• 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!

The Rights Of The Parent vs Protection For The Child

PLease read the first post and vote accordingly for all that apply.

  • Child is beaten repeatedly to the point of needing medical atttention

    Votes: 24 92.3%

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

    Votes: 15 57.7%

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

    Votes: 18 69.2%

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

    Votes: 14 53.8%

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

    Votes: 20 76.9%

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

    Votes: 17 65.4%

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

    Votes: 6 23.1%

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

    Votes: 16 61.5%

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

    Votes: 24 92.3%

  • None of those situations.

    Votes: 1 3.8%
  • Total voters
    26
Redress

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,951
Reaction score
60,480
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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...
 
Last edited:
#2 was a hard call. If the parents stop, then i would leave the child, if the parents dont stop after a few incidents, than take that kid away.
 
All could potentially qualify as ample reasoning to remove the child from the household in my view. On the fence in regards to option seven, as it would be the least incriminating in my mind and most likely deserving of leniency. Good poll though.
 
I'd say all of them.
 
Good job on crafting the scenarios.

I'd support the State removing the children in scenario #1. Scenario #5 is tough to judge based simply on the black/white scenario you've sketched. People die for principles all the time so is the child old enough to understand why it is dying or too young and so the child will die to uphold the parent's principles? Unborn children die when the mother doesn't want to give birth. I can think of a view scenarios where parents would rather see their children die than face some awful outcome - being put into slavery might be one, being subjected to horrible torture might be another. With regard to this medical scenario, we know that many adults choose to avoid what they see as horrible suffering arising from cancer treatments and instead choose to let the cancer proceed until it takes their life. If they can make such a decision for themselves, then they should certainly be able to make it for their child who may be too young to decide for themselves.

I generally refrain from supporting removing children from their parents because while the immediate act of removal looks like salvation, and quite likely is salvation, there are also costs to the child which arise from being ripped away from their family. Some children can heal from those wounds but others can't and we can't predict how the children will fare for the remainder of their lives. Now, instead of the issue being clear cut - remove the child from harm's way - the issue transforms into trying to judge the lesser of the harms.

The undernourished children we can address via school lunches and thus mostly bypass having to make a tough call. The druggie parents scenarios speak to potential harm which may arise from dealing drugs from the home rather than actual harm plus neglect from the parents being stoned. This certainly isn't an ideal home life but I'm not quite sure that this justifies the State in ripping a family, even a dysfunctional family, apart and visiting a new harm on the children.
 
Last edited:
As a slight amendment, my support for state intervention in the case of Option 9 would extend to abusive nutritional practices in general. Both neglecting the most basic food needs of a child and overfeeding it to the point of crippling obesity (80 pound toddlers) could both warrant action in my opinion.
 
I take in abused kids and it's sad how CPS puts parental rights over the childs safety now. I'm fighting for a child now.... but can't say too much due to confidentiality laws. Basically a parent can almost kill their child and as long as they make minimal efforts to show they want that child back, they can get them. So very sad and unfortunate:(
 
I did not vote for #2 because the term "beaten" is too ambiguous, and could be taken to mean a child whose buttocks were bruised because of a spanking. Personally, I'm against routine corporal punishment for children; however, I have seen families where corporal punishment was used, but the children were well-cared for, happy and psychologically fit. Having the state leap in and snatch children from parents because the child was bruised during a spanking seems over-reaching and onerous to me.
 
Redress said:
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...
Click to expand...

1.) yes definitely
2.) i voted no but only based on best case scenario and not having more info. Bruises and welts are no big deal IMO if its not often and if its on the but or something like that.
also you said no medical attention is needed, hard core bruises do need medical attention so again assumed on the light side.
3.) yes definitely
4.) I voted yes but you mean illegal abusing drugs daily
5.) no, I personally dont like it but this isnt my call
6.) see #5
7.) see #5
8.) yes per your description
9.) yes i assumed you mean on purpose, starving the kid/neglect
 
DiAnna said:
I did not vote for #2 because the term "beaten" is too ambiguous, and could be taken to mean a child whose buttocks were bruised because of a spanking. Personally, I'm against routine corporal punishment for children; however, I have seen families where corporal punishment was used, but the children were well-cared for, happy and psychologically fit. Having the state leap in and snatch children from parents because the child was bruised during a spanking seems over-reaching and onerous to me.
Click to expand...

Id have to agree 100%

if that was grounds for removal of children in my day the vast majority of kids would have been removed from the home lol

what was key for me is frequency wasnt listed, location of bruises wasn't listed and it was said medical attention wasn't needed. Sever bruises do require medical attention.
 
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 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.
 
Redress said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Redress said:
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...
Click to expand...

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).
 
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?
 
RiverDad said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
The average parent, IMO, is an adequate parent...AT BEST.
 
I put yes to all but #3, since that isn't a direct danger to the child, although such parents should be imprisoned, and their children would then need to be given foster care.

It seems pretty simple to me, if the children are in danger, their safety supersedes the parent's rights.

Of course, it should be no surprise that CPS view parental rights as superseding child safety when you have a SCOTUS that say that mothers have a right to have their children murdered before a certain age. Why would such a government have any real respect for the lives of older children?
 
For those that voted yes on 5, 6, and 7

why do you feel religious rights take a back seat in this case?
 
Northern Light said:
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.
Click to expand...

What CPS actually does has nothing to do with the poll. The poll is hypothetical only. I realize what actually happens is far more complex.
 
RiverDad said:
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.
Click to expand...

For the purposes of the poll, let's assume that the children would magically be in a better situation. The issue is individual rights vs the state. This does bring up an interesting question though. You say you made your determination by comparing the cost/benefit. Where and how does rights weigh into it? A parent has some level of right to determine how a child is raised. When does that right become null and void in defense of the child?
 
joko104 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because it has nothing to do with the topic I am trying to create a discussion on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom