Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games)

Journal Chacham's Journal: Editorial: On Removing a child from a family. 21

Journal by Chacham

(This is a continuation from the last JE. It is a separate JE, since it deals with a separate issue.)

In the editorial she asks, "When should a third party have the terrible right to separate a child from its parents?" The word "terrible" is very appropriate. Unfortunately, it never seems to be reported that way.

Removing a child from a family is a terrible thing. For the parents and for the child. In some rare cases the parent is actively trying to kill the child, in which case the state *must* step in in order to protect the child. Even so, when the child is removed, it should be done ever so reluctantly.

In some cases the family is broken because the state disagrees with the family's beliefs. The reasoning would be, that the family cannot coerce the child to have their beliefs. Who then gave the state the right to coerce the child (and his parents!) to have their beliefs?

All in all, i think the child must always be asked what they think. If the child enjoys being hit, so be it. The state can educate the child otherwise, but ultimately it is his decision. (The same is the case for a battered spouse. If he doesn't complain, the state cannot step in.) And if someone thinks the child is too young to make the decision, who then should make it? The state? The parents should! And the parents are obviously for it. Unless the child disagrees and wants to leave, in which case the state has been invited in to represent the child.

Every time i hear the "protection" services ripped apart a family it hurts. It'd probably be better to destroy that horrid agency, and instead make it a division of the police or the FBI. That way, they do their evil deeds much less often, and possibly stick to the real cases.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Editorial: On Removing a child from a family. More

Editorial: On Removing a child from a family.

Comments Filter:
  • If the child enjoys being hit, so be it. The state can educate the child otherwise, but ultimately it is his decision.

    Before I respond to the above comment and overall editorial, please clarify the above comment quoted comment.

    I recognize that this is a written media and as such one cannot always be certain of true meaning.
    • Basically, even in a scenario where the child is being abused, the child may want the abuse, in that he can stay with the parent. (Battered spouses routinely make this decision.) The point here is the will of the child. We cannot decide what is better for the child. Only the child can.

      I do not agree with the reason that children cannot decide. Ultimately, they know where they want to be, and they also understand what it entails. And if they choose abuse, that's their business. Of course, as a child, and a
      • If a child is being physically harmed by a parent, but when asked replies that he wants to stay with the abusive parent, then the child should stay?

        Are you seriously promoting the idea that an abused child should not be removed from harm?

        Really?

        I've read your response twice now and I have to be honest, I think you are way off on this point and I can not think of ANY reason you could seriously promote this idea. There is no benefit. There is no good in your point. None.

        Have you actually "listened" to yo
        • If a child is being physically harmed by a parent, but when asked replies that he wants to stay with the abusive parent, then the child should stay?

          Absolutely. To me, the worst possible thing that we can do to anyone, is going against their will. Children too have a will. It is no different than an adults will.

          Are you seriously promoting the idea that an abused child should not be removed from harm?

          Harm to what? To life? Yes. To bodily injury, not against their will. Although, in the case of bodily in
          • For the life of me, I can't see your logic. I don't understand how you can support such nonsense.

            And I will leave it at that, because I don't think that you are the least bit open-minded; in fact, you are fixed in your beliefs (however egregiously wrong they may be).
  • DaytonCIM (on your foes list) asked a question in response to this JE [slashdot.org]. I'm not sure why you foed him, but if it's for language, be assured that his post is clean, and it is a question that, I think, needs to be answered.
  • I do not believe that children should be placed with physically abusive parents under any circumstances. For the sake of this conversation, we can let "physical abuse" mean whatever you personally would consider "physical abuse" provided that doesn't include light spankings or other punishment that does not leave a mark.

    During my parents' divorce there was a nasty custody battle. My brother and I, at the time ages 8 and 11, were invited in front of the judge to share our desires about which parent we wan
    • That's why i believe in education. Ultimately, though, i think the person's will is most important.

      We as a society want happy, healthy children, and we want whole, stable adults.

      But doesn't that then impose our will on the children? There are some cases where it is self-evident that when the child grows up he would have agreed to have been overruled. However, AFAIK that has not yet been established. Especially since battered spouses choose to stay. Why not a battered child?

      • Children are genetically predisposed to love their parents. In nearly all cases this love means they want to be with them, regardless of abuse. That means that in nearly all cases, whether it is good for them or not, they want to stay with an abusive parent. Therefore, someone who is able to step out of the situation and see what is good for them must do so. Their will isn't important. Their well-being is.

        However, AFAIK that has not yet been established.

        What do you mean by that? Are you saying i

        • Their will isn't important. Their well-being is.

          That where i disagree. Will is overhwlemingly important. Though, if we want to change it, we can educate.

          >However, AFAIK that has not yet been established.

          What do you mean by that? Are you saying it has yet to be established that there are cases where a child would agree they should have been overruled when they were adults?

          Yes. But not just that there *are*, rather it is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of people who went through this.

          Most

          • That where education comes in.

            That's not where education comes in. There is no amount of education that will change the fact that what often happens when women leave is that their husbands come after them. Their belief that their husbands will hurt them is based upon a very real statistic, and no amount of education to those women will change that statistic. Perhaps we could teach them how to disappear completely, and maybe then that would change the stat, and also subsequently, their minds, but that

            • That's not where education comes in. There is no amount of education that will change the fact that what often happens when women leave is that their husbands come after them.

              The education should be centered on what she can do to stay safe. Also, in the other cases, that love and sustenance can come from other sources.

              that still believes in freedom of religion enough to separate their church and state on a theoretical basis, but as far as practicality goes, there is culturally very little separation.

              S
              • I just disagree. To properly educate a child or adult as you describe means taking them away from their circumstance. There isn't time to educate a four year old before returning him to his physically abusive parent, even in six months. What do you do, take the kid away until they're twelve, during which time you educate them, and then let them make a choice? That's exactly what I was saying about taking battered women away for a year. They can't be educated unless they are out of the situation. Look
                • What do you do, take the kid away until they're twelve, during which time you educate them, and then let them make a choice?

                  No. Talk to them whenever they will listen.

                  Just curiously, are you a parent?

                  No.

                  I ask because your statement "To not respect their will is to not respect the person," is one that any parent of a teenager I know will disagree with.

                  I do believe in parental rights. And they overpower the child as long as he is relying on the parent. The child's will is looked at when the state be

                  • If they can't, we make the decision for them.

                    Exactly. That's exactly my point. Children who are physically abused are also psychologically abused. They can't make the choice themselves. Someone else has to make the choice for them based upon their well-being. Maybe you are right that education makes a difference; if they are removed from the setting long enough to deal with the psychological trauma that accompanies the complex emotions of being unjustly hurt by someone they are genetically preprogra

                    • Maybe you are right that education makes a difference;

                      That's my point. When the person cannot be taught (their mental ability is nonexistent) we should make the choice for him based on what most people in his situation would want. A child, however, can make the decision. The difference is the child may have fears of leaving or other thoughts based on non-knowledge. Education is the answer in that case. Though, I would argue, that such education should happen without removing the child from the home. I hav

                    • I have io idea how that would work, but, it isn't as important as the point that the child himself must make the choice.

                      Well if you don't know how it would work, and you can't propose a plan that would work, then your idea workes purely in theory and totally useless to the rest of the world. I thought you were talking about what could *really* be done, not what could *theoretically* be done in a perfect world. Really, there's no way it would work. I teach three-year-olds once a fortnight, and I can pr

                    • I think it would work, if done properly. How to do it properly would require research. And, theory is very important. Reality is a compromise. But if we don't know what we are compromising on, the compromise can get out-of-hand. Knowing the theory puts the entire thing in perspective.

                      People are afraid of the CPS. They have the power to destroy families, and as such they strike terror wherever they appear. Look at home schooling web sites. Many have a link as to how to combat the CPS. Such as you don't have
                    • There is no CPS in my state. There is DCFS (Department of Child and Family Services), which does not strike the fear in the hearts of people. I know many families who have homechooled their kids, and of those, I know of none that have ever had to deal with DCFS for anything.

                      What you state about disregarding children is not something I have experienced or even noticed even in states where there is a CPS. In another state in which I've had the pleasure of living and being intimately involved with CPS and
                    • OK, we disagree. I still give will great importance. As long as the person wants it, i think we cannot step in., This is more than consent, this is will.

                      The reason i say CPS, is because it describes what most people recognize. I don't mean to say they exist in every state. I also know a family that was reported to them. A neighbor didn't like them, so they got a visit. Luckily they didn't do anything. The US believes that we should let nine guilty parties should go free rather than incarcerating one innoce

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close