View Poll Results: PLease read the first post and vote accordingly for all that apply.

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • Child is beaten repeatedly to the point of needing medical atttention

    25 92.59%
  • The child is beaten, but not severely enough to warrant medical attention.

    15 55.56%
  • The parents deal drugs out of the house the children live in

    19 70.37%
  • The parents do drugs frequently(every day at least) and while their children are in their care.

    15 55.56%
  • The child has a life threatening medical condition and the parent will not let a doctor treat it

    21 77.78%
  • The child has a medical condition which degrades their quality of life significantly that the...

    18 66.67%
  • The child has a medical condition which degrades their quality of life somewhat, for reasons...

    6 22.22%
  • The parent frequently leaves very young(say under 7) children home alone for hours at a time.

    17 62.96%
  • The parents do not feed the child enough to the point of being very undernourished.

    25 92.59%
  • None of those situations.

    1 3.70%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 60

Thread: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

  1. #11
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,771

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    Yes to #1, 3, 5, 6, and 9. The ONLY reason why I didn't say yes to #2, 4, and 8 are that the question asked whether it meant the child should be removed, not might need to be removed. But they certainly count against the parent.

    We need more discussions such as these. Thank you, Redress.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  2. #12
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:22 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    A couple comments:

    Some of the scenarios are somewhat broad or lacking specificity since there are only 10 options allowed in a poll. Further, the concept behind the poll is kinda general in a way, to look at when the rights of the individual clash with the good of society. So much of politics boils down to that basic question, so it is interesting to look at where people draw the line.

    Where oh where are the libertarians? This should be a perfect type question for them and it would be interesting to see how if at all they differ from others.

    Thank you all for your answers, and do please keep them coming.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #13
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I think we would all agree that parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit. I think we would all agree also that at some point the welfare of the child would supersede those rights of the parent. To use one example, if one or both of the parents are molesting a young child, the state can and should take that child away from the parent for the good of the child. However, many/most situations are not so clear cut. This poll will list out several scenarios and ask if the state should take away the child in that scenario. Assume for the purposes of this poll that in each case the state has investigated in depth, a judge has been consulted and the feeling is that the parent is not going to change whatever it is they are doing. Since some of these scenarios require a bit of explanation I will list them all here with the full explanation. Please vote for any scenario where you feel the state should take the child away from the parents potentially permanently.

    1: The child is beaten frequently to the point of needing at times medical attention. That is broken bones, lost teeth, etc.
    2: The child is beaten, but not severely enough to warrant medical attention. That is, hard enough to leave bruises and similar, but not broken bones etc.
    3: The parents deal drugs out of the house the children live in and while the child is there.
    4: The parents do drugs frequently(every day at least) and while their children are in their care.
    5: The child has a life threatening medical condition and the parent will not let a doctor treat it for religious reasons. Maybe they prefer faith healing, or do not believe in doctors, or whatever.
    6: The child has a medical condition which degrades their quality of life significantly that the parent will not let a doctor treat for the same reasons as 5. Examples: significant pain, illness with the potential to cause blindness or crippling.
    7: The child has a medical condition which degrades their quality of life somewhat, for reasons the same as 5. Examples would be treating near/far sightedness, dental work, etc.
    8: The parent frequently leaves very young(say under 7) children home alone for hours at a time.
    9: The parents do not feed the child enough to the point of being very undernourished.
    10: None of those situations.

    Again, please vote for each of those you feel would warrant the state taking the children from the parents potentially permanently. Also please be patient while I type out all the poll options. It will take a couple minutes at least.

    Option 6 was a pain to get down to the character limit...
    I voted yes to all except 7. 2 was a somewhat difficult choice, but if it's a continuing pattern of abuse then the child needs to be taken away. The others are all very clear-cut.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  4. #14
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,029

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I think we would all agree that parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit. I think we would all agree also that at some point the welfare of the child would supersede those rights of the parent. To use one example, if one or both of the parents are molesting a young child, the state can and should take that child away from the parent for the good of the child. However, many/most situations are not so clear cut. This poll will list out several scenarios and ask if the state should take away the child in that scenario. Assume for the purposes of this poll that in each case the state has investigated in depth, a judge has been consulted and the feeling is that the parent is not going to change whatever it is they are doing. Since some of these scenarios require a bit of explanation I will list them all here with the full explanation. Please vote for any scenario where you feel the state should take the child away from the parents potentially permanently.

    1: The child is beaten frequently to the point of needing at times medical attention. That is broken bones, lost teeth, etc.
    2: The child is beaten, but not severely enough to warrant medical attention. That is, hard enough to leave bruises and similar, but not broken bones etc.
    3: The parents deal drugs out of the house the children live in and while the child is there.
    4: The parents do drugs frequently(every day at least) and while their children are in their care.
    5: The child has a life threatening medical condition and the parent will not let a doctor treat it for religious reasons. Maybe they prefer faith healing, or do not believe in doctors, or whatever.
    6: The child has a medical condition which degrades their quality of life significantly that the parent will not let a doctor treat for the same reasons as 5. Examples: significant pain, illness with the potential to cause blindness or crippling.
    7: The child has a medical condition which degrades their quality of life somewhat, for reasons the same as 5. Examples would be treating near/far sightedness, dental work, etc.
    8: The parent frequently leaves very young(say under 7) children home alone for hours at a time.
    9: The parents do not feed the child enough to the point of being very undernourished.
    10: None of those situations.

    Again, please vote for each of those you feel would warrant the state taking the children from the parents potentially permanently. Also please be patient while I type out all the poll options. It will take a couple minutes at least.

    Option 6 was a pain to get down to the character limit...
    add to those options IMHO, severe mental domestic abuse (abuse that can/will leave children psychologically scarred for life), severe cruelty to the child (making it sleep in urine soaked beds, showering with freezing water as a punishment, washing their mouths out with soap, cruel punishment both painful physically as mentally), sexual abuse and failure to provide good mental and physical care for the child (there have been cases in which a child has been locked in his room/caged for their whole lives).
    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

  5. #15
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    For those who are generally supportive of removing children from their family, I'd be interested in their reflections on what awaits children who enter the foster-care system and how they imagine the children will deal with being ripped out of the only family they've ever known and being sent off to live with strangers. Specifically, how much "cost" are you attaching to that experience and how do you balance that against the "benefit" of removing them from their family?

  6. #16
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:22 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    For those who are generally supportive of removing children from their family, I'd be interested in their reflections on what awaits children who enter the foster-care system and how they imagine the children will deal with being ripped out of the only family they've ever known and being sent off to live with strangers. Specifically, how much "cost" are you attaching to that experience and how do you balance that against the "benefit" of removing them from their family?
    While certainly an interesting and worthy topic for discussion, it is also outside the realm of what I am asking. What I am interested in is where the line between individual rights and state control are drawn.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #17
    The Light of Truth
    Northern Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,968

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    I used to work in CPS and the poll oversimplifies what exactly CPS does. For instance, there are many children who receive an adequate number of calories each day, but their food is not nutrient dense so they would still be considered starving/malnourished. If we visited a home where the children were otherwise okay, but all they were being fed was pasta with sauce and poptarts in the morning, we would intervene... usually when a teacher or community member speaks to the child and finds out they are not being fed well. However, such parents are not intentionally abusing or neglecting their children, so in those cases some parenting classes might be ordered to straighten things out.

    In every one of the poll choices we would have to determine if it's intentional abuse or neglect, or just total ignorance that is the problem. Things like selling drugs in the home, doing drugs around children (which drug? state laws vary), beating them maliciously, letting them live in filthy environments unattended to... those are emergent situations and we would show up to the house with police to take the kids out and ask questions later.

    As for medicine, that also depends. State laws vary, and people do have Federal protections. For instance, in most states it's not legal to treat a child's leukemia with anything other than chemo, radiation, or surgery. If you try to do that, you could be charged with child neglect. On the other hand, vaccinations, treating infections (even serious ones) have more leeway because there is evidence that many alternative approaches to disease have positive impacts. In a nutshell, if your child's condition is so bad that they need the ER (or might need it if action is not taken soon) and you don't take the necessary steps to ensure that it does not become dire, you could be charged with neglect.

    Re: beatings and various kinds of abuse. Sometimes it is only one individual in the household committing these actions. That person can be charged and removed while the child remains in the custody of whoever is left, or placed with another family member outside the household. If there is evidence that other members in the household were knowingly complicit while a child was being abused in the home, then the child could be removed altogether.

    I remember one case where a school called us to say that they noticed one of their students was losing weight rapidly and also had strange bruises on his body. When we contacted the family they said they were in the process of moving to a new home and couldn't accommodate a home visit, so we called the parents to our office for an interview. They were nice as pie, dressed really affluently, and spoke similarly. They said that recently their child had been clumsy while he had the flu and was falling all over the place, which explained the weight loss and bruising. You just know that when they have the perfect excuse that it's too perfect... so I was sent to their current house for a surprise visit during the day. There were no parents home, and a 5 year old who wasn't at school because he was taking care of a 14 month old infant. There were garbage bags everywhere, and on the counter top were rotting plates and dishes heaped high, with used diapers that had maggots in them and flies. The floors had obviously not been cleaned in ages, and the back door of the house was wide open because the door handle was broken. We took those kids then and there, and those parents went to jail.

    It's always case by case. There is no formula of "yes" or "no", like the poll implies. Libertarians hate CPS because they only follow the controversial media stories, but every day there is real child abuse and neglect happening and if CPS didn't exist those children would be maimed or killed, either from willful violence or total stupidity.

  8. #18
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    While certainly an interesting and worthy topic for discussion, it is also outside the realm of what I am asking. What I am interested in is where the line between individual rights and state control are drawn.
    Well, I answered your questions within a model where costs/benefits are weighed. I couldn't ignore what awaited the child on the other side of the removal from their home. All of the examples you cited are bad or not ideal and it would be great if we could, as a society, fix them, but I didn't really see child extraction, by itself, as a total remedy.

    If you get two types of people responding to your poll, those who weigh the costs and those who don't, then we're all not judging the same scenario. Just something to be aware of.

  9. #19
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    You left off that parents are unable to pay the medical bills of a child but take the child to ER and receive medical care anyway. That now is a reason to terminate parental rights and put the child in a government institution. You left off that the parents can not afford medical care but obtain it anyway at government expense. Why did you leave that one off?

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

    The average parent, IMO, is an adequate parent...AT BEST.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •