you're laying some blame where it doesn't belong. If the confidentiality laws bother you, write to congress rather than blaming the people subject to them.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If, for example, parents were not feeding their children more than necessary to keep them alive, that would be a red flag, whether serious damage had been done or not.
That is "neglect," which I mentioned above. Neglect is abuse if it is malicious. Neglect is still pretty serious even if it isn't. Also, we do have criminal charges that exist for neglect.
Quote:
If, for example, parents were not feeding their children more than necessary to keep them alive, that would be a red flag, whether serious damage had been done or not.
That may or may not be incompetence. It is incompetence if it can be shown to cause demonstrable harm.
If no damage has been done, there appears to be no basis for intervention.
Quote:
If parents are mentally unstable or have shown themselves to be incompetent, I don't think it's wrong to take action
Yes, I don't disagree.
But, evidence of harm is the key determining factor.
Though it wouldn't hurt people to listen to the kids themselves a little more than people do, with of course the allowance that not everything a kid says will actually be a justifiable case to remove them.
Quote:
I'm not saying that's a good thing, just that I think you're laying some blame where it doesn't belong.
...Eh... Okay. Agreed, with the stipulation that some people benefit from how the law is, to the detriment of children, and are likely to resist changes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I responded to the confidentiality thing, I think it's a load of bull that we give CPS the benefit of the doubt. They are public servants. They are not allowed to operate with no transparency. If they must, if there are privacy issues to consider, they can use TACT, but the blue code on their part is unacceptable. Heck, the blue code in ANY public service organization is unacceptable.
^This. And it's becoming the norm. Ask about our security theater apparatus, and you'll get shouted down with claims that you can't know about it, because of "NATIONAL SECURITY!" And it's spreading through every agency, bit by bit. You can't know about CPS because of confidentiality issues. You can't film the police because they passed a law that says you can't. Rather than just do their fucking jobs the right way in the first place, the norm now is to just make it illegal for you to ask if they're breaking the law.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree with Byte that disgusting names alone shouldn't be enough to remove kids. If there are other things going wrong then okay, but we don't know whether there are or not. Because the sad thing is that ordinary abuse and neglect (ordinary?) is common and doesn't make the news. The only reason this case made the news is because of the names, so the other details of the case are not available to us to judge. Plus as Phoenix says there are rampant confidentiality rules there, some of which I approve of and some of which are weird and overkill.
PR, Byte agreed that neglect is a reason for children to be sent elsewhere, but there has to be a reason to look into it besides goofy names, the child has to look scrawny or malnourished or tell someone they aren't being fed etc. Otherwise DHS could just go knocking on random doors and inspecting random houses which is absolutely not okay.
The other thing is that maybe these parents had the kids when they were teenagers and so were being stupid to get attention. Too many 16 year old girls having babies give them names like Candy Cotton etc. for this theory to be overlooked. It would explain some of the whackiness of naming kids stupid things. But still that's just stupid. But the parents will be punished later by their children's anger for naming them that.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good points.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If there's more to this story than CPS taking the kids away from their parents for more than just their names, they'd better get some evidence out there pretty damn quick.
Do *I* think it's sick and fucked up to name a kid after Hitler? Sure. But I think it'd be kind of fucked up to name a kid after Lincoln, Jefferson, or Washington, too, not to mention Robert Lee, Jeff Davis, and a host of others.
Would you take away a Muslim's child if they named him Osama?
Would you take away a child named Jesus? What about a kid named God?
It's pretty obvious these people see Hitler as a hero. I think that's pretty fucked up, but they do indeed have a right to believe that. To paraphrase Patton Oswalt, "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You're fucking crazy to believe that. I acknowledge that you believe it, though, and please don't stop believing the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard in my life."
And if I was named Adolf Hitler Anything, you can best bet I'd be having that name legally changed the day I was of age to do so. In fact, I'd probably change it to Martin Luther King, Jr. or Al Sharpton, just to really cheese off the parents who would name a kid Adolf Hitler.
But I wouldn't take their kids away just for that.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You want to know something funny Quicko? One of my step relatives happens to have the same first and last name as a historical figure who is of lesser repute. The last name is a common one and his parents just really liked the first name and couldn't get around it because they liked the first name so much and they weren't going to change their last name. Surprisingly he's had little trouble in life from it, occasionally he is asked if he's related to this historical figure or if he was named after him and he answers no, which is the truth. Its been no biggie for him. But Adolph Hitler is a whole nother level, but still not grounds in itself to have kids taken away, maybe in creepy name-control Norway but not in this country.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I responded to the confidentiality thing, I think it's a load of bull that we give CPS the benefit of the doubt. They are public servants. They are not allowed to operate with no transparency. If they must, if there are privacy issues to consider, they can use TACT, but the blue code on their part is unacceptable. Heck, the blue code in ANY public service organization is unacceptable.
^This. And it's becoming the norm. Ask about our security theater apparatus, and you'll get shouted down with claims that you can't know about it, because of "NATIONAL SECURITY!" And it's spreading through every agency, bit by bit. You can't know about CPS because of confidentiality issues. You can't film the police because they passed a law that says you can't. Rather than just do their fucking jobs the right way in the first place, the norm now is to just make it illegal for you to ask if they're breaking the law.
That's what I call mens rea in action, you ask me - ain't never the crime, it's the cover up.
Speakin O which...
Behind Closed Doors
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2011/11/20/behind-closed-doors.aspx
Quote:
I've been to Family Court a few times over the years, but it was never a place where I felt at home. Everything about it felt wrong, from the essential absence of anything remotely resembling rights, to the way everyone in the room talked down to children as if they existed so every adult in the room could lecture them. The one aspect of Family Court that I never gave much thought was that the courtrooms were closed.
Closed courtrooms in criminal court are bad, where the constitutional right to a public trial is violated by the secret happenings behind closed doors. The only time they were allowed to throw everybody out and close the courtroom was when the undercover took the stand, and then only when he remained active and could articulate a threat, either to him or his assignment. When the prosecutor asked that the courtroom be closed, we fought it. No star chamber would be allowed without a fight.
Somehow, this never translated to Family Court. I never gave it any thought, as it seemed appropriate when the subject was children that their identities not be made public, that their future not be burned for something that happened when they thought like a child. I was wrong.
This article also references other events within Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, to a degree no one else has addressed and those references name names, which frees me from any concern of doing so at this time either, given that said blog is run by lawyer type folk.
Where Ethics Go To Die
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/12/07/where-ethics-go-to-die.aspx
Quote:
But it isn't all that was happening in Luzerne County, as unbelievable as that may seem. This place is a judicial cesspool, and the only reason there hasn't been an overwhelming outcry is that Ciavarella and Conahan were such outrageous criminals that they dwarf pretty much any other impropriety one can think of. That doesn't make Judge Michael T. Toole look any better, however, and it would be wrong to ignore his misconduct just because it didn't rise to the level of his fellow judges.
***
And if this plain vanilla corruption isn't enough to make you angry, consider this: Toole entered into his plea agreement on September 25, yet continued to sit on the bench as a judge. Let that one sink in. The judge signed a plea agreement and continued as a judge for months.
6,500 Convictions Overturned
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11/02/6500-convictions-overturned.as
px
Quote:
The decision means all convictions within that time frame will be vacated and the records of the juveniles expunged, or erased. Prosecutors also were barred from retrying any juveniles other than those that remain incarcerated or owe restitution or fines.
***
That leaves about 100 cases that may be reopened - serious offenses in which the defenda
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thought as much.
And THAT is why this whole thing is so dangerous.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But then you violate the privacy rights of the parents. You can't have things both ways. If CPS were to release their side of the story, you would turn around and pillory them for violating parents' rights, would you not? Don't tell me you wouldn't.
They are not allowed to operate with no transparency.
The child being taken away is not YET at the point of trial. So, should the parents... or CPS... be tried by the media? Because the media is crooked too, they spin anything any way that will get them more revenue. Transparency is all well and good, but it does conflict with privacy.
As far as invisible damage... it is possible that the child was being kept in conditions similar to sensory deprivation.
The point is, we don't know, and we SHOULDN'T know, until this becomes a matter of a hearing when all sides are represented and ALL of the facts can come out. Until then, everyone is just riding their particular hobby-horse of prejudice (prejudice, to prejudge, to judge before the fact) and individual experience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I'm not so sure. We are talking about the government seizing people and detaining them. I want to know why they are doing this from the moment it happens. I want to know the status of persons seized and the details of their treatment. I want to know the specifics of any charges being brought. I'd like to know that the subject(s) have legal representation to protect their interests. Whenever the government seizes someone, this is information I'd like to have access to.
Men from the government came to take someone away. Transparency is essential.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If your children were taken away for some reason... say, you were accused of sexually abusing them... and it became a matter of public record which was then found to be false... your reputation would be besmirched, because everyone would remember the accusation but nobody would publish or remember the outcome.
I guarantee you that the people who NEED to know the reason(s) for the child being taken away... i.e. the parents ... know the reason(s). The parents themselves can make the facts known to the press, if they choose to do so. Your insistence on "transparency" is misplaced, as the parents have full access to the press if they choose to use it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll agree you have points all around, but all I'm saying is, there has to be a better way of doing this, because I've heard some monstrous stories where CPS has screwed up or done something more based on local politics than what's really good for the kids. Not only that, Frem's stories and my own mother's work with Foster Care Review have suggested to me that the Foster Care system is horrific and messed up and no kid should be put through that unless necessary.
So in a case when there's no criminal charges and not enough information, it raises some questions about whether the actions of CPS were justified.
In fact, I'm just not sure kids SHOULD be taken away UNLESS there's criminal charges, there's justification to institutionalize a caregiver, and/or there's no other capable family members.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If your children were taken away for some reason... say, you were accused of sexually abusing them... and it became a matter of public record which was then found to be false... your reputation would be besmirched, because everyone would remember the accusation but nobody would publish or remember the outcome.
Obviously better systematic elements would need to be designed here as well. Ultimately I see these as two different problems, and the existing system fails in addressing both.
As for damaged reputation, civil suits for slander and libel are intended to bring monetary redress sufficient to compensate for damages, and also tend to be fairly public. Of course, a problem arises when the accuser is much more wealthy than the falsely accused, which from what I understand happens often in small towns between generations of rich socialites and generations of social outsiders. Perhaps such civil cases should be automatic, and also not handled by (potentially crooked and biased) local judges.
Quote:
I guarantee you that the people who NEED to know the reason(s) for the child being taken away... i.e. the parents ... know the reason(s). The parents themselves can make the facts known to the press, if they choose to do so. Your insistence on "transparency" is misplaced, as the parents have full access to the press if they choose to use it.
This is fair, to a degree, but also implies a guilty conscience if the parents DON'T go to the press. Which is potentially a faulty conclusion.
It also assumes that the parents are savvy enough to use that resource. They might not be, whether through inexperience, or personal beliefs, or maybe questions of mental health (which may or may not be sufficient justification to remove the kids).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I haven't read the story thru, so... what is the timeline? Criminal charges need time to be developed; evidence needs to be gathered and the prosecutor needs to decide whether there is enough to go forward.
So in a case when there's no criminal charges and not enough information, it raises some questions about whether the actions of CPS were justified.
And what happens if there is good evidence that criminal activity IS taking place, but the child is left in the home and is killed before charges can be brought? CPS once again becomes "the enemy".
There is sometimes local politics involved, sometimes outright corruption, and quite frequently overwork and burnout in CPS operations. If you can think of a better way to protect children while at the same time protecting the rights of the parents, please feel free to suggest improvements.
As far as whether or not the parents in this particular case have the savvy to go to the press, there are advocates available to help them.
IMHO a lot of this all boils down to money. The reason why CPS and foster care are screwed up is because everybody wants to do this on the cheap. God forbid we should spend government money on protecting children.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I haven't read the story thru, so... what is the timeline? Criminal charges need time to be developed; evidence needs to be gathered and the prosecutor needs to decide whether there is enough to go forward.
Not sure myself, though I seem to remember hearing a similar fuss brought up about the names of their other two children, though it never got to the point where they were taken away.
Surely some manner of investigation must go on before CPS goes extracting. I have no problem if that stays confidential, but when you take away kids, even though that's not necessarily how the system works, the mind jumps to imagining the actions of the parents as a "take-away-the-kids" worthy offense.
So it makes sense to me that the moment that happens, because taking away the kids is pretty public, criminal charges or other valid reasons should also be public, with enough evidence to justify the charges or reasons (it's not like the public wouldn't find out about criminal charges anyway). And there should be enough investigation prior to the fact to know false alarms from the real abuse.
If CPS is doing both investigations and disclosure competently, and there's no corruption or abuse of power issues going on, then hey, even if there's still a few accidents we'll know CPS is behaving justly.
Point about money. For CPS to be competent, they'd have to have enough money to be properly trained and to fund sufficient investigation. Heaven forbid.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, once kids are taken away, the reason should be made public? Ok, who benefits from this, and who does it harm?
Well, it harms innocent parents, it taints a jury pool so it may benefit guilty parents, and it benefits CPS by raising their actions above suspicion. So, sure... go for it. If your main goal is to shine a light on CPS operations I've got no problem with that approach.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
it taints a jury pool so it may benefit guilty parents
Technically it would more taint a jury pool against both innocent and guilty parents (and I don't really care if a jury pool is tainted against guilty parents), but again, that's why there REALLY needs to be enough investigation and evidence to justify this.
I think evidence of abuse, harm, or incompetence should be overwhelming if an agency is going to do something like this. The damage and fall out otherwise is not sufficient to justify the actions of the agency.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A parent could be found innocent DURING an investigation, and the charges (if any are pending) dropped.
As far as benefiting a guilty parent, if a jury pool is tainted enough it may mean selection of lesser-qualified jurors, as in the OJ Simpson case.
I agree that if a child is taken away the evidence should be clear. There are other actions that CPS can take, such as counseling the parents or requiring sobriety checks or checking up on the child, but in order to do that right you need time which means money.
There are far too many cases where a thread of evidence was ignored and a child died. Then everybody gets to kick CPS around for not doing a more thorough investigation.
The problem is that people can be abusive parents. Who should step in? You could say "private charity" but the Boys Town and Fresh Air Fund incidents point out that even this is not a sure-fire answer.
There is a fine line between respecting parents' rights (as granted to them by law) and allowing parents to treat their own children as property. I know you are anti-government, but you have to decide how to balance the harm between doing nothing and doing something.
Anyway, as I said before, if there are improvements to be made, please suggest them. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that your first suggestion (the reasons for taking away a child should be made public) is agreed to.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here is more grist for the mill:
Quote:
A Cleveland third grader who weighed more than 200 pounds was taken from his mother after officials reportedly said she did not do enough to help the boy, who suffered from a weight-related health issue, to lose weight.
“They are trying to make it seem like I am unfit, like I don’t love my child,” the boy’s mother, who was not identified, told the Cleveland Plain Dealer. “It’s a lifestyle change and they are trying to make it seem like I am not embracing that. It is very hard, but I am trying.”
Officials first became aware of the boy’s weight after his mother took him to the hospital last year while he was having breathing problems, the newspaper reported. The child was diagnosed with sleep apnea and began to be monitored by social workers while he was enrolled in a program called “Healthy Kids, Healthy Weight” at the Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital.
The boy lost a few pounds, but recently began to gain some back, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported. At that point, the Department of Children and Family Services asked a juvenile court for custody of the boy, citing his soaring weight as a form of medical neglect, according to the newspaper.
Taking obese children from their families has become a topic of intense debate over the past year after one high-profile pediatric obesity expert made controversial comments in the Journal of the American Medical Association advocating the practice in acute cases.
“In severe instances of childhood obesity, removal from the home may be justifiable, from a legal standpoint, because of imminent health risks and the parents’ chronic failure to address medical problems,” Dr. David Ludwig co-wrote with Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and researcher at Harvard’s School of Public Health.
A trial is set for the boy’s ninth birthday next month to determine whether his mother will regain custody.
But one family who has been in the same position as the Ohio family told ABC News they disagreed with the practice when “Good Morning America” spoke with them in January.
“Literally, it was two months of hell. It seemed like the longest two months of my life,” mother Adela Martinez said.
Her daughter, 3-year-old Anamarie Regino, weighing 90 pounds, was taken from her parents and placed into foster care a decade ago.
Anamarie didn’t improve at all in foster care, and she was returned to her parents. The young girl was later diagnosed with a genetic predisposition.
“They say it’s for the well-being of the child, but it did more damage than any money or therapy could ever to do to fix it,” Martinez said.
Anamarie Regino, who is now a teenager, agreed.
“It’s not right, what [Dr. Ludwig] is doing, because to get better you need to be with your family, instead of being surrounded by doctors,” she said.
When told of the Regino case, Ludwig said his solution of state intervention did not always work.
“Well, state intervention is no guarantee of a good outcome, but to do nothing is also not an answer,” he said.
The choice between foster care and "doing nothing" is a false dilemma. This is, IMHO, one of those time-and-money cases. What they REALLY should do is put the child in hospital for a month, where parents are allowed to visit at any time. In this case, have they done a thyroid check on the child, or looked for overgrowth syndromes? Cases of apparent medical neglect or abuse or even purported Munchausen's by proxy can be resolved by hospitalization. Often, genetic defects or behavioral disorders (eg pica) are detected. But yanno, doing the right thing is expensive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
As far as benefiting a guilty parent, if a jury pool is tainted enough it may mean selection of lesser-qualified jurors, as in the OJ Simpson case.
Ah. I see your point now. On the other hand, I'm not so sure it's "benefited" OJ. He may have been acquitted, but public opinion is still mostly against him, and I'm not sure he's really been able to find work.
Innocent parents who are acquitted might face the same social problems. But I think that would happen anyway just from criminal charges and having their kids taken from them, whether or not CPS said in advance why.
Quote:
I agree that if a child is taken away the evidence should be clear. There are other actions that CPS can take, such as counseling the parents or requiring sobriety checks or checking up on the child, but in order to do that right you need time which means money.
There are far too many cases where a thread of evidence was ignored and a child died. Then everybody gets to kick CPS around for not doing a more thorough investigation.
True, they do need money. I have put aside my not-liking-government issue in favour of discussing this issue and coming to some manner of solution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"So far, I saw no hard concrete evidence that abuse or neglect was occurring other than their horrible judgment in names."
I just wanted to second the idea that we may not know everything.
There was a story many years back about a psychic who had an MRI, was released, fell on the sidewalk at the hospital entrance and hit her head, sued the hospital >> for loss of her psychic ability <<, and won a few million in damages.
At least so the TV news and newspaper stories went.
In truth what happened was that hospital policy was to monitor patients for any untoward reactions to the contrast used. They didn't do so. She had a reaction outside on the sidewalk, fell and hit her head, and suffered some measurable brain damage. They were clearly negligent, and she clearly suffered damage, hence the monetary award.
But you would never know that those were the facts behind the lawsuit awards by the presentation in the media. And this was a public case, with the information publicly available to the media who COULD have looked up the facts if they chose to do so, before reporting their 'news'.
(If you're wondering why they chose such egregious spin, I suspect it was b/c this was during the political flurry over tort-reform and frivolous lawsuits. I think the initial reports were done by somebody with an ax to grind, and the 'news' was picked up and uncritically repeated by other 'news' outlets.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:I haven't read the story thru, so... what is the timeline? Criminal charges need time to be developed; evidence needs to be gathered and the prosecutor needs to decide whether there is enough to go forward.
So in a case when there's no criminal charges and not enough information, it raises some questions about whether the actions of CPS were justified.
And what happens if there is good evidence that criminal activity IS taking place, but the child is left in the home and is killed before charges can be brought? CPS once again becomes "the enemy".
There is sometimes local politics involved, sometimes outright corruption, and quite frequently overwork and burnout in CPS operations. If you can think of a better way to protect children while at the same time protecting the rights of the parents, please feel free to suggest improvements.
As far as whether or not the parents in this particular case have the savvy to go to the press, there are advocates available to help them.
IMHO a lot of this all boils down to money. The reason why CPS and foster care are screwed up is because everybody wants to do this on the cheap. God forbid we should spend government money on protecting children.
Good post, signy. You've said all I was going to say. Not everything is a government conspiracy or a cover up. There are very shitty parents out there and children who need to be protected. Who protects them then, if you don't allow authorities to intervene? Do you let your parnonia of government have kids stay in homes where they are abused? And if the system doesn't work, it is about money as signy correctly states, and the fact that notifications of abuse are on the increase. Here in Australia we have mandatory reporting, that means I report on a regualar basis, even if it is something that ends up relatively benign. To date, not one child has been taken from their parents, but it has impacted on which parent has care of their child, and parents have been offered support of various kinds. Taking kids from their parents and putting them in foster care is the last step they take, and they have to be parenting in a pretty appalling manner for it to happen - usually drug and alcohol and tiny infants are involved.
And yes, investigations are confidential for all the reasons signy states. Child protection services cop a lot of shit all the time, either they should have taken a kid away and didn't and it ends up being killed or they take kids away and they get a serve for that as well. No wonder the burn out rate for workers is so high. What a depressing job.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There is a fine line between respecting parents' rights (as granted to them by law) and allowing parents to treat their own children as property. I know you are anti-government, but you have to decide how to balance the harm between doing nothing and doing something.
I wonder if US law is similar to Australian. Parents have no rights. None whatsoever, whatever people may believe. They have responsibilities. Children have rights. And the biggest right is not to be abused.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay. I was already in a pretty foul mood, but seeing everything I just said passed off as "don't like government, let the kids suffer durr-hurr-hurr-hyuck" has done it.
I will fulfill your fondest wishes, and try not to respond to any of you until such time as I'm not utterly and completely pissed off at everyone here and the rest of the world. Then you may speculate on what I might say and what you'd LIKE me to say at your leisure.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte, have you thought more about taking B complex vitamins?
You do tend to come off as reflexively anti-government. It's not that there is anything wrong with being anti-government, it's the "reflexive" part that may be a problem.
Anyway, if you can set aside your feelings (and this goes for everyone) perhaps a solution can be found.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No one disputes that.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
And the biggest right is not to be abused.
The dispute is who has the right to decide what constitutes abuse? The kids? The govt? The parents? If parents don't have that right, as you say, then they have all the responsibility but none of the authority to use their own best judgment.
Doesn't sound fair to me, as a parent.
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
The dispute is who has the right to decide what constitutes abuse? The kids? The govt? The parents? If parents don't have that right, as you say, then they have all the responsibility but none of the authority to use their own best judgment.
Doesn't sound fair to me, as a parent.
I'd ask you the same question. Who does decide when it is time to intervene in a family? Because there are families where abuse takes place, and I am sure no one here would deny that.
Not all parents are equipped to parent, sadly. Being able to reproduce means you have the bits and pieces to do so and you have had sex. Doesn't mean that you have the mental or psychological (or physical for that matter) capacity to do so. So what happens in those situations, according to you.
I feel pretty clear about it, and I support the role of a government authority in being able to do so. I believe i see government quite differently to many here, as I see it as an instrument to create and enact/enforce laws that the community demands.
The community says that it is not okay to physically or emotionally abuse children, and has standards about what constitutes abuse. As a parent, you do not have the right to do differently because you may have different standards.
And I'm okay with that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Okay. I was already in a pretty foul mood, but seeing everything I just said passed off as "don't like government, let the kids suffer durr-hurr-hurr-hyuck" has done it.
I will fulfill your fondest wishes, and try not to respond to any of you until such time as I'm not utterly and completely pissed off at everyone here and the rest of the world. Then you may speculate on what I might say and what you'd LIKE me to say at your leisure.
My post wasn't intended to you personally but to the argument at hand as made by a number of posters, nor did I intend to convey the message as you have described it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Byte and Signe. I don't really think you guys are totally on opposite sides here, you both just have slightly different ideas about how the problems with CPS/DHS should be approached and fixed. I definitely think you both are right and have good points for the most part.
I believe in a certain amount of confidentiality, if a parent's child is taken from them because they aren't suited to parenting it doesn't necessarily mean they are evil and bad all the way through. My little brother came to us because his mom was neglectful. She was given ample oppertunity to improve and get him back but she was unable to do all the things necessary. She isn't a bad person, she loves her son, but she isn't built for parenting. So after a couple of years of him living with us and her trying to get it together, it was determined that he couldn't go back to her and we got to adopt him. He still goes to her apartment once a week for an evening visit, we drop him off and pick him up a couple of hours later. She loves him and he loves her, she just isn't built for parenting. I think this sort of thing is common enough that I wouldn't want her records all over the place, or that of other parents, unless they've done things of a more easy-to-charge-with-a-crime nature.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If the parents have all of the say in how they treat their children, then the children are no more than property, with no socially recognized protections at all.
The dispute is who has the right to decide what constitutes abuse? The kids? The govt? The parents?
I sell off my 13-year old daughter to the whorehouse? Not abuse, say I. I work my 10-year old son to death? Not abuse, say I. And who is to say otherwise? Nobody, according to you.
It would be an interesting exercise if we could try to define, just amongst our small but very diverse group, what "rights" we think children SHOULD have.
So, let me start out by saying: The right to food, water, and shelter.
What else?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, Romanian orphans had that, so I'd have to add:
People responsive to their distress.
Safe physical contact.
Safety, physical security and health care.
Education commensurate with the general standard.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Of course we'd never word the education clause in quite that way, I assume.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To know both parents, at the very least know who their parents are....
To have an age appropriate voice in matters that concern them
To be free from abuse, verbal, physical and emotional harm
To not be treated as a piece of property
Some of these are detailed in the UN Convention on the rights of children.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Come to think of it, a lot of things need rigorous defining to prevent abuse.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rights for children in the US:
Food, water, shelter and clothing of an adequate standard.
The right to an education comparable to that of other children in the US, aka to a certain standard or beyond.
No physical, emotional, sexual abuse.
Respect as human beings, the right to be listened to.
LOVE!!!!!!
Being able to have social interactions with other people to whatever degree possible in their living situation.
Adequate medical care when sick.
To not be neglected, seems obvious but still needs stated.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Some of these are detailed in the UN Convention on the rights of children.
Which the US has very pointedly REFUSED to sign, period.
And that right there oughta tell ya, underneath all the glossy legalese doubletalk, which kinda "rights" kids get here in the USA - essentially, none whatever.
Hell, when the FLDS was fighting to get their kids back, they had at one point to file under an act originally penned to demand the return of livestock - seriously, in many places housepets and livestock are better protected under the law than children.
That said, CPS is wholly untrustworthy in my experience, and Siggy nails why in great part - depending on the position it either requires ridiculous credentials for a salary that flat isn't worth it, so you wind up with "crusaders" of one stripe or another, and the inevitable corruption of additional sources of income - or the qualifications are too low, as again is the payroll, and many of the same problems apply as well as inevitable burnout and secondary PTSD being a real and common problem.
Not to mention the ludicrous caseload, and political interference via directives from on-high, officially or otherwise, which even further complicate matters such as the case of the primarily Baptist CPS folk bending and breaking the rules against the sorta-Mormon FLDS, and so on and so forth - TRUST me, if you were a Mormon in Kentucky, or a Baptist in Utah, CPS is gonna give you ten tons of extra shit just BECAUSE of that no matter what the paper says because there is too damn little accountability and their whole damn heirarchy is set up to insulate THEMSELVES from consequence, deserved or no - to the exclusion of their primary duty cause without that NO ONE, would work for them at all.
The system as it stands flat doesn't work - and yes it needs to be rebuilt from the top down, starting with a universal set of standards instead of this arbitrary hit or miss sledgehammer flyswatting bullshit, it needs to be properly funded, including employee compensation, and not just properly credentialed so much as a NEW set of specific credentials being established as a minimum standard for employment, with further training and reqs for advancement and management, specific to the details of the job.
AND
This whole dumping kids on temp fosters of dubious provenance is a huge part of the problem, one of the things necessary to this is a stable, structured environment run by professionals and overseen by an independant board to place children with while cases are being investigated and processed - WHOS PERSONNEL DO NOT ANSWER TO EITHER CPS OR THE PARENTS - being thus essentially Guardian Ad Litem and concerned wholly with the childs welfare, anything less corrupts the process, cause y'all have never seen some of the horrors visited upon kids by CPS workers hell bent on a finding for reasons that have shit to do with the welfare of the kids, or conversely, visited upon kids by parents who have been victimizing them... problem is that these days dumping them on these fosters is often pouring gasoline on a fire, as are state run facilities like Hawthorne - remember what happened to Arianna Godboldo as soon as they dumped her in there, right ?
And yes, all of this requires funding, which politicians (and frankly, a lot of the public) have no interest in doing, the former cause kids don't vote and the latter cause they don't think there's nothin in it for em since the shortsighted bastards don't ever seen to connect mistreated childen to the gangbangers who just worked em over... hell one reason I am not so very kind to senior citizens as a rule is their adbication of responsibility and dumping their fucking problems and debt on me before I was even born - kids hold a grudge, people, it's there whether it's conscious or not and directed at us and our society for bloody good reasons much of the time, but I digress...
Point of that is every penny you put into it at THIS end, saves us dollars on the other in law enforcement, court cost
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ohhh good grief.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Byte, have you thought more about taking B complex vitamins?
You do tend to come off as reflexively anti-government. It's not that there is anything wrong with being anti-government, it's the "reflexive" part that may be a problem.
Anyway, if you can set aside your feelings (and this goes for everyone) perhaps a solution can be found.
Patronize much?
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thank you for asking me, instead of erroneously assuming and accusing that I would say "Nobody [other than the parent]" like Siggy. I appreciate it, Magon.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'd ask you the same question. Who does decide when it is time to intervene in a family?
I think "abuse" needs to be collectively defined by the kids, the parents, and the community. First and foremost, the kids should have their say. If they feel abused and neglected, then their opinion should be taken very seriously by the community, even if the parents are doing what most parents in that situation are doing. Likewise, if they don't feel abused, that opinion should carry a lot of weight, despite how different the parents are.
I truly do not believe in a one-size-fits-all definition of abuse. All that leads to is a legal "standard of care" similar to the one used to defend medical decisions in court. Care becomes determined by conformity rather than what is best for the patient. Care becomes what covers the parents' legal asses rather than what is best for the child.
I think every community should have a "safehouse" or a hotline where children can get free counseling. This may be a church or a school program or a private charity outfit. (It doesn't have to be govt operated, but if it were, I wouldn't complain too much.) I believe strongly that the process of sussing out abuse needs to start with the kids. Not self-righteous neighbors or teachers or whatnot. The kids need to start the process of rescuing themselves.
Once the kids have expressed concern, then a team of volunteer community members (not paid govt employees with untold powers) can assess the situation privately with the children, and if possible, the parents as well. They can also come up with a collective plan for intervention short of removing custody.
If the child needs to be removed forcibly from the parents, criminal charges should be filed. As such, all such proceedings should be transparent and public. Chronic emotional torture of a child should be a crime. Removal of custody must be a last resort instead of the first. (Right now, CPS pays lip service to this, but they don't actually abide by any such "last resort" policy.)
So, in short, I support a two-phase intervention process. First, an informal one with community members. Second, in cases of severe abuse, a formal criminal procedure to remove the children and place the parents in jail.
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is a problem. This is why Ariana Godboldo was removed from her mother.
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Adequate medical care when sick.
If it were up to Siggy, she would have removed my child from me for this reason already.
If it were up to me, I might remove someone else's kid on chemotherapy.
We don't all agree on what constitutes "adequate medical care."
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm glad we've come around to this topic CTS because it is the basis for the rumor I've heard about you, note that this rumor was stated out in the open on this forum, not in an email or anything. I would like to hear, in your own words, what the situation is with your kid, his health, why you decided to do what you did, or not do, and move to Peru where you don't have to do it.
You said some stuff in your last post that I find unsettling at best. First of all, kids often view their situation as normal, when they figure out it may not be depends on a lot of factors, but it is quite easy for a child to be being abused, given bruises, whipped etc. and to think its normal and okay, if they were raised to believe that it is an apropriate punishment then why would they doubt it unless friends at school find out and suggest otherwise etc. And most kids are taught to keep such things a secret anyways.
And then there's sexual abuse. Lets face it, sex and touching can feel very good physically, whether it is apropriate or not. So leaving it up to a young child to determine that it isn't okay isn't fair to that child. Children in general are adaptable and will accept a lot as normal until they're old enough/experienced enough to know better, which can vary wildly from person to person. Your policies on abuse "not being a one size fits all" concept scare me.
CTS, what do you think of parents who choose faith healing over other techniques like medicine? Do you think that is okay, especially when the kid is little and can't really speak for themself? In my state we're really tough on that kind of stuff and that's fine with me.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I think "abuse" needs to be collectively defined by the kids, the parents, and the community. First and foremost, the kids should have their say. If they feel abused and neglected, then their opinion should be taken very seriously by the community, even if the parents are doing what most parents in that situation are doing. Likewise, if they don't feel abused, that opinion should carry a lot of weight, despite how different the parents are.
I agree that the community needs to be in constant dialogue on this issue, so that consensus can be reached and understood by all. Children too should have a voice in that. I have a lot of problems with asking children on an individual basis whether they feel abused or not. That is not to say that we should not listen to them seriously about their concerns, I just don't think they need to be asked to make a judgement. For starters, infants and very young children, the most vulnerable are unable to have that voice, so that judgement does need to made by someone else. But even with older children I have a problem. If they have lived all their life with abuse, they may see it as the norm, even if it of a horrific nature. To some degree or another, all children suffer from stockholm syndrome. They love their parents, even if they are abusers and may try at all costs and protect their abusers and hide the abuse. Family violence creates very complex issues which may beyond young children to name or understand. AS they get older, of course, they see things more clearly and often vote with their feet. And that is the reason that Child Protection services intervene less often.
Quote:
I truly do not believe in a one-size-fits-all definition of abuse. All that leads to is a legal "standard of care" similar to the one used to defend medical decisions in court. Care becomes determined by conformity rather than what is best for the patient. Care becomes what covers the parents' legal asses rather than what is best for the child.
I have a lot of problems with abuse being seen as subjective, although I recognise that there are fuzzy areas and cultural complexities. That being said, I think as a society we do have a common set of values around abuse and I think its okay to underscore them with laws (as is the case). So in this society, it is never acceptable for an adult to have sex with a child. So even if a family deemed that was acceptable behaviour, it is not acceptable to the society at large and therefore it would be necessary for an external authority to protect a child. The same goes for cultural norms, which are unable to be tolerated if they violate laws.
Quote:
I think every community should have a "safehouse" or a hotline where children can get free counseling. This may be a church or a school program or a private charity outfit. (It doesn't have to be govt operated, but if it were, I wouldn't complain too much.) I believe strongly that the process of sussing out abuse needs to start with the kids. Not self-righteous neighbors or teachers or whatnot. The kids need to start the process of rescuing themselves.
A great idea. So good, that it already happens. Kidsline is a free telephone service that children can access to get help and counselling. You may have something similar in the States.
Quote:
Once the kids have expressed concern, then a team of volunteer community members (not paid govt employees with untold powers) can assess the situation privately with the children, and if possible, the parents as well. They can also come up with a collective plan for intervention short of removing custody.
I'd hope that government employees in the US never had unlimited powers. They certainly don't here. I think they may be room for community volunteers to be involved in some way, and I can tell you that over the years they have been - yes in the USA, with community mediators helping families with their issues. I
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thank you for asking me up front, instead of listening to people who lie about me. I appreciate it.
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I would like to hear, in your own words, what the situation is with your kid, his health, why you decided to do what you did, or not do, and move to Peru where you don't have to do it.
My child was born at home without medical intervention, happy and healthy at 95 percentile in weight. At 3 months of age, he started exhibiting severe eczema, gastrointestinal pain and vomiting, and failure to thrive. We tried various conventional medical interventions which actually made him worse. So we decided to try homeopathy, which improved some symptoms significantly (stopped vomiting and diarrhea), but did nothing for eczema and failure to thrive. His weight dipped below the charts. My MD physician recommended going to spend 3 months at a beach for his eczema. We couldn't afford a beach in the States, so we decided to go to a beach in South America. To our surprise, he got better in South America. So we decided to move down here.
In South America, his weight has steadily increased and his eczema disappeared entirely. He is now at 26th percentile for weight, and 54th percentile for height. He is happy and healthy and up to 3 months ago, he was entirely eczema free.
The last three months, some of his eczema has come back because they put up a new wifi antenna in our neighborhood. We are trying to fix that problem now.
When it comes to medical abuse, the proof is in the pudding. If it works, it is not abusive, no matter how much you may disagree with the method.
Quote:
but it is quite easy for a child to be being abused, given bruises, whipped etc. and to think its normal and okay, if they were raised to believe that it is an apropriate punishment then why would they doubt it unless friends at school find out and suggest otherwise etc.
Do you know any abused kids? They might think it is "normal" as in all other kids suffer such indignities as well, but they still know it causes them pain and want it to stop. It is not hard to find out they are being abused if anyone would pay amount of attention to them at all.
Quote:Sure, for fear of punishment. But they aren't that good at keeping secrets. Again, attentiveness to and love for the child would suss the secret out without much effort.
And most kids are taught to keep such things a secret anyways.
Quote:I have never met a sexually abused child who thinks or thought it was okay and that it felt good. They feel deep shame, humiliation, and want it to stop.
And then there's sexual abuse. Lets face it, sex and touching can feel very good physically, whether it is apropriate or not. So leaving it up to a young child to determine that it isn't okay isn't fair to that child.
Here is the bottom line, Rion. I trust kids. I trust their instincts and their ability to know when something isn't right. If you don't, then you would want to take over their decision making process and do things differently than I would. Different philosophical assumptions will lead to different solutions.
I know abused kids, both mildly abused and severely abused. They ALL know what they want to stop.
Quote:What scares you about it?
Your policies on abuse "not being a one size fits all" concept scare me.
Quote:Absolutely I think it is ok. As ok as Medicine is ok.
CTS, what do you think of parents who choose faith healing over other techniques like medicine? Do you think that is okay, especially when the kid is little and can't really speak for themself?
Medicine itself is nothing much more than witch doctoring and faith healing as well. The difference is YOU have faith in it, so this type of faith healing is completely acceptable to YOU. It really is a war of faiths, a war of different gods. It is a battle of "My healing god is better than your healing god."
I read a book written by parents who with
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magon, I will address your post tomorrow. Not ignoring you. Good dialogue.
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rion
Ahem. Well, the story that CTSky gave you is not the story she told 6 years ago.
Then, she indicated there WAS successful treatment available which she elected not to use:
My son has a relatively rare condition where he is allergic to or intolerant of all foods. It causes malaborption and undernourishment, which leads to failure to thrive (failure to grow). I suppose, if left untreated, they could die. The treatment is to put them on a special formula that contains no proteins for them to react to. The formula is slightly bitter, so babies refuse to drink it. Insertion of a feeding tube directly into the stomach or intestines is very common.
Once they are on this formula, they grow normally. But many of these kids remain dependent on this formula--it appears for the rest of their lives. They have food trials to find the few foods they can tolerate, but their main nourishment comes from drinking this stuff.
I opted for an alternative therapy because I don't want him to be dependent on formula for the rest of his life. It is working slowly, but it is working. The disadvantage is that it works slower than formula in helping him catch-up his growth. The advantage is it helps him to tolerate food better, whereas the formula doesn't. He can now eat most vegetables and grow at the same time. Most of his other symptoms are gone too, though not all yet.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi CTS, I'm glad that the climate in Peru is good for your family and that your son is doing well currently. Some kiddos do grow out of exima, it sounds like he was doing okay for a while, it was in remission, but its back again. My Rachie had pretty bad exima until she was about 13 or 14 and then she began growing out of the worst of it, what she has now as an adult is a lot less severe and doesn't cause much trouble at all from what I can tell, in comparison to how it used to be.
I just don't think abuse is okay. My grandma used to beat on my dad when he was a kid. It wasn't okay, even though she did love him, she was doing what she knew, how she was raised. It wasn't okay though and she really should have been advised about how to do things differently. She now says she wishes that she'd been taught another way to discipline since she realizes in hindsight that it wasn't okay. Was it still abuse? Technically yes because she would leave marks on him. I wouldn't minimalize it.
What you and I can agree on though is that taking children away should not be the first thing tried, in fact it should be a last resort in most cases. I think we can also agree on the idea that the child's needs should be considered first and formost. And yes, the primary ingredient in sexual abuse is shame, that is usually the top feeling that a child feels, shame and emotional pain. All I'm saying is that its such a deep and complicated thing that sometimes, for various reasons, little ones are afraid to come forward, or older ones too. So I don't think we should only address problems if the kid admits its a problem/initiates the helping process, but of course a kid being the first one to initiate can be good because it means that they are strong and brave and able to advocate for themselves, self advocacy should be encouraged with children, as well as with anyone else.
Faith healing: Why do people have to be so extreme, can't it be both instead of either/or? I'm a Christian and prayer is an important part of what I do in my life, the choices I make, the things I do. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't be doing everything else I can to help myself.
If something isn't working though I do agree that its good to try other things to see what one can find that does work, natural medicine, conventional medicine, both, etc.
I appreciate you telling me yourself because I'd rather hear things from a person than from hearsay. Its only fair.
I still think that faith healing alone is irresponsable, and from what I've experienced God doesn't reward irresponsability. It sounds like you agree.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I summarized this time, but it is absolutely same story. I don't appreciate your intimation that I am lying.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Rion
Ahem. Well, the story that CTSky gave you is not the story she told 6 years ago.
Then, she indicated there WAS successful treatment available which she elected not to use:
The formula helped him gain weight, but it made him sicker and vomit more. The vomiting had already stopped entirely with homeopathy, but the formula brought it back full force. When I stopped the formula, the vomiting stopped again. Also, as I pointed out originally, it is likely to result in lifelong dependence and intolerance of foods.
When you say it was a "successful" treatment, you are speaking of only one variable: weight gain. In all other respects, it wasn't successful. It made him worse.
As a parent, I have to weigh ALL costs and ALL the symptoms, not just one. I wanted a BETTER remedy, an intervention that will results in improvement in eczema, vomiting, diarrhea, increased food tolerance, AS WELL AS weight gain. I had to at least try to find this better intervention before I settled for the other one. Luckily, I found it. He now eats all foods but three and is thriving. As far as I am concerned, holding out for a better intervention saved him from a lifetime of misery that he would have been consigned to had we followed the "successful" conventional treatment.
In other words, some treatments are more "successful" than others. We were very lucky to have found a more successful treatment than the one we had before, because we didn't give up and weren't afraid to try new things.
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I absolutely agree with you that it is NOT okay and shouldn't be minimalized.
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I just don't think abuse is okay. My grandma used to beat on my dad when he was a kid. It wasn't okay, even though she did love him, she was doing what she knew, how she was raised. It wasn't okay though...
The truth is, I see minor to moderate abuse/neglect of kids EVERYWHERE. Hell, when I am here on RWED, you might even be right to accuse me of mild neglect of my kids. None of it is OK.
But I believe the solution to this widespread abuse/neglect is NOT CPS or child abuse intervention as we know it.
I think the long term solution has to be in education. Teach parents to treat children the way they themselves would want to be treated. Teach them to see kids as people too. First dialogue with compassion. If that fails, then take more aggressive intervention.
Yes, we agree on faith healing or any type of healing. It has to be responsible.
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Of course, you are right about younger children. Someone else DOES have to speak for them.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
If they have lived all their life with abuse, they may see it as the norm, even if it of a horrific nature.
But as far as "seeing it as the norm" goes, "norm" doesn't mean they see it as painless. They simply learn to assume that ALL kids live like that. They still want it to stop and will say so if given the chance.
Quote:They would only hide the abuse if the consequences are very painful. That is, if they are threatened with worse punishments if they tell, they will lie and hide it. But at that level, you can tell they are in physical terror of their abusers, no matter what they say.
To some degree or another, all children suffer from stockholm syndrome. They love their parents, even if they are abusers and may try at all costs and protect their abusers and hide the abuse.
They would also hide the abuse if the punishment of their abusers is unacceptable, such as their parents going to court or being taken away from them. Yes, children love their parents, often despite how abusive they are. But don't mistake that love for unwillingness to tell the truth. If they knew they could tell the truth without getting their parents into "trouble," if telling the truth would change the circumstances at home, they would tell in a heartbeat.
My mother once beat me so badly I ran into the street barefoot to escape her. When she came after me, I ran into a neighbor's house. The neighbor called the police. I lied my ass off to keep my mother from getting into trouble legally. That plus a little bribe and the cops went away. I did NOT want to be taken away from my family.
BUT, had the neighbor befriended me and listened to me, I would have told them the truth. Had they tried to talk to my mother, I woulda told the truth. I, and other abused kids I know, would have told the truth had we felt SAFE to do so. Our system is set up so that kids feel UNSAFE either way, and that is a big problem.
Quote:Obviously, I believe that some abuse is NOT subjective and ought to be criminalized. But short of abuse severe enough to be criminalized, I think an informal "jury" of community peers is good process for taking each individual situation and culture into account. If a formal jury is good enough for deciding guilt in criminal cases, a jury should be good enough to decide on intervention in less than criminal cases.
I have a lot of problems with abuse being seen as subjective, although I recognise that there are fuzzy areas and cultural complexities.
Quote:And I would agree to criminalize sex with children, including sending the perps to prison.
So in this society, it is never acceptable for an adult to have sex with a child. So even if a family deemed that was acceptable behaviour, it is not acceptable to the society at large and therefore it would be necessary for an external authority to protect a child.
Quote:Problem with that is kids won't call if calling means removal from home. That is why I advocate less drastic intervention. Now in theory, CPS is supposed to work with the family and remove from home as a last resort. But we all know that in the USA at least, that is simply the luck of the draw. If you get a trigger happy worker, you lose your kids before you can blink.
Kidsline is a free telephone service that children can access to get help and counselling. You may have something similar in the States.
Quote:But they nearly do in the US. All they need is some kind of rationale, any kind of rationale--even a bruise on the knee from falling the day before--and they will whisk the kids away and worry about defending that decision later in court. The parents will have to PROVE their innocence to get them back. By then, the kids will alread
I'd hope that government employees in the US never had unlimited powers. They certainly don't here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Yes, cases are complex, which is why I advocate informal intervention first. For me it is an issue of severity. If the problem can be resolved without removal of custody, then keep it out of court. If removal must take place, then file criminal charges. A crime is a crime, even if the perp is addicted or mentally challenged. We don't make exceptions like that when they hurt adults--why should be make exceptions when they hurt children?
So you would file criminal charges against a intellectualy disabled mother who didn't have the wherewithall to change her baby's nappies or go to her when she was crying? You'd send that person to jail?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, of course not. I wouldn't take her baby from her to begin with. It is not the type of situation that requires removal of custody.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you would file criminal charges against a intellectualy disabled mother who didn't have the wherewithall to change her baby's nappies or go to her when she was crying? You'd send that person to jail?
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTSky
Apparently my mistake was to read your words and accept them at face value. I apologize and assure you it won't happen again.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:No, of course not. I wouldn't take her baby from her to begin with. It is not the type of situation that requires removal of custody.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you would file criminal charges against a intellectualy disabled mother who didn't have the wherewithall to change her baby's nappies or go to her when she was crying? You'd send that person to jail?
So you'd let a baby be maltreated?????????
I appreciate that you see your system as flawed and you wish to advocate for children. I wish you well with this, and hope that it does improve. If it is as you describe, it needs serious attention. I am unable to argue with you on how your system is, only on how it works here. I do know that perceptions of child protection services can be distorted and I also know they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I find it very hard to believe that there is unlimited powers for public servants to remove children without some legal processes involved, and that children are removed for minor infractions such as bruised knees. BUt as I say, I have no way of arguing with you on what your system is, except that Rione seems to describe something a little less draconian and one that, for her brother, was compassionate towards the mother while protecting the child.
I agree that children need to have an age appropriate voice in all of this and what happens to them, and additionally need to be clearly informed - also age appropriate about what is happening. A safe service for kids to ring is essential. I also suspect that that exists in parts of the US, but perhaps is not widely known. But it is an excellent suggestion.
I also agree that parents should be offered support rather than simply removing a child. I might add that such support often comes at considerable cost, which is perhaps why it is not a first resort where you live.
I would be cautious about asking children to make decisions about their wellbeing, particularly young children but of course conceding more choice to older ones. I outlines some of the reasons why I think that is the case. A young child is unable to make difficult decisions relating to their wellbeing, which is why adults need to care for children, I think it becomes particularly difficult for children who suffer family violence because of the enmeshed and complex nature of family dynamics in these cases. Children may feel pain and discomfort but may not have the capacity to determine that what is happening to them is wrong.
Not all cases where children are removed involve abuse - certainly where I live - a parent who beats or sexual abuses a child will face criminal prosecution, and quite rightly. But there are parents who are unable to care adequately for their children because of their own issues. It may be that they can manage with help, or that sometimes removal may be required for a short period while the parent receives assistance, or that another family member can take over the care of a child. That is why professionals step in, to make an assessment. Long term removal of a child would have to be made with a judgement from a children's court (here) who takes over responsibility for a child - so it certainly isn't an easy or discretionary power held by a nameless public servant.
From what I have seen - and I am talking again about my own locality - people who work within these systems have a genuine care for children's wellbeing. They are being swamped with cases where children are suffering and finite resources to help them.
The way that I see it, is not that the government or any judicial system is to blame, it's just that as a society, western individual rights focused materialistic societies such as the US and Ausralia, on a systemic level we don't nurture our children adequately. Too many parents live in an isolated manner, and that includes the isolation of nuclear family units as well as single parent families. If mum or dad or both are not up to the task, which lets face i
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't want to get involved with this conversation again, but I suppose I also can't leave CTS behind.
Quote:
So you would file criminal charges against a intellectualy disabled mother who didn't have the wherewithall to change her baby's nappies or go to her when she was crying? You'd send that person to jail?
....
So you'd let a baby be maltreated?????????
Based on your representation, it doesn't sound like you're satisfied with any solution. Which is fair, because it's a pretty awful scenario to start with, and all possible solutions may have their downsides. At the same time, I'm also not sure it's fair to react with shock when CTS merely tries to answer your scenarios, especially if she's damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't.
Anyway. On that particular issue, we don't necessarily know that a parent without "wherewithall" would continue mistreatment after being informed that their behaviour constitutes mistreatment. In addition, there might be other arrangements to compensate for a parent who is not always reliable or comprehending, without yet needing to remove the child.
Perhaps it may be necessary that some kind of case worker stay with that family or perform daily visits during the transition period where the parent is learning to prevent relapse or to reinforce some behaviour (and keep accidental mistreatment from continuing), but it may not be necessary at that point to remove the child.
Should it become necessary, either because the lesson can't be learned by the parent and the child is in continuing danger, other family members might be considered, and then FINALLY, removal might be considered. Or, if mistreatment were to continue out of malice instead of ignorance, then it would be abuse and intervention WOULD be needed.
Asking as you did if the opposition side of this debate would "let a baby be maltreated?????" is somewhat reactionary, and not representative of the argument being made.
1kiki: I'm very confused why you believe what CTS said means that you can not take her at face value. It almost implies you believe she is lying?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS, it sounds like we agree on most things here, we just have different ways of saying it. I'm glad that you guys found a solution so that your son is doing well.
WIth Magon's example of the developmentally different mother, I have to wonder who failed to look after her affectively in the first place, thus resulting in pregnancy and a baby? But it happens all too often so that point is not the thing here. I should hope that the thing tried/suggested would be for the woman and her child to live in a household with other family members. That way the woman and her child are both looked after and she can still be with her child and be part of its raising.
Magon's, our situation worked out really well but there are many that don't. Fortunately we knew my little brother and his mom already and so he was sent directly to us when he was taken away from his mother. The plan was for us to keep him until she took some classes, got stable, did the things she needed to do in order to get him back. But she was unable to get it together after two years of trying so we got to adopt him. She's stable and does fine in her apartment, takes care of her puppy, does her shopping etc. but she isn't built for parenting. We take my lil' bro over once a week to spend the evening with her, we drop him off and pick him up a couple of hours later. They have a nice time, she loves him and he loves her, she's just not built for parenting on her own. And since she lives up here away from her own family on her own is what she was doing.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Should I feel saddened that you have to ask?
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you'd let a baby be maltreated?????????
I have worked with disabled persons before who have many limitations, but still strive to live as independently as possible. They simply need some support. In cases of mentally retarded persons, they often need a helper to come in from time to time to check on them, continue training them in self-care tasks, etc. The type of external support varies, depending on the level of retardation and circumstances.
I would advocate leveraging all community and family support available for the mother and child in this case. If the mother is so seriously retarded that she could not manage even with support, then only as a very, very, very last resort would I remove custody, if possible, to a close relative. But in that case, there is probably no awareness of custody to begin with. No, of course, there would be no criminal charges here, but this scenario would be entirely an exception to the rule. Furthermore, I would not make removal of custody permanent--I would do everything to maintain that familial tie.
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You are too kind. :) (I hope that didn't offend you.)
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I didn't want to get involved with this conversation again, but I suppose I also can't leave CTS behind.
Quote:Of course she does. She went from intimation that I'm lying to saying it outright via sarcasm.
1kiki: I'm very confused why you believe what CTS said means that you can not take her at face value. It almost implies you believe she is lying?
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Based on your representation, it doesn't sound like you're satisfied with any solution. Which is fair, because it's a pretty awful scenario to start with, and all possible solutions may have their downsides. At the same time, I'm also not sure it's fair to react with shock when CTS merely tries to answer your scenarios, especially if she's damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't.
It's never good to assume an emotional reaction when you are interpreting someone's written words. I wasn't particularly shocked at CTS's reaction. My problem with CTS is the all or nothing quality to her statements. She says unequivocably "No, of course not. I wouldn't take her baby from her to begin with. It is not the type of situation that requires removal of custody" she doesn't say... depends on the case and the circumstances. So in her world view, I assume, that a child should never be removed from a mother who has an intellectual disability regardless of the level of care of the child, which may include chronic neglect and maltreatment. Not changing nappies and attending a crying baby is maltreatment.
Quote:
Anyway. On that particular issue, we don't necessarily know that a parent without "wherewithall" would continue mistreatment after being informed that their behaviour constitutes mistreatment. In addition, there might be other arrangements to compensate for a parent who is not always reliable or comprehending, without yet needing to remove the child.
Perhaps it may be necessary that some kind of case worker stay with that family or perform daily visits during the transition period where the parent is learning to prevent relapse or to reinforce some behaviour (and keep accidental mistreatment from continuing), but it may not be necessary at that point to remove the child.
Should it become necessary, either because the lesson can't be learned by the parent and the child is in continuing danger, other family members might be considered, and then FINALLY, removal might be considered. Or, if mistreatment were to continue out of malice instead of ignorance, then it would be abuse and intervention WOULD be needed.
Really Byte, have you actually read anything I have written? This is exactly what I have been saying.
Quote:
Asking as you did if the opposition side of this debate would "let a baby be maltreated?????" is somewhat reactionary, and not representative of the argument being made.
I think my initial response was a casual one, but I did go on to elaborate. Did you note that? My view is that CTS has a simplistic view of these matters and that was demonstrated by her response.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTSky
You said you are for anything that works. By your original account formula feeding works. But you elected not to use it, apparently for other reasons. Hence, by your posts, you contradicted yourself - you are NOT for ANYTHING that works, since you rejected something that worked.
Therefore, I will be less trusting of your words next time you post.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Should I feel saddened that you have to ask?
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you'd let a baby be maltreated?????????
I have worked with disabled persons before who have many limitations, but still strive to live as independently as possible. They simply need some support. In cases of mentally retarded persons, they often need a helper to come in from time to time to check on them, continue training them in self-care tasks, etc. The type of external support varies, depending on the level of retardation and circumstances.
I would advocate leveraging all community and family support available for the mother and child in this case. If the mother is so seriously retarded that she could not manage even with support, then only as a very, very, very last resort would I remove custody, if possible, to a close relative. But in that case, there is probably no awareness of custody to begin with. No, of course, there would be no criminal charges here, but this scenario would be entirely an exception to the rule. Furthermore, I would not make removal of custody permanent--I would do everything to maintain that familial tie.
If you hadn't been so cut and dried to start off with, I wouldn't have responded the way that I did.
I don't see this case as an exception to the rule, but one of many scenarios where child protection services and/or family support services may need to be involved. Similar scenarios exist where parents have mental illnesses, drug or alcohol problems etc etc. Parents who don't manage their own lives will struggle to care adequately for children, and abuse is often the end result for parents not managing. The earlier intervention takes place then the more likely that abuse will be prevented.
You have seen no argument from me that removing a child should be a last resort, I wonder why you continue to state this.
The difference is regarding your claim that removal should only take place where criminal charges have been laid, and I think I given a number of examples where charges would not be laid, and children could be removed, which you have also conceded.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I have to wonder who failed to look after her affectively in the first place, thus resulting in pregnancy and a baby?"
There are legal issues of custodianship. Someone who is of age and doesn't meet the legal requirements for custodial care (giving others control over their lives, including medical decisions like birth control) are free to do whatever they wish, whether they have the wherewithal or not.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm aware of that technicality Kiki, but there is a lot of looking after and teaching about good choice making that can still go on, and should still go on.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's not just a 'technicality'. Grown people with less acute minds have wishes, personalities and impulses all their own. You can be kind, concerned, patient, caring and involved - but if they want something, don't understand the reasons why not, might be too fidgety to listen, are perhaps slightly oppositional, impulsive - or whatever - there is nothing you can do to stop them. I liken it sometimes to leading a bull by a silk thread. They have to want to go along. When it comes to their choices, in the end, no matter how bad you think their choice is, they are free to make it. And bad choices are not necessarily a failure of family, friends, or 'the system' to be involved.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magons: Hmm. All right.
1kiki: I think you're being unfair to CTS. I don't believe your interpretation is what she meant - what I read is that she feels that the traditional medical treatment would have resulted in harm for her child, and that her trying ANYTHING was in regards to trying to find something that would not cause harm.
It's almost seeming like you want to think the worst of her. That's just how this is coming across.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rione, the point was not to go into the whys and wherefores of a particular example, but to ackowledge, as you have done, that some people who are parents are not really equipped to be parents, and may never get to that stage regardless of support or education.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also, I have been thinking about how to answer your question re the ill child in my life. I try to not delve into the details of others I know, since I don't want to infringe on their privacy. But if this helps explain it - I've had three Chinese coworkers all say the same thing, which is that I am 'the second mother'.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"... what I read is that she feels that the traditional medical treatment would have resulted in harm for her child, and that her trying ANYTHING was in regards to trying to find something that would not cause harm."
OK - what I read was this - in her first post she posited that lack of effective treatment would result in death. Then she said that formula was effective. But she rejected the effective treatment, in effect risking her son's death, in order to try something unknown.
I've seen situations where there was NO effective treatment. I can understand desperation to try something, ANYTHING to help. >> MY << first impulse is to guard life at all costs. The rest can be unscrambled later. So I find her decision to some extent - you fill in the blank.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Look, I think homeopathy is hookum too, and I've even said as much to her face, but you're acting like she was deliberately trying to kill her child, rather than merely trying to make decisions based on what she knew and heard when her child came down with a unexpected disorder.
It's not like it's her fault her child got sick. You know, my grandmother on my mothers side died earlier this year, there were all kinds of complications. Is there any point we could have prevented that, any treatment we could have done besides what the doctor's had her on? I don't know. CTS made a choice, it actually ended up working out. She choose what she thought would cause the least harm INCLUDING her child not dying. It's not a question of living versus dying but with food tolerance, for her it was a question of living with reduced quality of life versus living and developing food tolerance. In my book that's all that matters in regards to her character, and does not suggest to me, at all, that anything was more important to her than the life of her child.
Have you asked her, if her alternative treatment had clearly not been working, if she would have gone back to the formula? Because I'm getting the impression she would have. Trying alternatives that seem more promising before trying recommended treatment does not make someone evil, nor a terrible mother. It just means someone is in a hard place and they're exploring their options.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe it might be good to divert this thread back to the topic, and away from personal discussions around CTS and her parenting.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good idea.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sure. Parenting is a very personal thing for everyone.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm going to drag that discussion back to this for a moment because I was there, too, and dealing with my own dangerously and mysteriously sick child, so I was very sensitive to the topic.
1kiki: I think you're being unfair to CTS. I don't believe your interpretation is what she meant - what I read is that she feels that the traditional medical treatment would have resulted in harm for her child, and that her trying ANYTHING was in regards to trying to find something that would not cause harm.
What I got from CTS' posts at the time was that her child was allergic to proteins, that there was an amino acid formula that contained no proteins for her child to react to but would provide all of the necessary nutrients for cell growth, but that she did not want her child to be dependent on big pharma and so she opted to try something else. She also SAID she was afraid of the authorities, which is why she left the country.
Between that and her compulsively anti-vaccination/ anti-chemotherapy stance I got the strong impression that her decision to remove her child from treatment was more due to ideology than anything related to her child's health. Because at the time, there was NO discussion about the side-effects of the medical treatment her child was undergoing.
Now, maybe in the throes of a medical crisis CTS was not as clear as she might have wanted to be. Maybe, in the throes of a medical crisis, it simply was not clear what was causing what... that the vomiting might have been due to the treatment rather than the disease might not become clear until much later. These things happen in complicated situations. But there is one thing I feel that I have recognized about CTS, is that she is a cherry-picker of facts par exellance, and I do not trust her to look at a situation with both eyes open, as it were, nor to think about it openly and with self-honesty whenever it contradicts her strong belief system.
I have not read up through the thread, but I have an additional concern which may be entirely misplaced, and that is her child's intellectual functioning. Severe early starvation... and that is what her child went through... affects brain growth, so I hope he's OK. That's as far as I'm going with this.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Muhammad or Moohamed in France in Belgium's most Muslim-populated cities...is this name not qually or even more perverted than calling your kid 'Hitler' or 'Joe Stalin'?
Emmanuel Macron blames children of single parents for French riots
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/france-riots-2023-emmanuel-macron-b
roken-families-race-factor-n2ljnvpgz
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So I looked into whatever happened to these children and their parents. The father is a self-avowed Nazi-lover. The mom once claimed he was threatening her. The children were taken away from both parents. They seem to be divorced now. Child protective services...or whatever it's called in NJ... OF COURSE can't discuss the reasons for removal. But nobody outside of the family...not doctors, not neighbors...has hinted at child abuse. And giving a kid a weird or distasteful name isn't abuse, so I wonder if this just wasn't political.
Altho I do have to wonder about people calling their kids entirely made-up names like Keishaka.
Mohammed is a common Arabic name. It's not strange, it's simply using a name common to the parents' ethnicity and religion.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME