(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.