NationStates Jolt Archive

I just had a question pop up in my head, and I'm interested to see some answers:

Say there was a really dysfunctional family. The parents are always drunk, neither has an education or income to speak of, they live in the slums somewhere off welfare money. They don't beat or otherwise abuse their kids, they simply don't teach them anything, don't make sure they do homework or otherwise worry about their education or future prospects in life.

Would you think it right to take these kids away from this family (even against their will and the will of the parents) and put them in some other family or home where people will pay attention to them getting a decent education?

Why/Why not?

No, because two wrongs do not make a right and if anyone makes that stupid joke, I will force them to listen to Britney Spears, and not when she was good either.

What should be done in this case is have the parents brought up on negligence charges.

Would you think it right to take these kids away from this family (even against their will and the will of the parents) and put them in some other family or home where people will pay attention to them getting a decent education?

Why/Why not?

Short answer: NO!

Reason: Morality and belief in what a "proper" parent should be is not grounds for legislation. For example: There are people in this country (the US) who believe that anyone who owns a firearm should have their children taken away.

Parenting is subjective.

Would I choose to raise my kids in a home where the parents are drunk all the time and living on welfare and indifferent to the education of the children? No. I wouldn't.

Would I deny someone else's right to do so? No. I wouldn't.

I don't believe in eugenics. "Fit" and "Not Fit" when it comes to parents is arbitrary speculation.

There are people in this country who believe that because I am a leftist-liberal Kucinich supporter who believes in decriminalized marijuana and socialized medicine, then I should have my kids taken away.

Well ... you can take my kids away when you pry them from my cold, dead hand.

Dear god I agree with a Ron Paul supporter!

Hell has frozen over!!!

Hehehe :D (good natured ribbing)

If Robot Chicken has taught us anything, Hell has already frozen over when the nerd made love to the hot chick. ;)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zn6oGNpJvJ4

Parenting is subjective.
Failing to get an education beyond the 5th grade isn't.

I just had a question pop up in my head, and I'm interested to see some answers:

Say there was a really dysfunctional family. The parents are always drunk, neither has an education or income to speak of, they live in the slums somewhere off welfare money. They don't beat or otherwise abuse their kids, they simply don't teach them anything, don't make sure they do homework or otherwise worry about their education or future prospects in life.

Would you think it right to take these kids away from this family (even against their will and the will of the parents) and put them in some other family or home where people will pay attention to them getting a decent education?

Why/Why not?

Probably not, but depends. They're drunk all the time? Do they feed their kids, do they clothe them etc. If not then there may be grounds for parental abuse or negligence and that may indeed justify a foster home. But if it was against the will of the child, even after explaining the situation to them as best as possible, then it probably isn't bad enough to warrant taking them away. Then again if the kids is like "yeah get me the fuck out of here" then go for it, otherwise he'll likely end up on the street.

Difficult to say because the specifics of each situation determine my position, and the specifics are gonna be different in each case.

No, because two wrongs do not make a right

Dear god I agree with a Ron Paul supporter!

Hell has frozen over!!!

Hehehe :D (good natured ribbing)

Probably not, but depends. They're drunk all the time? Do they feed their kids, do they clothe them etc. If not then there may be grounds for parental abuse or negligence and that may indeed justify a foster home.
No, the only point is that their lack of engagement deprives their kids of the ability to succeed materially in the future, and basically condemns them to a life in poverty.

Reason: Morality and belief in what a "proper" parent should be is not grounds for legislation.
I should also mention that I'm not asking whether there should be a law, but whether you would consider it the right thing to do.

If Robot Chicken has taught us anything, Hell has already frozen over when the nerd made love to the hot chick. ;)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zn6oGNpJvJ4


Lol @ Robot Chicken. :D

Does make me wonder, though ... just how many times has Hell frozen over? Sounds like a new thread to me!

Lol @ Robot Chicken. :D

Does make me wonder, though ... just how many times has Hell frozen over? Sounds like a new thread to me!

If you make it, they'll post in it. :)

I should also mention that I'm not asking whether there should be a law, but whether you would consider it the right thing to do.

There is no right or wrong in the United States, there is only Law.

By law, if an 18 year old has sex with their 17 year old girl/boy friend, this is statuatory rape. Period. That's the Law.

18 = Consenting
17 = Not

This is "zero tolerance" in action and that is the way of the US.

Is what you ask "right"? No, of course it's not right. We don't pick our parents. As suck ass as they may be, they're still our parents.

Law? Well ... that's a whole different matter.

There is no right or wrong in the United States, there is only Law.
I don't care about the States, I care about your opinion.

I don't care about the States, I care about your opinion.

Well in my opinion, No. For better or worse, the parents are the parents.

They may suck, but they're the parents.

We don't all get born with great parents and it's only a symptom of eugenics that says we're entitled to the best parents money can buy.

If you make it, they'll post in it. :)

Done and done! :D

I just had a question pop up in my head, and I'm interested to see some answers:

Say there was a really dysfunctional family. The parents are always drunk, neither has an education or income to speak of, they live in the slums somewhere off welfare money. They don't beat or otherwise abuse their kids, they simply don't teach them anything, don't make sure they do homework or otherwise worry about their education or future prospects in life.

Would you think it right to take these kids away from this family (even against their will and the will of the parents) and put them in some other family or home where people will pay attention to them getting a decent education?

Why/Why not?

Are we talking about the US here?

First problem, people can no longer obtain welfare for more than 5 years their entire life since welfare reform in 1991. The "live off welfare" doesn't exist anymore here in the US.

The problem with child abuse is never about "teach your kids to do homework". It's more about rather or not the kid have life threatening danger being in that living environment.

I am almost certain that hardly anyone got their kids taken away by neglect alone. At most they will get are warnings. What people get their kids taken away for is physical and sexual abuse, not meeting minimal financial requirements (including income and living condition). Naturally teenage single mothers suffer the most from the combination of the neglect/financial requirement laws.

It really depends on the situation, and a lot of times even if you get to know them you can't really tell. It's never an easy decision to make. If anyone know anything about child abuse, children gets killed by their parents all the time. At the same time there's such a limited supplies of foster parents that sometimes you end up putting a kid with a "not so qualify" ones and end up getting the kid killed. It's really not something you can just put a yes or a no on. Most caseworkers do their best not to take away someone's child but sometime it's necessary to keep the kid from being killed.

And truth is most of the time kids want to remain with their family even if it's an abusive one, and the parents will almost never want their kids taken away.

here are some info on child abuse
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/index.htm

There's also a book call "The Vulnerable Child" by Richard Weisshound if you want to know more about casework on child abuse.

I just had a question pop up in my head, and I'm interested to see some answers:

Say there was a really dysfunctional family. The parents are always drunk, neither has an education or income to speak of, they live in the slums somewhere off welfare money. They don't beat or otherwise abuse their kids, they simply don't teach them anything, don't make sure they do homework or otherwise worry about their education or future prospects in life.

Would you think it right to take these kids away from this family (even against their will and the will of the parents) and put them in some other family or home where people will pay attention to them getting a decent education?

Why/Why not?
Um... the Stolen Generation didn't work out too well the first time around. Why are you questioning it now?

Why are you questioning it now?
It's really a question about positive and negative liberty. A kid growing up in that family will have very little positive liberty as an adult because it won't have received an education.

But to create that positive freedom in the future, one would require a pretty massive violation of the kid's and family's negative liberty.

So far it seems like either people refuse to understand the question I'm asking, or negative liberty just plain trumps positive freedom in the minds of people when it actually comes down to it.

It's really a question about positive and negative liberty. A kid growing up in that family will have very little positive liberty as an adult because it won't have received an education.

But to create that positive freedom in the future, one would require a pretty massive violation of the kid's and family's negative liberty.

So far it seems like either people refuse to understand the question I'm asking, or negative liberty just plain trumps positive freedom in the minds of people when it actually comes down to it.
I would say no because, yes, if you do take that child away, you MAY provide a better education and PERHAPS a brighter future, but the problems you deal THEN will be immediate and real (I.e. the stolen generation along with the Indian Schools in the US. I'm sure Nesska (Sorry, can't spell) will say the same about the issue in Canada). It also assumes that the government's culture is superior than the parent's. Since the child is not in physical danger, taking away the child and subjecting that child to the issues and problems that brings is very harmful. The better way would be to educate the parents in educating their children.

Though I doubt this happens too often, I'm sure some kind of special education program can be set up for the children, and the parents educated on parenting techniques.

-snip-
I was quite careful in not trying to mention the state in the OP. If you want, assume that the whole thing is a private operation.

As for the cultural issues, I think they just muddy the waters on what is a fairly straightforward question in principle. Just assume it's a white family living in some trailer.

I was quite careful in not trying to mention the state in the OP. If you want, assume that the whole thing is a private operation.
Then it is even worse. I might decide that the money in your wallet would be put to much better use and have a far better return if it was in MY wallet, but that is theft and there are many reasons why, no matter how good of intentions you have have, it's not right.

As for the cultural issues, I think they just muddy the waters on what is a fairly straightforward question in principle. Just assume it's a white family living in some trailer.
It's not a fairly straightforward question though. Humans are attached to their culture, so considering it and the harm it would bring is indeed something that must be done. Again though, I would say that in taking the child you are causing great harm for what might possibly be a better life. We KNOW harm will happen if the child is taken, but since the child is not in danger (I.e. removing him or her from a clear, present and greater harm), causing harm on a maybe isn't right.

Failing to get an education beyond the 5th grade isn't.

They have taken kids away before for "educational neglect" although mostly they take away homeschooled kids for that, and mostly because some idiot neighbor calls DHS because the kids are playing outside during "school hours", they took my friend's kids away but had to give them back after the kids passed the grade level tests above grade level. I haven't ever heard of them taking kids away who are in public school here, even though many of them perform below grade level and their parents are uninterested in helping them.

No, because two wrongs do not make a right and if anyone makes that stupid joke, I will force them to listen to Britney Spears, and not when she was good either.

What should be done in this case is have the parents brought up on negligence charges.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

I just had a question pop up in my head, and I'm interested to see some answers:

Say there was a really dysfunctional family. The parents are always drunk, neither has an education or income to speak of, they live in the slums somewhere off welfare money. They don't beat or otherwise abuse their kids, they simply don't teach them anything, don't make sure they do homework or otherwise worry about their education or future prospects in life.

Would you think it right to take these kids away from this family (even against their will and the will of the parents) and put them in some other family or home where people will pay attention to them getting a decent education?

Why/Why not?

It may not be right that the parents are acting like this, however, as the parents are providing the necessities of life, they haven't broken the law. The children are not being physically or mentally abused, there is a roof over their head and they are fed as well as clothed.

Now then, the children, how are they doing academically? Even if the parents aren't helping in any form, are the children failing to begin with? Even if the children aren't being given this from the parents, does it mean they're failing? After all, it's only mentioned that the parents aren't helping with this, there is no mention of the actual success or failure of the children.

As it was pointed out by Smunkee, her neighbour's children got taken away because they were home schooled (ie: education reasons).

Thus, how can one ask if it is right for children to be taken if the only area of neglect on the part of the parents is not helping their children with education without any actual indication of success or failure?

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

Source: Baseball. ;)

I would make the parents undergo treatment for their alcoholism and they should be made too search for a job.

yes i would advocate removing the children from this home.

not because they are poor or uneducated. not because they live in a bad neighborhood but because both parents are chronic alcoholics who are drunk "all the time".

trusting that that really does mean drunk all the time, that leaves the children with NO reliable parent. thats too dangerous a situation to have children live in.

i would recommend foster care until at least one parent shaped up. my preference would be placing them with another family member.

taking children out of their home seldom ends up with them in a "family or home where people will pay attention to them getting a decent education". it ends them up in a overburdened system that constantly moves them around. this also puts the child at risk for all sorts of psychological problems. you have to be damned sure that the home they are coming from is so bad that fostercare is indeed a better option.