http://www.nj.gov/dcf/reporting/links/[/quote]It's difficult to answer but let's take it to the extreme for the sake of your question: The state can take a child away due to extreme neglect such as starvation. In my state, NJ Law Sec 9:6-1 states:
However, in the non-extreme case, section 9:6-1(d) states Abuse of a child can be:
So a child can be considered "abused" when Daddy uses the F word too often. For example section (c) of that same law states:
So badgering a child (ie., tormenting) them about doing their homework is considered "cruelty".
I think you're actually ignoring the fact that these acts must be taken towards the child and a history of abuse must be demonstrated, not just the fact that the parent drops the F bomb around the child every now and then.
So then when the parent fails to ensure the welfare of that child through their actions, should there be no penalty? I mean, after all, they had "a right" to do so.I do disagree. If the parent and the child do not want to have the chemo, then the responsibility of that child's welfare falls on the parent, not the state.
So for example: a parent who takes 5 years to starve their child to death, should the state not step in because there is "immediate death" involved? Why is "immediacy" an issue when reality is that refusing the treatment guarantees she will die?If the state wishes to bring charges against the parent - why didn't they? They had no problem taking the kid away and forcing her to have chemo. To me that's stepping over the line. If the kid believes what she says, when she turns 18 she will stop the chemo and may die anyway --- then again, she may not die.
I do not see shared responsibility of a child as being the states obligation unless clear and immediate harm or death is involved. I agree mostly with obvious situations where children are neglected, abandoned, are beaten, starved, etc... That is not present in this case.