• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should these parents get their kid back?

Should these parents get their kid back?

  • Total voters
    30
_Sal said:
back in the day, when journalism was real, we would have been able to read more about the facts and what actually happened
Click to expand...

Journalism did not change that much - they are telling us as much as they can find out. What has changed is the ability of government to keep "public" records of "official proceedings" secret. The government naturally claims to be simply protecting "our" privacy - but how private is this matter of public policy now?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Journalism did not change that much - they are telling us as much as they can find out. What has changed is the ability of government to keep "public" records of "official proceedings" secret. The government naturally claims to be simply protecting "our" privacy - but how private is this matter of public policy now?
Click to expand...

The parents couldn't provide evidence of rulings and other such things? It's not like official decisions are made in the ether and shared telepathically with no evidence. And then there's the very idea that journalists follow rules and don't pry. They're journalists supposedly digging for the meat - the TRUTH of the story. Not just going 'okay well they said for me not to dig here'.

'Cause that's how they end up dead in warzones.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Journalism did not change that much - they are telling us as much as they can find out. What has changed is the ability of government to keep "public" records of "official proceedings" secret. The government naturally claims to be simply protecting "our" privacy - but how private is this matter of public policy now?
Click to expand...

I find the articles/news of today often partisan, laced with spelling and grammar errors, thrown together quickly and slanted to entertain. They also keep it short to ensure people can get through it...not good.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Journalism did not change that much - they are telling us as much as they can find out. What has changed is the ability of government to keep "public" records of "official proceedings" secret. The government naturally claims to be simply protecting "our" privacy - but how private is this matter of public policy now?
Click to expand...
To a great degree, I agree with this when government is involved. I believe they're actually more concerned about their 'privacy' (read: ability to hide facts for which they might catch crap) than they are the individual's privacy.
 
Last edited:
_Sal said:
I find the articles/news of today often partisan, laced with spelling and grammar errors, thrown together quickly and slanted to entertain. They also keep it short to ensure people can get through it...not good.
Click to expand...
I think part of that is an unfortunate result of the information age and the speed at which information is disseminated, and people feeling the need to be first is more important than being correct.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
The parents couldn't provide evidence of rulings and other such things? It's not like official decisions are made in the ether and shared telepathically with no evidence. And then there's the very idea that journalists follow rules and don't pry. They're journalists supposedly digging for the meat - the TRUTH of the story. Not just going 'okay well they said for me not to dig here'.

'Cause that's how they end up dead in warzones.
Click to expand...

Some things I've learned as of late.
A whole heaping lot of "journalists" are lazy, terrible at research, incredibly biased.
Yes even those in "respected" publications.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
The parents couldn't provide evidence of rulings and other such things? It's not like official decisions are made in the ether and shared telepathically with no evidence. And then there's the very idea that journalists follow rules and don't pry. They're journalists supposedly digging for the meat - the TRUTH of the story. Not just going 'okay well they said for me not to dig here'.

'Cause that's how they end up dead in warzones.
Click to expand...

The parents surely said things but as far as having offical documents (e.g. the questionable x-rays and medical reports) I doubt it. The parents likely had no motivation to further piss off the government (by going public before the trial) and thus patiently awaited their day in court. But, even after the parents "won" in court, the state still gets to do (and say/not say) whatever it wants.
 
radcen said:
I think part of that is an unfortunate result of the information age and the speed at which information is disseminated, and people feeling the need to be first is more important than being correct.
Click to expand...

I also think it is because news stations/papers are partisan...they have an agenda, they support political parties or are funded by such

in the old days the truth was more important

although we are now a rapid information world we are also often closed to possibilities which don't reinforce our held belief...in short many stick to black and white thinking, it's comforting, makes people feel they are right, others are wrong and then no further examination is necessary as the truth has been found

journalism used to be a quest for truth, it was hard hitting and real...now reality is mostly fluff pieces because that's where the money is
 
_Sal said:
I find the articles/news of today often partisan, laced with spelling and grammar errors, thrown together quickly and slanted to entertain. They also keep it short to ensure people can get through it...not good.
Click to expand...

This is often done in order to protect sources. They may well have much more yet to disclose those specifics would identify the source - making the next story impossible to come by. I am glad that at least someone is shedding light on the government policy of taking away kids, adopting them out and then having a trial.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
This is often done in order to protect sources. They may well have much more yet to disclose those specifics would identify the source - making the next story impossible to come by. I am glad that at least someone is shedding light on the government policy of taking away kids, adopting them out and then having a trial.
Click to expand...

protecting sources is important, agreed
 
_Sal said:
well that would certainly be heaven for insurance companies because they would make a killing as everyone would have to be insured to the hilt for such mistakes
Click to expand...

Good. Take everything they own including their pensions and the shirts on their backs, leave them NOTHING.
 
MaggieD said:
I finding of not guilty simply means that the state did not prove its case.

We're so black-white when we read stories like this. It's the only way to be, of course, because we only know what we know. But, in this case, because I feel so much empathy for the couple who raised this baby, I find myself looking for greys.

How DOES a normal baby (assumption) get a Vitamin D deficiency? Rickets, for heaven's sake? They may have simply tried them on the wrong charges.
Click to expand...

So they must be found guilty and punished, even if there is absolutely no evidence to support the absolute declaration of guilt?

i find that nonsensical.

It's called innocent until proven guilty, at least in a court of law.

And you need evidence to prove guilt or wrong doing.

But who cares about that, right. If I say they are guilty, they must have done something wrong and msut never get their child returned.

The horrible horrible monsters those parents are.
 
Ancient Herald said:
So they must be found guilty and punished, even if there is absolutely no evidence to support the absolute declaration of guilt?

i find that nonsensical.

It's called innocent until proven guilty, at least in a court of law.

And you need evidence to prove guilt or wrong doing.

But who cares about that, right. If I say they are guilty, they must have done something wrong and msut never get their child returned.

The horrible horrible monsters those parents are.
Click to expand...

Deep breaths. Don't yell at me about it, I'm not the one who deprived them of due process.
 
MaggieD said:
Deep breaths. Don't yell at me about it, I'm not the one who deprived them of due process.
Click to expand...

Sorry Maggie, but I am incredibly tired of this mentality from many people.
 
MisterLogical said:
That auctually does not apply at all in this case. It would apply in the case if the courts had an auctual case to take the child away. Since the case has not yet been proven, they are basically just saying "We are going to take your child away because we want to". If child custody wants to take your children away they should have a auctual reason. Since the case is yet to be resolved, they have 0 rights to actually take the kid and put him into adoption right away. Since their case was not proven.

Its kind of like the cops taking your 14 year old away and moving him to another city with another family. So you ask what the charge is. So they say they heard a rumor that you are a drug addict. Unless its proven you are a drug addict they have no reason to take the kid. That means they are just taking the kid at random, since they felt like it. That is a major abuse of power there. This entire case is a bunch of BS!
Click to expand...

First, not sure if you read my post correctly as nothing you said here really relates to what I said.

Second, they did have a good reason to take the kid away from the parents, they thought that the child was being abused. I have no problem with that particular part. But once the parents were cleared of any wrong doing then they should have immediately returned the child to them and at the very least given them a profuse apology.
 
Kal'Stang said:
First, not sure if you read my post correctly as nothing you said here really relates to what I said.

Second, they did have a good reason to take the kid away from the parents, they thought that the child was being abused. I have no problem with that particular part. But once the parents were cleared of any wrong doing then they should have immediately returned the child to them and at the very least given them a profuse apology.
Click to expand...

No, they only have a reason to remove CUSTODY if the case is proven. When they remove a child they are suppose to do an investigation, and since they did not go through the process they just kind of took the kid, its basically follow witch trial rules. She is a witch? Okay lets burn her. Wait should we not gather evidence and make a case first. Oh no that would take too much time, we got things to do, lets burn her tomorrow.
 
Kal'Stang said:
First, not sure if you read my post correctly as nothing you said here really relates to what I said.

Second, they did have a good reason to take the kid away from the parents, they thought that the child was being abused. I have no problem with that particular part. But once the parents were cleared of any wrong doing then they should have immediately returned the child to them and at the very least given them a profuse apology.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Based on one person's accusation of possible (probable?) child abuse they not only remove custody but also allow adoption and about three years later decide to actually try the case. Is that your idea of justice? How generous of you to recommend an apology. ;)
 
The answer is yes and now.

Aside from being 'fair' and 'right', the reality is that this is and will be a public case. As a 3 year old that child will be fine...especially if the transition is handled appropriately. But no matter what, that kid is going to be 6 and then 9 and 12...and its going to know the circumstances. If the concern is truly the welfare of the child and not just an unwillingness of the court to admit they made a mistake, then immediate custody is in the best interest of the child.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Good. Take everything they own including their pensions and the shirts on their backs, leave them NOTHING.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. If it wasn't the government that kidnapped someones kid and then gave that kid to someone else everyone would have no problem holding that person responsible, but when it's a dickhead judge and a few assholes from government then all of a sudden we can't hold them directly responsible because that would be bad.

Bull****ing****.
 
MisterLogical said:
No, they only have a reason to remove CUSTODY if the case is proven. When they remove a child they are suppose to do an investigation, and since they did not go through the process they just kind of took the kid, its basically follow witch trial rules. She is a witch? Okay lets burn her. Wait should we not gather evidence and make a case first. Oh no that would take too much time, we got things to do, lets burn her tomorrow.
Click to expand...

And if the child is being abused? You would have them stay with the abusive parents while an investigation is done? Give the parents time to even further abuse the child? Perhaps even leave the area so that they can continue to abuse the kids? Is that the standard that you want?
 
Kal'Stang said:
And if the child is being abused? You would have them stay with the abusive parents while an investigation is done? Give the parents time to even further abuse the child? Perhaps even leave the area so that they can continue to abuse the kids? Is that the standard that you want?
Click to expand...

No, I said in my last comment that they should give the child to a temporary foster family or foster care center. Which they have done before. The issue was not that they placed him with new parents, its that they tried to place him with permenent replacement parents before they finished charging the parents.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you kidding me? Based on one person's accusation of possible (probable?) child abuse they not only remove custody but also allow adoption and about three years later decide to actually try the case. Is that your idea of justice? How generous of you to recommend an apology. ;)
Click to expand...

I would rather the child be safe during an investigation than kept in a possibly abusive home.

In this particular case there was a doctor who claimed that there was child abuse happening based on bruising and fractures in the bone and a vitamin D deficiency. All of those are signs of abuse. It took an investigation to find out that it wasn't abuse. And an investigation takes time. I have no problem with a child being removed from the care of possibly abusive parents until after an investigation concludes whether they are guilty or not. Found guilty, send em to prison. Found innocent, GIVE THE CHILD BACK.

And as I have said already, more than once, I am absolutely against the fact that this child was adopted out before the conclusion of any full investigation and before any court found them guilty. I am also on record in this thread stating unequivocally that this was a violation of these parents Rights and that they should get the child back.
 
MisterLogical said:
No, I said in my last comment that they should give the child to a temporary foster family or foster care center. Which they have done before. The issue was not that they placed him with new parents, its that they tried to place him with permenent replacement parents before they finished charging the parents.
Click to expand...

Then I do not see what issue we are having. I have said the same thing.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Of course they should get their child back. It was wrong for the court to have adopted the child out in the first place. To deny these parents their right is wrong and imo is tyrannical.
Click to expand...

But should the mental health and happiness of the child not be paramount in this case? However sad for the parents, if it would scar the child for life, maybe it is in the child's best interest to be left where it now is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom