View Poll Results: Please read the OP and select all that apply

Voters
710. You may not vote on this poll
  • Faith healing for otentially fatal illness

    274 38.59%
  • Faith healing for serious but not fatal illness

    118 16.62%
  • Botox before a beauty pageant

    38 5.35%
  • Physical punishment that requires medical treatment

    72 10.14%
  • Physical punishment that leaves marks

    58 8.17%
  • Giving a child illegal drugs

    66 9.30%
  • Using illegal drugs in the presence of a child

    42 5.92%
  • Caring for the child under the influence of illegal drugs

    48 6.76%
  • Giving a child a very poor diet

    61 8.59%
  • In none of those cases

    36 5.07%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

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

  1. #1
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,341
    Blog Entries
    2

    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
    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.

  2. #2
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

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

    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.

  3. #3
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,341
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.

  4. #4
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    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.
    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?

  5. #5
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,669

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

    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 reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #6
    Powered by diesel
    EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Grapeview, Washington
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,942

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

    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    No one cares about your stupid hippy logic
    "Be careful of averages, the average person has one breast and one testicle"
    -Dixy Lee Ray

  7. #7
    Sage
    Arcana XV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 10:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,412

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

    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.
    "Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?".- Northern Irish joke

  8. #8
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,669

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcana XV View Post
    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.
    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.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  9. #9
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

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

    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.


  10. #10
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,908

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

    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.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •