The state can take away your kids?

[Pengwuino]

I've been noticing something lately. Yah i know that deserves a thread all on its own but something fascinated me. Most people seem to complain and moan and groan when oh, the FBI wants to know what book I am reading or some persons phone is being tapped ever since he attended a terrorist training camp or some idiot on msnbc said something stupid or some wage indictator dropped .00000000001% or some crap like this... and then I started to think about other things in life. I came upon this idea that the state can legally walk in, with sometimes little more then 3rd hand accounts, and take your children away. It's a bit odd when we're all complaining about the government having the audacity to say whether or not you can kill your own baby... but no one seems to mind when they can just walk on in and take your kid at any other point.

I'm not posing an opinion as to whether its right or wrong or anything like that, I'm just rather curious as to why this issue is never discussed and no one seems to second guess the idea of a government taking away your kid.

Makes you wonder how inferior you humanoids are to us penguins...

And if this isn't the right place, please move it, i wasnt sure where to put this and i thought the lovely Evo would know what to do.

 

[wasteofo2]

I suppose the reason for this is that the State (I'd assume) doesn't really abuse this power. I mean, I've never heard of anyone having their kids taken from them unless they were abusive or a drug addict or something. If people's kids started just getting stolen for some crazy government programs, then I'm sure you'd hear quite a bit of uproar, but for now, it seems, the state isn't abusing this power.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Stating it as "the state can take away your kids" sounds like they have the right to grab any kid they want and put them to work in a coal mine or something. That's not what's going on, obviously.

The state can protect kids from abusive or neglectful parents by removing them from that home.

 

[Pengwuino]

Sounds like different interpretations of the exact same thing...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Sounds like different interpretations of the exact same thing...

No, because obviously the state cannot take your kids away and put them to work in a coal mine. They can't take them away for the states benefit. They are legally empowered to protect them from their parents, however. The distinction is important.

 

[Pengwuino]

No, because obviously the state cannot take your kids away and put them to work in a coal mine. They can't take them away for the states benefit. They are legally empowered to protect them from their parents, however. The distinction is important.

What i meant to say was "Taking kids away" and "protecting them from their parents" sounds like different interpretations of the same thing. In the end, kids gone, states sole decision, no coal mine required.

And this actually constitutes the exact argument I am talking about here. Why is it in say, an abortion argument, you basically konw what's going on but you have two differnet interpretations, "they want to murder babies" vs. "women have rights to privacy", which sparks all hell if you ever get in an argument? In this case, you again can pose 2 very different statements regarding the same issue yet this never seems to get discussed at all.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What i meant to say was "Taking kids away" and "protecting them from their parents" sounds like different interpretations of the same thing.

What is "taking kids away" an interpretation of? What is "protecting them from their parents" an interpretation of?

 

[Pengwuino]

What is "taking kids away" an interpretation of? What is "protecting them from their parents" an interpretation of?

A social worker coming to your door and saying "sorry mam, you are not fit to be a parent, we are taking your child away". The very act of grasping the child and driving off. That one little moment in time can be interpretted just like the abortion issue. What are you doing when you clinically kill that baby? is it murder? is it ones rights of privacy being excercised? What happens when that baby/kid is put into a social workers hands? Is it the state taking away someones child after giving birth and raising him/her based on possibly faulty eye witnesses? Or is it the state protecting an innocent child from what would most likely be a horrible childhood development?

2 different ways of looking at the same situation.

 

[zoobyshoe]

2 different ways of looking at the same situation.

When do we call something a misinterpretation? When do we call it a misrepresentation? A misconstruction? Misunderstanding?

If a social worker takes a kid away based on a third hand report, is the problem the fact that the state can remove children from abusive parents, or that the agency that carries this power out is doing it without proper investigation?

If we stipulate that this happens for the sake of argument, then the fact the latter is true doesn't mean the former is wrong. The problem is not that the state has the right to take children from abusive parents but that they aren't gathering sufficient evidence before they do it. Two separate things here: the law itself, and how it's being enforced. If the latter is the problem, stick to that issue.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Just about every daytime talk show host has aired at least one show regarding people's kids being taken away by the state.
Ofcourse around here the exact opposite is the problem. A kid could be living in a terrible environment and you have to seriously raise hell in order for them to be taken from the parent. A guy I know has two daughters with an ex wife. The exwife had a new boyfriend who apparently was molesting the little girls. It took several MONTHS for them to get those poor little girls away from that. Ofcourse that may just have to do with the way the courts perceive father's rights versus mother's rights, which is just plain BS.

 

[Pengwuino]

If we stipulate that this happens for the sake of argument, then the fact the latter is true doesn't mean the former is wrong. The problem is not that the state has the right to take children from abusive parents but that they aren't gathering sufficient evidence before they do it. Two separate things here: the law itself, and how it's being enforced. If the latter is the problem, stick to that issue.

The latter isn't the problem here. I'm not saying there is a problem. I'm wondering why the very idea of a state government taking away a child never gets any chatter. Maybe the system is very efficient and has very few cracks in it and uses the utmost discretion, maybe its screwed up, full of cracks, and does its job willy nilly; that isn't the issue here. The issue is whether or not anyone sees anything objectionable to the idea that a government can take a child away from their parent/legal guardian for what it feels to be, unhealthy/irresponsible behavior/actions.

I believe you have already made it clear as to how you feel about the situation. I'm hoping to see some other sides of the situation or if not, reasons as to why the other side shouldn't have a reason to exist.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The issue is whether or not anyone sees anything objectionable to the idea that a government can take a child away from their parent/legal guardian for what it feels to be, unhealthy/irresponsible behavior/actions.

This is almost as naive as asking why it is people don't object to the concept that the state can forcibly remove a man from his home, job, and family if it feels he's an armed robber/rapist.

 

[Pengwuino]

This is almost as naive as asking why it is people don't object to the concept that the state can forcibly remove a man from his home, job, and family if it feels he's an armed robber/rapist.

Yah well I've seen that argument around this forum and others. I never question how low people can go.

 

[Blahness]

They can take the kids away if there's "sufficient proof"...Now define "sufficient proof". ^_^

 

[Cyrus]

Im in Maryland, so I can only provide you with Maryland state law, as I don't giva hoot about the others:

http://www.lawlib.state.md.us/UnattendedChildren.html

A child under the age of 8 years and out of sight (in a dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle) of the person charged with his/her care must be left with a reliable person at least 13 years old. [FL 5-801(a)]


Violation of this statute is a misdemeanor. An individual found in violation is subject to a fine not exceeding $500.00 or imprisonment not exceeding 30 days, or both. [FL 5-801(b)]


There are also provisions of Maryland’s CINA (children in need of assistance) and child abuse and neglect reporting statutes which address various aspects of leaving children unsupervised. [C&JP § 3-801] and [F.L. § 5-701].

http://mlis.state.md.us/cgi-win/web_statutes.exe?gfl&5-701

(1) the physical or mental injury of a child by any parent or other person who has permanent or temporary care or custody or responsibility for supervision of a child, or by any household or family member, under circumstances that indicate that the child's health or welfare is harmed or at substantial risk of being harmed; or...

It goes on from there...

The second link is more helpful. So, in conclusion, it's not just that the state can walk in and take your child. There has to be sufficient reason. I don't see why you have an issue with this. They don't take away children from the their parents for what they FEEL to be unhealthy or irresponsible actions, they take children away from what is DEFINED to be irresponsible and unhealthy actions. And clearly these are very reasonable terms. If you don't think so, maybe you should have your kids taken away from you.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yah well I've seen that argument around this forum and others. I never question how low people can go.

No one's going low, here. I'm explaining to you that the majority of people aren't anarchists: they want a government in place to keep things from becoming chaotic. They understand this means it has to have the power to intervene.

 

[Cyrus]

I think he ment people in general go low, not you.

 

[Moonbear]

but no one seems to mind when they can just walk on in and take your kid at any other point.

They can't just walk in and take your kids away. They need to investigate, have evidence of abuse or neglect, and get a court order. They can take your pets away if you abuse or neglect them too. Surely kids rate at least as high as pets in the eye of the law and society. Why would someone argue that it's okay to leave kids in harm's way if you know they are being abused or neglected?

 

[Pengwuino]

I think he ment people in general go low, not you.

Yah i meant it in general, sorry zoobs :P. I've seen some rather low complaints like making someone pay taxes is a violation of freedom of speech.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

They can't just walk in and take your kids away. They need to investigate, have evidence of abuse or neglect, and get a court order. They can take your pets away if you abuse or neglect them too. Surely kids rate at least as high as pets in the eye of the law and society. Why would someone argue that it's okay to leave kids in harm's way if you know they are being abused or neglected?

I think that he is asking how the state fairly determines what is or is not abuse. There have been disputed cases. Paula Poundstone had her kids taken away for supposed abuse. She's a Lesbian so I'm sure this may have been part of the issue but the whole thing was kept on the DL and I'm not really sure what exactly they claimed she had done that was abuse.
There was also recently a couple that was raising their children as pagans who got all the way to court over child abuse charges having to do with the effect of their religeous practices on their children. There were some weird circumstances considering that the charges were made at the behest fo the catholic school the children had been sent to.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yah i meant it in general, sorry zoobs :P. I've seen some rather low complaints like making someone pay taxes is a violation of freedom of speech.

I see. So it's bothering you that people aren't being consistently stupid. I have the same trouble with half the people in the Stupid Quetion thread.

 

[Pengwuino]

I see. So it's bothering you that people aren't being consistently stupid. I have the same trouble with half the people in the Stupid Quetion thread.

Yes, that's right, i was expecting the usual suspects to walk in here and start attacking government powers again no matter how common sense it makes. I expected more out of you people!

 

[Averagesupernova]

I guess I'm still not sure what you are trying to illustrate Pengwuino. But, I have a good idea. Consider this:

Doesn't the government have the right to walk in and take someones kids away under the right circumstances since we expect that same government to protect them and their parents by means of fair trials, police protection from people outside of the family, funding for public schools, etc.? Why should the government invest in a society when that same society can turn around and say "To hell with you big bad government, I'll beat my kids until they're bloody if I want to!" Their really isn't much point in the government investing in a society set up like this.

I'm really not sure the average American has thought this far though. (Sadly)

 

[Pengwuino]

Doesn't the government have the right to walk in and take someones kids away under the right circumstances since we expect that same government to protect them and their parents by means of fair trials, police protection from people outside of the family, funding for public schools, etc.?

Well I hoped someone would think they didnt! I mean people seem to be absolutely horrendously pationate about someone looking at your library card or putting up red light runner cameras at traffic stops... so why not this?

 

[Cyrus]

Why would would you start this thread just to start arguments pengwuino? Dident we just have this debate about that pundit tv host...

 

[Moonbear]

Yes, that's right, i was expecting the usual suspects to walk in here and start attacking government powers again no matter how common sense it makes. I expected more out of you people!

Soooooo...you're trolling?

 

[Pengwuino]

Why would would you start this thread just to start arguments pengwuino? Dident we just have this debate about that pundit tv host...

Yes and it was not up to par with PWA's rigerous insanity standards. I hoped this would make up for it :P

Plus there is that damn thinking in the back of my mind that as an isolated concept, this should be creating such tremendous outrage. Things are isolated all the time in other arguments so that emotions can play out as opposed to logical, all-encompassing thought processes... so why the hell does no one do it to this?

 

[Wishbone]

because the state being able to take one's kids away is something that makes sense to everyone......













but you.

 

[Pengwuino]

because the state being able to take one's kids away is something that makes sense to everyone......
but you.

nothing makes sense to everyone. What would this country be if the most sensible, non-controversial issues didn't blow up into huge fiascos :tongue2:

 

[zoobyshoe]

so why the hell does no one do it to this?

You can object to a lot of things the government does and simply seem like you are excercizing your right to criticize it, but if you object on this particular issue you will immediately be seen as taking a pro-child abuse stance. I think that's probably why no one would object to it in principle.

 

[Moonbear]

You can object to a lot of things the government does and simply seem like you are excercizing your right to criticize it, but if you object on this particular issue you will immediately be seen as taking a pro-child abuse stance. I think that's probably why no one would object to it in principle.

Right. And people DO object when it is misused and children are taken away from parents based on hearsay only, with no evidence of abuse, such as when one parent lies about the other to obtain custody during bitter divorces.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Yeah I'd say Pengwuino was trolling. :tongue2:

But he brings up a good point about the inconsistency in people. Pengwuino you're just going to have to pick a topic that is more of a gray area if you want a rise out of people.

 

[Wishbone]

You can object to a lot of things the government does and simply seem like you are excercizing your right to criticize it, but if you object on this particular issue you will immediately be seen as taking a pro-child abuse stance. I think that's probably why no one would object to it in principle.

I disagree, I think all people who adress this issue, take is seriously, and surley the laws show that it is not of any whim of the state that a child can be taken away from his/her parents. Perhaps there is very little uproar because of the fact it is a power that is not abused. However if you feel the govt. has no right to protect a child from abusive parents, then you should be labeled a pro-abuser, and an idiot. However, the reason no one objects to it in principle, and hardly even in excersize is because it makes moral (and common) sense.

 

[Loren Booda]

Facing bankruptcy, families in most states have the hard choice of giving government custody over their child in order for the kid to receive needed but costly medical help. There's got to be a better way.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I disagree, I think all people who adress this issue, take is seriously, and surley the laws show that it is not of any whim of the state that a child can be taken away from his/her parents. Perhaps there is very little uproar because of the fact it is a power that is not abused. However if you feel the govt. has no right to protect a child from abusive parents, then you should be labeled a pro-abuser, and an idiot. However, the reason no one objects to it in principle, and hardly even in excersize is because it makes moral (and common) sense.

Yeah, I'm just speculating about why people who are anti-government control might pull their punches on this particular case of government control. It was a thought off the top of my head. You have stated a reason as fact, so I guess you've researched this or done polls or something.