When Should The State Intervene In A Child's Care?

Did this a few years ago and had an interesting discussion. Board membership has changed significantly and a thread I just saw made me think of it, so going to try it again. Setting up the question is kinda a pain, so bear with me.

At what point should the state, ie child welfare workers or the court system or by legislating mandatory levels of care, intervene in a parents choices to raise their children. Now the obvious problem with this question is that there are alot of possible actions the state could take(this was a problem people picked apart last time I did this poll), so for the sake of the question, the least the state would do is remove the children from the home temporarily, and could potentially do more, including permanently taking the children to jailing their parents. In other words, for which of the situations listed in the poll should the state be able to say to parents that if they do this, the state will take the children from the parents.

1. Parents choose to use faith healing for their child to cure a life threatening illness, refusing normal treatments
2. Parents choose to use faith healing for their child to cure a serious but not life threatening illness(ie one that could leave them handicapped but still alive for example)
3. Injecting your child with botox before taking part in a beauty pageant(yes, this was the thread that spurred me to make this poll)
4. Physical punishment that harms the child enough to require hospitalization or medical treatment
5. Physical punishment that harms a child enough to leave marks(bruises, welts) but does not require hospitalization or medical treatment
6. Giving a child illegal drugs
7. Using illegal drugs in the presence of a child
8. Caring for the child under the influence of illegal drugs
9. Feeding the child very poorly such that they are significantly underweight or overweight
10. none of those

Please be patient as I add the poll options, select all that apply when I get the poll up

One of those questions for Solomon. No matter where the line is drawn there will be significant arguments that it's drawn too far in one direction or the other. "I'd know it when I see it" is the personal answer, but it's difficult to draw law or policy around the subjective.

clownboy said:

One of those questions for Solomon. No matter where the line is drawn there will be significant arguments that it's drawn too far in one direction or the other. "I'd know it when I see it" is the personal answer, but it's difficult to draw law or policy around the subjective.

Click to expand...

Yeah. The question created a really interesting discussion last time I tried it, and a number of people where you would not expect them. There are no real absolute right or wrong answers, I am curious as to where you would draw the line.

Redress said:

Yeah. The question created a really interesting discussion last time I tried it, and a number of people where you would not expect them. There are no real absolute right or wrong answers, I am curious as to where you would draw the line.

Click to expand...

If injury and/or neglect is involved. For the most part I think the CPS folks, at least the ones in the states I've been in, seem to straddle the line as well as can be expected. If the state cannot provide a better alternative, what's the point?

The only reason that I can think of is as the result of a criminal conviction or the inability to make bond/bail pending trial. Instead of phrasing the question as to when should the state should the child (children) I would phrase it as when is it OK for the state to remove the parent(s) thus making the child (children) a ward of the state.

The state should " intervene " in most of these cases. however most of the time the child protective services has to sees a child the child ends up worse than they were with the parents. So in reality seizure of children from a home should be a very very last resort. Definitely however parent should be encouraged, educated, and counseled. If the child is in a bad situation.

Also I have issues The wording of the options for using drugs in the presence of a child, sense marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, States are legalizing it slowly. Also if we have someone illegally abusing say opioids, because they became addicted after being prescribed the drugs legally, that would be a different issue then say the parents operating a meth lab in the basement

I also think male circumcision should be illegal, certain very politically powerful religious group would never allow that to happen

Whenever the parents actions or decisions actually endanger the child's life. This includes faith healing, physical punishment that sends the kid to the ER and giving kids harmful legal or illegal drugs.

Arcana XV said:

Whenever the parents actions or decisions actually endanger the child's life. This includes faith healing, physical punishment that sends the kid to the ER and giving kids harmful legal or illegal drugs.

Click to expand...

That should be grounds to remove the parent from society, if that leaves the child with no other legal guardian/home then the state can take custody of the child. I can see no case where the parent is allowed to remain free but loses only the right (and responsibility) to care for their child without due process. The ability to take a child or assets from a citizen without a criminal conviction (due process) is giving way too much power to the state.

I chose the first six options because they directly affect the child's health and well being. In that vain, I should have picked the poor diet, but I thought about it after voting.

I chose 3,4,6,7,8,9

Faith healing.... although I have no "faith" to me is perfectly legal. There are always possible side effects and death from surgeries and medication... you cannot force that choice on families. Faith healing, although not very effective, is a valid choice because modern medicine will never be perfect, it could be equivalent as a no treatment choice. The placebo affect and ones own immune system/positive low stress attitude really does crazy things in terms of healing on your own... not nearly as reliable, but has a great affect.

with that said, for more immediate things like.... you're child is bleeding from an artery! Let's pray!! That's different.... that is an immediate emergency that would be neglect if you did not take them to a hospital.
There is a difference and what falls in that difference can be hard to come up with.... but blanket faith healing/choice of no treatment counting as neglect isn't right.


I could change my mind on this because obviously I don't agree with faith healing, but I don't think I/we have a legal right to do anything about that.

Botox should be illegal for the same reasons tattoos are illegal.

ttwtt78640 said:

That should be grounds to remove the parent from society, if that leaves the child with no other legal guardian/home then the state can take custody of the child. I can see no case where the parent is allowed to remain free but loses only the right (and responsibility) to care for their child without due process. The ability to take a child or assets from a citizen without a criminal conviction (due process) is giving way too much power to the state.

Click to expand...

I can see it happening in faith healing cases. The parents lose custody, at least temporarily, but it's difficult to charge them with anything when their religion forbids them to turn to medical science for help. They have 1st amendment rights.

Arcana XV said:

I can see it happening in faith healing cases. The parents lose custody, at least temporarily, but it's difficult to charge them with anything when their religion forbids them to turn to medical science for help. They have 1st amendment rights.

Click to expand...

Now realize I am going to, at least partially, be playing devil's advocate here, but if the parents can loose their children, at least temporarily, in cases of faith healing, when else do you think it is appropriate for the government to make medical decisions for people?

Arcana XV said:

I can see it happening in faith healing cases. The parents lose custody, at least temporarily, but it's difficult to charge them with anything when their religion forbids them to turn to medical science for help. They have 1st amendment rights.

Click to expand...

So you have decided that those 1A rights do not extend to raising their children as they see fit? You honestly believe that the state can respect their constitutional rights by taking their children from them without even making any criminal charges, much less, getting a criminal conviction?

Redress said:

Now realize I am going to, at least partially, be playing devil's advocate here, but if the parents can loose their children, at least temporarily, in cases of faith healing, when else do you think it is appropriate for the government to make medical decisions for people?

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

So you have decided that those 1A rights do not extend to raising their children as they see fit? You honestly believe that the state can respect their constitutional rights by taking their children from them without even making any criminal charges, much less, getting a criminal conviction?

Click to expand...

Like I said in my first post. Their religious rights end at their child's right to live. They can raise their children as they see fit, brainwash the hell out of them for all I care. The OP asked when the State should intervene. In my opinion, it's justified to intervene to save the life of the child and not one second sooner. Whether the State decides to prosecute the parents or not doesn't really matter all that much to me. As long as the child is given the chance to get life saving health care. That's pretty much the only scenario I can think of where I'm okay with government making medical decisions for people.

celticwar17 said:

I chose 3,4,6,7,8,9

Faith healing.... although I have no "faith" to me is perfectly legal. There are always possible side effects and death from surgeries and medication... you cannot force that choice on families. Faith healing, although not very effective, is a valid choice because modern medicine will never be perfect, it could be equivalent as a no treatment choice. The placebo affect and ones own immune system/positive low stress attitude really does crazy things in terms of healing on your own... not nearly as reliable, but has a great affect.

with that said, for more immediate things like.... you're child is bleeding from an artery! Let's pray!! That's different.... that is an immediate emergency that would be neglect if you did not take them to a hospital.
There is a difference and what falls in that difference can be hard to come up with.... but blanket faith healing/choice of no treatment counting as neglect isn't right.


I could change my mind on this because obviously I don't agree with faith healing, but I don't think I/we have a legal right to do anything about that.

Botox should be illegal for the same reasons tattoos are illegal.

Click to expand...

For whatever reason you have shockingly undersold the benefits and efficacy of modern medicine and inexplicably played up the nearly non-existent benefits of 'faith healing'. If your child is sick and you don't allow them to have appropriate medical attention I want the government to take a closer look at you and help get your child proper care.

ttwtt78640 said:

So you have decided that those 1A rights do not extend to raising their children as they see fit? You honestly believe that the state can respect their constitutional rights by taking their children from them without even making any criminal charges, much less, getting a criminal conviction?

Click to expand...

I don't think they do. You don't own your children. They aren't property for you to do whatever you like with them. I think the list put together in the OP's poll contains some reasonable examples where intervention might be necessary and ideal.

Redress said:

Did this a few years ago and had an interesting discussion. Board membership has changed significantly and a thread I just saw made me think of it, so going to try it again. Setting up the question is kinda a pain, so bear with me.

At what point should the state, ie child welfare workers or the court system or by legislating mandatory levels of care, intervene in a parents choices to raise their children. Now the obvious problem with this question is that there are alot of possible actions the state could take(this was a problem people picked apart last time I did this poll), so for the sake of the question, the least the state would do is remove the children from the home temporarily, and could potentially do more, including permanently taking the children to jailing their parents. In other words, for which of the situations listed in the poll should the state be able to say to parents that if they do this, the state will take the children from the parents.

1. Parents choose to use faith healing for their child to cure a life threatening illness, refusing normal treatments
2. Parents choose to use faith healing for their child to cure a serious but not life threatening illness(ie one that could leave them handicapped but still alive for example)
3. Injecting your child with botox before taking part in a beauty pageant(yes, this was the thread that spurred me to make this poll)
4. Physical punishment that harms the child enough to require hospitalization or medical treatment
5. Physical punishment that harms a child enough to leave marks(bruises, welts) but does not require hospitalization or medical treatment
6. Giving a child illegal drugs
7. Using illegal drugs in the presence of a child
8. Caring for the child under the influence of illegal drugs
9. Feeding the child very poorly such that they are significantly underweight or overweight
10. none of those

Please be patient as I add the poll options, select all that apply when I get the poll up

Click to expand...

Very interesting . . I like it!

For me 3,4 and 6 are a lock (3 under the assumption that its the same as 6)
now for the rest I want to talk about because it isnt so black and white. . .

Parents choose to use faith healing for their child to cure a life threatening illness, refusing normal treatments
This one is VERY tough for me, while my gut and initial knee jerk reaction based on common sense is for the state to intervene.
There is a serious clash of rights here. For one there's a freedom of religion which i support but at the same time a childs life is in danger. I want to save the life of the child but at the same time if the parents believe that using medicine on the child would damn them to hell i could imagine how hard that would be on them to force that on thier child. Id say in most cases i have to go with the life and 99% of the time i probably say state intervention on this one too.

Parents choose to use faith healing for their child to cure a serious but not life threatening illness(ie one that could leave them handicapped but still alive for example)
Same as above, most cases intervention especially with the example of possible handicap

Physical punishment that harms a child enough to leave marks(bruises, welts) but does not require hospitalization or medical treatment
in moderation i have no problem with this one . . . of course there is a line that could be crossed . . . so id say most cases no problem but some cases it could be. Constant bruising, especially if its on the head etc


Using illegal drugs in the presence of a child
This is another yes in some cases and some no. whats the illegal drug, why is it usages illegal and what usage in front of the child takes place.

SHooting up heroin in front of your kids . . . yes intervention

You tell me you are sick and got lots of pain, I have left over antibiotics and some pain meds from when i was sick so I give them to you. You take those in front of your kids, that is illegal but no intervention is needed.

Caring for the child under the influence of illegal drugs
bascially the same as above, high on heroin . . yes, other cases no

Feeding the child very poorly such that they are significantly underweight or overweight
not sure on this one, you use the word significantly so i assume thats based on a medical bases. If thats the case i say yes to this one.

Sherman123 said:

I don't think they do. You don't own your children. They aren't property for you to do whatever you like with them. I think the list put together in the OP's poll contains some reasonable examples where intervention might be necessary and ideal.

Click to expand...

That implies that they are "owned" by the state instead and simply on loan to selected parents that are deemed to raise them properly as defined by the state. My point was that the parent must have comitted a crime in order for the state to act under due process. This taking of a child is very close to civil asset forfeiture in that the state may "intervene" without ever obtaining a concivtion or even leveling a charge. In cases of child abuse, which are certainly defined as crimes, that requires due process while this "taking" by the state does not appear to.

Redress said:

Did this a few years ago and had an interesting discussion. Board membership has changed significantly and a thread I just saw made me think of it, so going to try it again. Setting up the question is kinda a pain, so bear with me.

At what point should the state, ie child welfare workers or the court system or by legislating mandatory levels of care, intervene in a parents choices to raise their children. Now the obvious problem with this question is that there are alot of possible actions the state could take(this was a problem people picked apart last time I did this poll), so for the sake of the question, the least the state would do is remove the children from the home temporarily, and could potentially do more, including permanently taking the children to jailing their parents. In other words, for which of the situations listed in the poll should the state be able to say to parents that if they do this, the state will take the children from the parents.

1. Parents choose to use faith healing for their child to cure a life threatening illness, refusing normal treatments
2. Parents choose to use faith healing for their child to cure a serious but not life threatening illness(ie one that could leave them handicapped but still alive for example)
3. Injecting your child with botox before taking part in a beauty pageant(yes, this was the thread that spurred me to make this poll)
4. Physical punishment that harms the child enough to require hospitalization or medical treatment
5. Physical punishment that harms a child enough to leave marks(bruises, welts) but does not require hospitalization or medical treatment
6. Giving a child illegal drugs
7. Using illegal drugs in the presence of a child
8. Caring for the child under the influence of illegal drugs
9. Feeding the child very poorly such that they are significantly underweight or overweight
10. none of those

Please be patient as I add the poll options, select all that apply when I get the poll up

Click to expand...

3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9

I'm confused on 7. If the question means smoking crack or something like that with your kid in the room, then i am against it and the kid is in danger. If it means smoking pot outside when you're kids are teenagers and don't know you're doing it, then no.

ttwtt78640 said:

That implies that they are "owned" by the state instead and simply on loan to selected parents that are deemed to raise them properly as defined by the state. My point was that the parent must have comitted a crime in order for the state to act under due process. This taking of a child is very close to civil asset forfeiture in that the state may "intervene" without ever obtaining a concivtion or even leveling a charge. In cases of child abuse, which are certainly defined as crimes, that requires due process while this "taking" by the state does not appear to.

Click to expand...

State, society, whatever you want to call it. I think that we have a collective right to intervene to protect children from harm and that parental rights, whatever they might be, do not offer any protection from this. This causes zero qualms for me. Don't beat your kids, allow them to see doctors and use medicine, and make sure they get an education and we'll be fine. Stop doing any of those things and yeah I think an agent should knock at your door to see whats going on and see what we need to do to fix the situation.

Personally, I said in none of these cases.

I don't like the State making such decisions without prior consent of a court.

I am much more in favour of a Child Advocacy Protocol, as we have here in Canada, but I'd like to see it have more teeth and the Children's Aid Societies have far less teeth.

I am in favour of a strong Child Advocate who could sue the parents of children who are involved in such situations and who can quickly seek court relief for the care and comfort of any child in such a situation.

I don't want to see any child harmed and I want to see any negligent parent punished appropriately. That's not happening in today's system and too often children are viewed as mere chattel and their independent human rights are discounted in relation to the parents and the state.

The general standard I used here was "life threatening". Parents do not have the right to threaten or take the lives of their children. It'd be a bit hypocritical for me to adopt a pro-life stance on those grounds, but then say that Parents do nonetheless have the right to shoot their child up with (for example) heroin.

I did not vote for 4.Physical punishment that harms the child enough to require hospitalization or medical treatment because "medical treatment" struck me as a very vague standard that could be easily stretched by overeager social workers to mean anything. If I spank my child with a wooden spoon and he get's a splinter, and I give him a bandaid for it, for example. Or if the worker wants to make the argument that a discipline regime that includes spanking could lead to a requirement for emotional and psychological medical treatment in the future. In cases of physical punishment that requires hospitalization (saving lives, saving limbs from being broken, etc), I would absolutely support child-removal.

cpwill said:

The general standard I used here was "life threatening". Parents do not have the right to threaten or take the lives of their children. It'd be a bit hypocritical for me to adopt a pro-life stance on those grounds, but then say that Parents do nonetheless have the right to shoot their child up with (for example) heroin.

I did not vote for 4.Physical punishment that harms the child enough to require hospitalization or medical treatment because "medical treatment" struck me as a very vague standard that could be easily stretched by overeager social workers to mean anything. If I spank my child with a wooden spoon and he get's a splinter, and I give him a bandaid for it, for example. Or if the worker wants to make the argument that a discipline regime that includes spanking could lead to a requirement for emotional and psychological medical treatment in the future. In cases of physical punishment that requires hospitalization (saving lives, saving limbs from being broken, etc), I would absolutely support child-removal.

Click to expand...

The wording was not intended to be as it would be in law kinda thing. Any problem with wording is my fault alone. The intention is physical punishment resulting in severe enough injury to require medical aid from a doctor or hospitalization, as opposed to physical punishment bad enough to bruise or leave welts, but not bad enough to require a doctor. But the truth is with 10 poll options max, it is impossible to make answers that fit every possibility, and my interest is in where some one draws the line, at what point does the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit lose out to the states interest. You answered that pretty well.

The state should only interfere when the parent's actions are risking the child's long-term wellbeing to a degree that removing the child from their home and family and letting strangers raise them is the less harmful option.

The only options that I thought absolutely met that criteria in the poll were faith healing for a potentially fatal illness, physical punishment that requires medical treatment, and giving a child illegal drugs. Some of the other options might meet that criteria, but it would depend on the circumstances.

The point I guess, is that it's not a clear and well-defined line.

The voting percentages for some of these options, such as the first one, are disturbingly low.