State's Right to Take Away Children
 

First, let me ask that we keep things civil and prevent this from devolving in to a left vs. right-fox-news-and-HITLER discussion.

Mom upset after school sends son to psych ward - Health - Mental health - msnbc.com


See Also:

Under Constitutional law, states have a 'police power' to define what is right and wrong and basically ensure the safety of its citizens. In the past, cases of child neglect resulting in death of the child have spurred legislators to create child protection and social work agencies to safeguard the children.

However, the issue arises when state workers seek to define *how* a child should be raised, and what is and is not *unacceptable.* This runs up against a line of cases which give parents broad latitude in how to raise their child. See for example, Meyer v. Nebraska, Troxel v. Granville, Wisconsin v. Yoder. In contrast, the Supreme Court HAS permitted state intervention on how a parent may raise their child in Prince v. Massachusetts, where the court held that a 'parent' could not stand on the street corner and proselytize with their child since the child is of "a tender age and places the child in situations difficult enough for adults to cope with and wholly inappropriate for children."

================================================

My concern arises in that child protection agencies seem to target the poor.

In a frontline report, we see where a fresh faced Bachelor Degree'd 20 something year old badgers a poor and economically destitute woman in to accepting all sorts of counseling under threat of taking their child away. In addition, these workers spout of theories of 'psychological damage' which frankly are unsupported.

frontline: failure to protect: caseworker files: three cases | PBS

You also see cases where an abusive, alcoholic father has his child taken away--yet the child and the father really love each other and want to be together.

Yet, the state should not sit idly by and let children fall victim to their neglectful parents who don't feed them and cause children to die hunger, or worse, physical abuse.

===========================

Where should states draw the line between overstepping their bounds to interfere with a parents right to raise their own children? When is it proper for the state to take away a child for their safety?

Discuss. :)

(I personally am libertarian and do not like states imposing what they perceive as an unhealthy environment on people who choose to live alternative lifestyles. The Supreme Court's Meyer v. Nebraska decision seems to support pluralism, of which I am a fan. This nation thrives on a market of ideas, and that market should support pluralistic notions.)

This is a tough issue. I suspect that it's the type of thing which is too complicated to be solved by vague idealism. I think that when situations become acute and lives and safety are in jeopardy, the state has an obligation to step in. That there are situations which lack certainty means that occasionally children will be separated from their parents needlessly.

These occasional needless separations are unavoidable and regrettable. However, all actions carry with them the risk of being needless. Our criminal justice system has a greater than zero false conviction rate and the marketplace frequently runs with less than optimal efficiency and frequently produces results that are in nobody's long term interest.

The short answer: shit happens, nothing's perfect. We should pay attention to idealism only as a means of pointing us in the right direction on our way to deriving sensible and realistic solutions to our problems.

It is a tough one. I would think it appropriate, perhaps, to send the child to a guidance counselor to delve a little deeper. At that point, the counselor might call in the parent or visit the home to see if the child is at risk.

I think this is an attempt, however, to put concern for the child ahead of the rights of the adult. In my book, the kid always wins, even if it tramples the parents' rights.

I agree that it is a touchy issue. And it's quite possible that it is a case of the school and state workers over-reacting. It would be helpful if we could actually see the drawing.

Here's the judgmental part, though. Why is a troubled six-year-old who's father is in Iraq playing violent video games? Is that an alternative lifestyle? Or just unthoughtful parenting?

I sort of agree with Jewels, I would always default on the side of the child's health and well-being. Not saying that what was done was necessarily the right thing because I wasn't there. But I won't go too far to find fault with the way it was handled.

Were the school officers only concerned, because he drew this picture? How was the boy behaving otherwise?

It's really hard to say if such extreme way to handle the case was necessary. I would think drawing itself is therapy. When a child of that age talks about dying, I wouldn't really think he yet is about to do something bad to himself. The bigger threat to harm themselves would brew inside those, who don't say anything.

Doesn't really sound like the child's rights were taken in count here either, if the incident caused more anxiety to him.

this is what happens when parents demand that schools babysit their kids and then when something goes wrong, sues the school district forcing the government to change the laws so that they have more power to prevent issues that promote lawsuits. good luck getting your parental power back from the government.

That's the hard part. A parent making unwise decisions is not necessarily an abusive parent. Or is it? It's impossible to draw a solid line.

It's sad that the child had to suffer more anxiety, but definitely not nearly as traumatic as it would be if an intervention had saved him from something worse.

As a parent, it worries me when someone has a view to a situation that may not be as it appears. But if it was my child, while I might take offense at first, I would understand that they were looking out for the welfare of my child and open my home to investigation, if need be, and minimize the anxiety for my child by opening up a discussion to increase my own child's awareness.

---------- Post added at 08:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 AM ----------

Maybe if parents learned to parent, the government wouldn't need to be called in to protect innocent children.

You have a better solution?

What bothers me here is the actions of school personnel make it seem like they didn't know this kid very well, if they drastically decided to call medics to handle the situation.

Seeing as how I have no children, I don't work with children, and I often go months on end without interacting with a child, I don't particularly feel qualified to address this topic. I wouldn't play a role in any policiy decisions that revolve around the topic. But I still have an opinion.

There are clear cases of neglect and abuse which should be dealt with on the community level. A neighbor who observes children living in a feces-encrusted, malnourished state should not allow the behavior to go unchecked. In an ideal world, the problem would be addressed by friends and family stepping in to take care of the child when a parent is not mentally stable or adequately educated. But with the state of poverty in America, where entire city sectors of zombie-like hoardes are trapped in a drug/acohol enduced, filthy, illiterate, crime-ridden haze... no one is present with the means to step in and make a better community. Those who care about their future get out of these hell-holes as soon as they can, opting for more promising city sectors with gates, locks, and a lack of public transportation. Those with the wherewithal to remain find themselves victimized and living in fear, unwilling to allow their children to socialize with the neighborhood kids, trapping them instead indoors with video games and the internet as their only social outlet. They are home-schooled or driven across town to a mroe well-to-do academy so they have no opportunity to interact with the children of their zombie-neighbors - effectively reducing the hope of the children of these zombies to see another side of life, one where they are not abused and neglected.

Since we are unwilling to live as united communities, our government steps in to assign people the responsibility of looking out for our neighbors. These social workers are over-worked, underpaid, and dealing with all of the negative harsh realities of grim poverty on a daily basis. What could have been a simple job for a group of concerned neighbors has morphed into a thankless living nightmare for a relative few well-intentioned government employees. Over time they grow immune to the tears and find themselves jumping in to solve the most difficult of social problems. Yet in their enthusiasm for improving the lives of young people, they occasionally jump to conclusions. A child with brittle bone syndrome is taken away from parents with language barriers who cannot communicate their child's medical needs with authorities. A child with haemophilia who bruises easily is taken from gentle, loving single parent who, in their rush to get to work, forgot to explain her child's medical condition to a new daycare provider. A premature infant is taken away from her petite parents because she was below the growth chart's suggested weight three times in a row during her regular WIC checkups. The list goes on. These outlying situations force well-intentioned and loving parents to step in and take a stand to regain custody of their offspring. Usually the battles are expensive and frustrating, but they are eventually met with apology and proper placement back into the child's rightful home.

If all funding were cut to state and federal child services, I don't think that non-profits, community churches, and others would be able to stand up to the formidable task before them. More children would fall through the cracks.

being a parent instead of trying to be their childs 'best friend' would go a long way to correcting some of the issues. i've seen parents forego punishing their snowflake for what would otherwise be a serious crime, all to just ensure they didn't damage their 'friendship' with the kid. Of course, when a majority of parents adopt this syle of parenting, resulting in a dramatic increase of juvenile delinquency, the gov is sure to step in and take away your responsibility....not that the 'parents' wanted that responsibility anyway

The fact remains, there are children that need protecting.

I agree that many parents need to learn how to discipline their children; it was an issue even back in the days when parents acted like parents. Often, the parents who beat their kids and sent them to church were the ones abusing them. That's probably why we have so many fucked up parents today.

So while we wait for these perfect parents' arrival, what should we about the kids who are being abused now?

Truth is, when it comes to children, schools and government workers are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
If they don't act and something happens, they are vilified.
If they over-react, they are vilified.
If they act appropriately, no one is paying attention.

I don't envy them their responsibilities.

Not just vilified, but the township/city/municipality will be forced to shell out millions in damages. All these draconian policies are in place not to necessarily protect the children, but to limit financial exposure in a lawsuit.

Here shows, that I live in rural area, where most families know each other and teachers. They are aware of each others' backgrounds as well.

Parents and schools are too much separate from each other it seems.

Yet it doesn't strike through here as much that more extreme actions would be taken in fear of lawsuits.

as it stands now, we have two choices.
1) the state has all power to determine if you get to take your kids or not, with only their level of proof that they need to do so,

or

2) go back to the state having extremely limited power in removing kids in only the most dire of circumstances with the KNOWN risk of some children may not get removed in time. in which case, we cannot blame the state for not taking action soon enough.

That article is almost completely emotional drivel. A team of psychiatric experts determined that this kid needed help, and yet the article is acting like the mother was victimized by the state. There's no evidence in the article to suggest that the team of psychiatrists made any mistake.
States shouldn't draw the line, but rather should look to the best science available. This is why psychology and psychiatry exist. The same way medicine exists to understand and deal with the health of the body, psychology and psychiatry exist to deal with the health of the mind. If the kid in the article was coming to school with serious medical symptoms and the school called 911, no one would be questioning this.

It's proper for the leading experts in the area of child psychology to share their best understanding with the state so that the state can make the best objective ruling on when a child needs help a parent can't provide.

putting this kind of power in to the hands of the state WILL leave it open to rampant ideological abuse. I can imagine seeing kids removed from their homes because they don't believe in God. it's all the parents fault for not teaching them about God.

I'm sure you can imagine a lot of things, that hardly makes them likely.

This kid was seen by a team of psychiatric professionals and they determined that he was at risk. That's not a slippery slope to tyranny, but rather 'the state' stepping in and getting experts to make determinations parents aren't qualified to make. I don't see anywhere in the article that the mother is a trained psychologist or psychiatrist, and I don't see any examples of the state overstepping it's authority.

Will-

The mother offered to take the child immediately to the therapist who already had a relationship with the child. It isn't as if she had blinders on. Nanny state.

I don't know that I trust the science of psychology enough to have unquestioning faith in the abilities of unnamed state (or any) psychologists.

Experts in hard sciences like engineering are occasionally wrong. I don't feel particularly willing to put the sanctity of my family in the hands of an expert who might just be riding the newest yet to be discarded theory (though I recognize the unfortunate necessity of such an arrangement).

Not all mental health professionals are qualified to deal with a suicidal child.

Also, she got her son back right when they said he'd be back.
What about your stance on universal healthcare,though? Do you see medicine and psychology as being so different?

i'm sure that's how you see it. Some of us don't see it that way.

I don't necessarily trust medical doctors more than I trust psychologists. Medical doctors typically lack a thorough understanding of the statistical methods that make medical research meaningful. In addition, even if they did have the math down, they frequently lack the time or inclination to read published research with a sufficiently critical eye.

On top of that, I've lost count of the number of times I've gone to the doctor only to leave with a shrug from the doctor, a "maybe this will help" prescription and a $400 bill for my troubles.

A lot depends on how the kid was handled during and after. If the kid was hurt some other way, hit his head for example, and there was reason to fear for more serious damage or was about to bleed to death, he would be taken to intensive care as soon as possible.

This would be a traumatic experience, but he would understand later, it was necessary to haste to save his life.

I'm still not that convinced yet, this boy was in such acute state, there was no time to consult the parents at first or let them take care of him. Who says the school officials were more familiar with his condition than his own mother. Not knowing how the system works, they were though the first to decide, the boy needs help. When they contacted the medics, did they decide to take him away based on the officials' phone call or did someone come to make an estimate first?

From what I read, I get the impression his mother was there, when the ambulance took him away.

Fuckin' a, Will! "Yeah, the government stole my kid from me, but they brought him back as soon as they were done with him". :thumbsup:

did they tell her where they were taking him? if not, wouldn't that qualify as 'rendition'?

Probably "the mines". A couple of days of hard labor would make the little fuck appreciate how good his life is.:rolleyes:

From now on he will be drawing himself in speeding ambulances titled "I don't wanna die!"...

I am a mandatory reporter, and mixed, in the future, you will be too.

I HAVE to report if I see something suspicious. In my mind, it's safer to report and let the system take it from there. Even if the system is broken, I have to hope that it works when we need it to work.

I have gone through training to "recognize and report child abuse and neglect." I'm probably better trained than most people I work with, because not only have I completed the state-mandated training, but also took a class on child abuse and neglect during the course of working on my degree in early childhood education. That has to be the most depressing class I've ever taken. Ten weeks of studying how people hurt children is terrible. I had to write a research paper during the class, and since I am a mandatory reporter because of my profession, I chose to write my paper about mandatory reporting laws. They are important--they really do make a difference in combating child abuse and neglect. Mandatory reporters, especially teachers, see the children they work with every day, and see the children for longer stretches of time than anyone else in their lives. Even when things go wrong--like the scenario presented in the OP--it's important that mandatory reporters still report.

I understand completely your point of view as someone, who has to report. You might be accused of neglecting your duties, if you didn't.

Teachers shouldn't have to be social workers. Many teachers complain this. They have to spend too much time on other things than teaching. Yet at the age of six the kids here are still in preschool phase, so those who work with them are expected more care taking than those who teach older kids.

In this particular case, I wonder how close cooperation home and school has. Do teachers regularly talk about, how the kids overall are doing and tell parents their views and ask theirs.

A few years ago there was a school shooting in the country. Young adult student killed several of his schoolmates. Every school was in alerted stage, because they were afraid this might happen elsewhere.

After this incident, in another school a teenage boy made an unfortunate joke of bringing gun to school and the teachers immediately called police to take him in for questioning. Not many would have accused teachers of overreacting under those circumstances.