Mother 'too stupid' to keep child

reply to post by jdub297


I'm a Yankee too, but IMO you're being too much "holier than thou"
when you condemn all of British social services and do nothing but praise ours.

Here in the good old U.S.A. until relatively recently there was a practice of sterilizing people who were considered too stupid or too mentally ill to have children. In some states it was expanded to include those who were on government benefits. This went on primarily in the 1930's and 40's, although in my state the sterilization of the mentally challenged went on until well into the 1970's.

We're not so greatly advanced from that.

For every case like the one you post that happens in Great Britain, I'm sure there's a similar story here. The societies are not that far apart.

Or is it just that England has socialized medicine and that's what you object to?

reply to post by eradown


You overlook that for any child to enter "CPS' he or she will have already suffered from mistreatment or neglect!

CPS does not go around beating children. And, without CPS statistics, the 'parents only' category is inherently flawed and dubject to inaccuracies.

Different victim totals can be constructed from the national NCCAN data, and slightly different patterns over time can be found, depending on whether one sums across categories of maltreatment, gender of the victim, and so on, because some states provide numbers for some and not for others.

www.albany.edu...

I've asked before. Tell me what system works better. Be specific and don't quote flawed summaries of innaccurate assumptions.

jw

reply to post by Sestias


First, just because the Brits call us "Yanks" does not make me a yankee. I am not.

Second, our system definitely has its flaws, but they are generally the result of underfunding rather than overzealousness.

I definitely have a problem with state intrusion into private affairs, too.

But, the English system clearly works to obstruct judicial review, relying instead on political considerations, i.e. statism/socialism.

The young woman in this anecdote has to resort to an extra-governmental authority for legal recourse. In the US, courts are involved at the fact-finding, appellate, and constitutional levels in State courts with opportunity for Habeas review in Federal courts.

As for extreme intervention, such as sterilization, this is precisley the type of anaysis and utilization review Obama wants to implement under his proposed system. Read his own words. Ends and cost-benefit analysis are determinative in his proposals for national health care.

So, yes, I have a problem with a bureaucrat telling me what is in my medical interest.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Jessicamsa

 

Story 1: If a battered mother can't protect herself, and "ends up in a shelter," how can anyone expect her to protect the child?

The legal standard for courts and guardians is "Best interest of the child," not what the battered mother wants. In many syates, placing a child in a dangerous environment is legally "child neglect" as either a misdemeanor or felony.

In my experience in the FamVio section of a major D.A.'s ofc., if a woman has been hurt enough to warrant rescue by a shelter, the child has already been hurt as well.

So, by that standard a battered woman with children has the choice of 1) staying with the wife beater/abusive boyfriend and keeping the abuse secret so CPS won't be called in or 2) flee to a shelter and have children ripped out of her arms as punishment because she's incapable of controlling the actions of someone who gets his kicks beating up a woman. Nice choices. Why bother having women's shelters at all then? Why give women a false hope of safety when she's going to lose her children just because she tried to keep them safe?

OMG did someone actually write that. I have been through abuse, and in a shelter. This is not even a pretty issue, but is so common. No, the safety of the shelter must be FOR THE FAMILY AND CHILDREN.
That would penalize the parent even more for a very common behavior as spousal abuse is very common, and protection is about protecting the family. Children don't belong to the state, and no woman is a surrogate womb for it.

Originally posted by mystiq
OMG did someone actually write that. I have been through abuse, and in a shelter. This is not even a pretty issue, but is so common. No, the safety of the shelter must be FOR THE FAMILY AND CHILDREN.
That would penalize the parent even more for a very common behavior as spousal abuse is very common, and protection is about protecting the family. Children don't belong to the state, and no woman is a surrogate womb for it.

Victims of domestic violence are typically blamed, even today. My husband wanted to set fire to me, and people still wouldn't lock him up. He's a government employee and I had to have done something to deserve it in most people's eyes.

One of the things to note here is, no one is responsible for another persons inhumane behavior, whether that person is your spouse, father, brother, or even in some cases, a child influenced by another group of lunatics. And the most common form of victimization that people endure, including murders, take place in the hands of someone you know. Protection is simply that, protection. Its not to punish victims.
Spousal abuse is very very common.

reply to post by Jessicamsa


I feel really sorry that this happened, as its the lack of response and resources available that is sometimes even the greater crime. In my case, I had a death threat made against me, while I was pregant, and it was his friends that insisted that I go into the shelter for a while, though I kept the home and returned to it, until he calmed down. Its the lack of resources available that make women hide the abuse often.

Originally posted by mystiq
One of the things to note here is, no one is responsible for another persons inhumane behavior, whether that person is your spouse, father, brother, or even in some cases, a child influenced by another group of lunatics. And the most common form of victimization that people endure, including murders, take place in the hands of someone you know. Protection is simply that, protection. Its not to punish victims.
Spousal abuse is very very common.

Well, taking a baby away from a mother who just fled the home because the mother turned to a shelter for protection, sure sounds like punishment to me. And if she were to stay in the home, they'd use that as an excuse to take the baby too.

Originally posted by mystiq
reply to post by Jessicamsa

 

I feel really sorry that this happened, as its the lack of response and resources available that is sometimes even the greater crime. In my case, I had a death threat made against me, while I was pregant, and it was his friends that insisted that I go into the shelter for a while, though I kept the home and returned to it, until he calmed down. Its the lack of resources available that make women hide the abuse often.

In my case, there were some resources available in town, but since my husband was a government employee, much of them were shut down for me. He even volunteered for the local battered women's shelter. After my baby was born, the court even put restrictions on my movement, forcing me to stay close to my abuser. I was stripped of legal recourse for years because my husband had government ties.

Originally posted by Jessicamsa

Originally posted by mystiq
One of the things to note here is, no one is responsible for another persons inhumane behavior, whether that person is your spouse, father, brother, or even in some cases, a child influenced by another group of lunatics. And the most common form of victimization that people endure, including murders, take place in the hands of someone you know. Protection is simply that, protection. Its not to punish victims.
Spousal abuse is very very common.

Well, taking a baby away from a mother who just fled the home because the mother turned to a shelter for protection, sure sounds like punishment to me. And if she were to stay in the home, they'd use that as an excuse to take the baby too.

Of course, I'm in full agreement with what you said. Community resources for protection must include the ability to protect an entire family and keep them together because separation anxiety occurs when children are taken from their main caregivers, and the counselor at victims assistance in Penticton that helped me enormously, who had worked in Vancouver for years, told me separation anxiety was stamped on nearly every criminal behavior involving teenagers in court on the papers. Its really really important to keep families together. And to provide resources, help and counselling FREE OF CHARGE.
The amount of money good services saves the system and community is enormous. It costs far more money to be cruel.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by mystiq]

Having worked in Social Services in the U.K for 8 years, I have seen many cases where even parents who have learning difficulties and/or are drug addicts, alcoholics and violent offenders are allowed to keep their children with only minimal or no intervention by Social Workers. I also noticed how nothing gets done about many things such as abuse and neglect until far too late.

This was mainly due to fear of backlash as over here the image of Child Social Services is already on a par to the Bogeyman who comes to steal your children away in the night. Just recently you may have heard of the horrific case of Baby P who suffered badly and was eventually killed by his so-called parents. This caused a massive knee-jerk reaction and now things are swinging the other way and Social Services and the Courts are getting too "Trigger Happy" to show everyone that they are doing their job properly.

Unfortunately most Social Workers or "Officials" I know of haven't a clue about what real life is like for most people. They just float around feeling all high and mighty with an inflated sense of righteousness, drinking coffee at the office, stuffing their faces with cake and pushing agendas they do not fully understand in the name of "Child Protection".

There are some real humanitarian characters who genuinely care and have been through a lot themselves so at least have some insight into real life but for the most part, in my experience, they are few and far between.

As a father myself this news makes me feel physically ill. The arrogance they show in labeling someone as too stupid to care for their own child is sickening. Perhaps the "Officials" in question should be forced to take a comparative I.Q test and see how they fare.

I am glad I left the service a long time ago, things were bad then and they are far worse now from what I hear. I hope this woman does win the right to be with her child, even if she needs 24 hour support, after all, town councils pay out millions every year to support smackheads and crackheads to live a "fulfilling and meaningful life" while also supplying them with free drugs. So why not help this poor woman look after her child if she needs it instead of trying to rip her family apart and cause her a lifetime of grief?

Wegner.

reply to post by Jessicamsa


She needn't "end up in a shelter." That implies someone else's decision.

If she voluntarily exits to protect herself and children, there shouldn't be any need for CPS intervention.

But a woman who waits and endures until it is intolerable or life-threatening, or who is "placed" after outside intervention, is no longer in control and has, by definition, exposed her child to a dangerous situation.

Use your head.

An already over-burdened social worker, and the system, are not 'trolling for babies.'

Do you honestly believe the CPS program is looking for additional opportunities to overextend itself, open itself to more criticism, and fail?

These people have a thankless task, and would surely prefer a manageable case load over more 'baby trophies.'

Tell me of a better way. Do it now, avoiding anecdotal references to failure.
Every system has flaws.

Give us a better one. Right now. Do it.

jw

Originally posted by Jessicamsa

Well, taking a baby away from a mother who just fled the home because the mother turned to a shelter for protection, sure sounds like punishment to me. And if she were to stay in the home, they'd use that as an excuse to take the baby too.

NO! Battered women's shelters are FULL of children. They are with a parent who took action and did not ignore assistance when it was available.
And, BEFORE someone got seriously hurt.

But, I guarantee you that if a woman shows up with signs of injury, her child will be examined too! Don't you expect that?

What if the batterer had been harming the child, too? Hide it?

Shelters are valuable RESOURCES, not 'recovery rooms.' They provide the "way out" any threatened woman needs to protect herself and her family. Before she is hurt. Or her children.

Staying put in the face of danger is irrational and dangerous. Isn't it?

Pay attention to EVERY CHILD NEGLECT/INJURY case -- there will be a battered spouse present, too. Always.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297I'm sorry for you, but your nation has always existed in reverence of a monarch and "royal" blood.

Our nation was built on the principle that the people are the sovereign, and government's 'power' is derived from the "governed".

Sadly, it seems we've begun to slide down a slippery slope toward domination, as well.

Stiff upper lip, you know?

Good luck.
jw

You are looking at it COMPLETELY the wrong way- the healthy democratic and FREE nature of the UK (certainly until the 1960s/1070s) is the real story- unlike the continental european approach to governance

Don't kid yourself about the US, you have had "Nice" fascism on many occassions ever since the ww1 "crisis"

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Jessicamsa

 

She needn't "end up in a shelter." That implies someone else's decision.

If she voluntarily exits to protect herself and children, there shouldn't be any need for CPS intervention.

But a woman who waits and endures until it is intolerable or life-threatening, or who is "placed" after outside intervention, is no longer in control and has, by definition, exposed her child to a dangerous situation.

You are quite ignorant about how battered women shelters function and how women end up there. Women do not end up in these shelters until it is intolerable or life-threatening. Very rarely will a woman end up there for anything less than serious. Women usually are in denial and blame themselves for the abuse, even when they go to the shelters. They live their lives in fear mode. What you are therefore advocating is that every woman who enters a battered women's shelter have their children taken from them.

Men who beat their spouses often control money, etc and the women usually have no money or resources of their own. Usually the men have isolated the victims from outside help. Women go to the shelters because they have no where else to go. And if they have children, they cannot even go to their places of employment, if they have jobs at all, because the abuser will use the children to maintain control over her. If she leaves the children with anyone, until she gets court ordered custody, the abuser can legally take off with the children and keep them from her until it gets to a court. Then, to maintain status quo, the abusers are more and more getting custody of the children through this method. Therefore, the children are now living with someone who beat their mothers, often in front of them. This is how the current system is set up. I have tried helping many abused women who were ignorant of the system and ended up losing custody because they didn't believe me. Then they get mad at me and I never hear from them again.

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by jdub297

 

I'm a Yankee too, but IMO you're being too much "holier than thou"
when you condemn all of British social services and do nothing but praise ours.

Here in the good old U.S.A. until relatively recently there was a practice of sterilizing people who were considered too stupid or too mentally ill to have children. In some states it was expanded to include those who were on government benefits. This went on primarily in the 1930's and 40's, although in my state the sterilization of the mentally challenged went on until well into the 1970's.

We're not so greatly advanced from that.

For every case like the one you post that happens in Great Britain, I'm sure there's a similar story here. The societies are not that far apart.

Or is it just that England has socialized medicine and that's what you object to?

bravo, well said- I am certainly not "anti" American, but the denial of such totalitarianism (albeit "soft" totalitariansim) in American life throughout much of the 20th century bears no relation to reality

reply to post by blueorder


While I am a fan of neither system, UK or continental, the NHS -- purely socialistic-- has resulted in English health care far below any other EU insurance-based program.

There is an excellent article in the Economist laying this out. When faced with health needs, and with enough resources, Brits opt out and seek private care or leave the UK for it elsewhere.

NHS spending increases of 80% OVER inflation have resulted in minimal improvement. Most of the benefits have gone to physician-retention and unneeded equipment purchases.

Sad, but true.

The UK system, including child welfare, is true 'nanny-state' governance - the gov't knows best.

jw

I'm a Canadian and this sort of happening is not unheard of even here. A friend of my younger sister had her first baby several years back she was a late teen Mother who had an emergency C-section and was in hospital afterwards. the nurses placed the baby out of her reach and she was a shy quiet girl who was unsure of how to deal with the baby immediately and not sure enough of herself to speak up and ask for help. I went through the same thing at a different hospital with my first child. I was placed in a room and told my husband could not spend the night as it would disturb the other patient in a semi-private room ( never mind the lady next door had her entire family there all night making noise but that's another story) in any case it was my first major surgery and my first baby. The nurses placed the baby literally 10 feet away from my bed and I could not move due to the after effects on the epidural anesthetic. I had the sense to press the call button and say to this nurse how do you expect me to reach a crying baby when I still cannot walk? My sister's friend didn't have guts to ask the same question and in 3 hours the nurses had called the children's aid society and reported her unfit. the poor girl, luckily she had a helpful Mother who signed on as a guardian and was ordered to never allow the Mother to be alone with her baby. the children's aid visits went on for 2 YEARS. Finally she won back the right to be alone with her own child. All this because she was a quiet shy young girl who was really just afraid to speak up for herself. This case was completely out of control and should never have happened. It's scary how quickly things can spin out of control and if this girl didn't have a family member to help her I'm sure she would have been in the same situation as this thread topic. It's scary in today's hospitals...god forbid you are to sick to not be your own advocate!!!

Originally posted by Jessicamsa
What you are therefore advocating is that every woman who enters a battered women's shelter have their children taken from them.

This is how the current system is set up. I have tried helping many abused women who were ignorant of the system and ended up losing custody because they didn't believe me. Then they get mad at me and I never hear from them again.

Sorry you have failed so often, but it is not the fault of the 'system.'
If you read my entire thread, then you know what I believe.

Reality: Injured woman in intake at shelter. Woman examined. Children examined.

Fantasy: Injured woman in intake. Children given food and drink, TV and left to the care of the injured woman.

What would you do as the intake officer?

My point was that shelters are valuable resources BEFORE women and children are BATTERED! Maybe if they called them Battered Women Prevention Centers, you'd see the point.

I've worked in the FamVio section at the D.A.'s office. I've prosecuted parents who've KILLED children. I've volunteered in the "Childrens' Rightsd Clinic" and as a Child Advocate.

Women who avoid help until "it is too late," are a danger to themselves and their children.

I asked 2X before.

Go back and re-read my posts. Give me a better system.

Shelters ARE FULL of CHILDREN! They DO NOT 'automatically' take children away. Go to one right now. Call one, ask how many children are there.

Reality: Woman fears violent spouse and seeks help from neighbor. Woman remains home until she and children are injured. THEN seeks 'shelter.'

You take "shelter" to avoid a storm, not after it has struck!

Reality: Woman takes charge and seeks counselling at local Shelter. Intake officer finds temporary housing for family while initiating process to find income, resources, permanent housing and legal protection.

Get real. Get help.

jw