It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mother 'too stupid' to keep child

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
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


And yet we are still ranked 18th in the world, compared to the United States insurance based system waaaaay down at 37. The French, who are ranked #1 in the world have a similar system to the UK's National Insurance Contribution system but with the addition of employer contributions which is not common place in the UK. The problem with the NHS is not that the system does not/should not work, the problem is extremely bad management and a lean towards filling the pockets of drug companies and equipment manufaturers over making sure that everyone gets the appropriate treatment in a reasonable amount of time. Its not the system at fault, but those who are abusing it for their own ends. Whether you pay for it via taxes or insurance premiums is neither here nor there if the service itself is piss poor, as you'd know being an American and all.

BTW, contrary to the implication in one of your previous posts, we don't all talk like Mary Popins (or a cockney), but cheers for the ignorant stereotype.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by quackers]

[edit on 1-6-2009 by quackers]




posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 


If I'm called "yank" (a stereotype), I can reply with a stereotype. I am not a Yankee.

The OP/thread is about a political system that intervenes without accountability, admits its error only when forced, yet refuses to amend its conclusions accordingly.

Destroying lives in the process.

Keep in focus. Do not be distracted. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
The concept of taking shelter to avoid a storm, not after its struck actually flies in the face of the statistics of when the abuse starts to take place. According to the abuse councillor at the women's center, the stats are, that the majority of abusive male spouses become so when their partners are pregnant. So, for most women, this isn't something they can telepathically know ahead of time. And many cases it involves the partner attempting to change and go through some counselling. The situation is definitley not easy on anyone, or easily avoided. And there are many complex reasons, some economic, some attempting to improve the situation, for women to have a hard time walking away from the father of their children. In some cases, counseling does work and the person benefits from anger control therapy. Its not a cut and dried issue.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Nothing surprises me anymore, Just more sophisticated ways to control your children and you.Bet you that kid will get adopted by the military industrial complex.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
This is not an isolated case, just last week I read of a couple who had their children taken away because one of them had a couple of broken bones, now it has been proved the child has a genetic disease..sadly it is too late the children have been adopted.
Things have got worse since the government set targets for adoption numbers and offered councils cash if they met them
Interesting article from the Telegraph

www.telegraph.co.uk...

This woman has an iq of 71 along with an estimated 6m, they have admitted there is no previous history of depression etc and she went to main stream school. The childs grandparents and uncle have said they would help, the grandparents are deemed to old and the uncle unsuitable because he played truant.

Yet baby Peter had approx 70 visits by Social Services was examined by a doctor who missed his broken back, despite being battered and bruised living in a filthy home with excrement up the walls the Social Services left him there to die.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
It is a scary scenario here in the U.S. to have a sick or premature child born! Both of my children were born prematurely, the second one was almost 3 months. My wife had an underlying condition that we did not know about until several months after the second child.

We were good, educated people who own a home and have good incomes. We were still concerned by constant visits to the NICU from social workers, child welfare officers, social security administration, etc. Everyone was extremely helpful, and they all seemed to be doing a different job with the baby and our best interests at heart, but it would be so easy for things to spin out of control.

We refused a lot of the aid, because it would entail those government entities coming to our home regularly.

The hospital did not do the job we expected and I had to cause a couple of big scenes to get my baby transferred to Shand's Hospital in Gainesville. I was very close to being arrested at least twice, because the hospital was not following our wishes.

Eventually the transfer happened, the baby got the surgery he needed, and he is a very normal healthy 18 month old now.

Had I not been an intimidating physical presence as well as an educated person with financial means, the outcome would certainly have been different, and the worst case scenario would have had me on the news as the bad guy, while the hospital and politicians made their case for protecting the baby.

I really feel for people in today's legal environment. You better study your rights, and you better plan for the worst while praying for the best. AND MOST OF ALL, you better be willing to go the distance! I had several opportunities to back down, and I wasn't sure how things would unfold, but I went with what I believed and I was willing to pay whatever consequence would come.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystiq
The concept of taking shelter to avoid a storm, not after its struck actually flies in the face of the statistics of when the abuse starts to take place.
According to the abuse councillor at the women's center, the stats are, that the majority of abusive male spouses become so when their partners are pregnant.


Counselors and statistics are easily manipulated. Experience reveals that when a male spouse 'becomes aggressive' the nature of the beast has been revealed. When you see the lightning, and hear the thunder ( to keep with the excellent analogy), who is to blame if you get drenched in the downpour?

Counsellors (who make no living without 'clients') act more as mediators than protectors. A threatened woman needs protection NOT advice. You must ACT to preserve the 'status quo' (the woman and child's safety) before you have to REACT to the injury. What exists before a child is born that doesn't once it is, except for a lone target?


So, for most women, this isn't something they can telepathically know ahead of time. And many cases it involves the partner attempting to change and go through some counselling. The situation is definitley not easy on anyone, or easily avoided.


Once abuse starts, telepathy is no longer necessary.

What you are saying is that once it starts, a woman will wait to see if it gets worse, or if she, alone, can 'cure' it. I left an abusive relationship. I turned to friends for temporary housing. The other party 'went though the motions' of counselling until she threw a TV at me when I came to talk and visit my children after one of our joint 'counselling sessions'. That ended that.

It is definitely not easy, but it is easily avoided. Pride and ego are the biggest barriers to saying "Help me, please." No abusive spouse can stop that.


there are many complex reasons for women to have a hard time walking away from the father of their children. Its not a cut and dried issue.


It is not cut and dried. But there is a universal truth:

If you wait until you are injured to seek help, it is too late to prevent abuse.

Correlative with that, is that an abuser who attacks a defenseless partner will attack that partner's children.

Shelters accomodate children. Intake workers look for the interests of the child before they consider the preferences of an already-abused parent. Would you rather they look away?

No one will take the children from a parent who seeks to avoid injury. They will question one who endures it until it is intolerable or necessitates outside intervention.

And, if you do not know how to avoid danger for yourself, what makes you think you can protect a child?

jw

How would you have it?



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
This is scary. I just can't wait till commandos kick in my door and steal my children in the night to take to re-education centers for brainwashing because I told them that global warming, gun right, abortions, (insert anything here) was wrong.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Many women have been taught by the school systems from an early age that when a boy [man] hits her, it means he likes her. During my experience working with and living around battered women for 17 years, I heard it said by these women how their husbands loved them and couldn't help it.

I remember school all too well. A boy would find it fun to hit a girl, the girl would tell the teacher, and the teacher would scold the girl for being a tattle-tale; that if the boy hits her, it means he likes her. So the 'lightning' (or red flags as those working in my field call it) actually sends a message to these women that the men are getting jealous over them because they love them, because that is what they have been taught from early childhood to believe. Those who have not been indoctorinated from early childhood in such dangerous lies have an easier time leaving an abusive partner in the earlier stages.

I remember being told things like this in school. I was a rebellious spirit though and got attitude back at the teachers. I did not care if the boy liked me. I did not want to be hit, beat up, etc. I asked the teacher why I should have to suffer being hit because someone liked me. I got punished for it and labeled a troublemaker.

After I understood the significance of all of this, I started bringing it up to other battered women who were still in their situations. The ones who defended the idea that boys hit girls because they like them were the ones who went back to their abusers. The ones who disagreed with that idea are the ones who stayed separated from their abusers.

Society is teaching girls to become victims. Society is also teaching the boys that it is okay to be abusers by not discipling them when they engage in this behavior. Society is creating the problem from early childhood onward.

I left my husband early on because I retained that rebellious attitude.

Leaving the abuser does not end the violence. The abuser 'owns' the woman in his mind and he is losing control over his property. He will stalk her. He will threaten her. He will do anything he is able to do in order to obtain control over his woman again. That is why women are often in greater danger of being killed after they leave.

I have 17 years experience in domestic violence both as a victim/survivor and through assisting other women. I have even taken pictures of injuries and offered testimony in court. It inspired me to major in criminal justice studies, and I am currently working on my master's degree.

Your so called 'knowledge' is filled with uneducated, judgmental stereotypes.

Mothers should never have their babies taken from them because they have been victimized. Women have enough hindrances placed upon them by the system and the abusers without having to fear their children being taken away from them because they sought help.

The mother in the OP has been victimized by the calloused government. The agony of having your child taken from you never goes away completely. A child is not like a puppy or a kitten where you can just get another. A child can never be replaced. Babies are a blessing from God.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jessicamsa
Many women have been taught by the school systems ... .

I remember school all too well ... . Those who have not been indoctorinated from early childhood in such dangerous lies have an easier time leaving an abusive partner in the earlier stages.

I remember being told things like this in school ... .

... The ones who defended the idea that boys hit girls because they like them were the ones who went back to their abusers. The ones who disagreed with that idea are the ones who stayed separated from their abusers.

Society is teaching girls to become victims ... .

Leaving the abuser does not end the violence ... .

I have 17 years experience in domestic violence both as a victim/survivor and through assisting other women ... .

Your so called 'knowledge' is filled with uneducated, judgmental stereotypes.

Mothers should never have their babies taken from them because they have been victimized ... .

The mother in the OP has been victimized by the calloused government. ... .


Go back, re-read my posts and tell me where I'm wrong.
What, exactly is "uneducated" and what is "judgmental?"

Speak up and defend your slander or retract it now.

Do you disagree that "women who are willing to endure physical abuse to the point that outside intervention (EMS, police, neighbors, CPS) is required (not to mention often requested by the woman herself), are no longer in control?

If so, tell me why.

Do you disagree that children in such care are themselves in danger, and likely to have already suffered injury?

If so, tell me why.

Your dissatifaction is clearly more properly directed toward SOCIETY, and not the OP, me or the system. From your posts, you ARE part of 'the system.'

As a licensed professional advocate, I have to face victims in denial and social critics every day. (My 'so called knowledge' is the product of multiple degrees and 25 years of professional experience.)

I agree that mothers who seek assistance should have nothing to fear from CPS.

They don't. The key word here is seek.

"Child placement (CP)" (the industry euphemism) should be a last resort, and entails involvement of competing interests and prejudices, including those of the mother, father, case-worker, advocate, magistrate/judge, and adminsitrators.

'Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we act to intervene.'

You hinted at one of the most devastating aspects of victim/child advocacy. My biggest obstacle to obtaining a conviction against an abuser/murderer, is the in-bred belief of many victims/survivors that the actor did it "because he loves me."

You know this is true.

As for intervention, where does your duty lie at intake?

Do you:
1) turn away the mother because she 'waited too long' or 'feels controlled by the batterer?"
2) accept the intake and turn away the children?
3) accept the intake and act in the best interest of the mother, ignoring the children?
4) accept the intake and act in the best interest of the mother, and act in the best interest of the child?

Note: 4 implies that these are SEPARATE issues, as what is in the best interest of the mother may not coincide with the best interests of the child.

Stop me here, please, if what I've offered is "uneducated" or "stereotyped."
Tell me what I've missed. Please. Lives and futures may be at stake.
DO something, will you? (Besides whine.)

Now, take a hypothetical case:

Mom shows up with bruises, cuts and scratches. She has 2 children; one, an infant, the other appears to be 2 years old.

Mom relates a history of abuse beginning prior to her first pregnancy.
She has no job, but multiple relatives in the community, some with children, and none with evident violence in the household.

(Sort of typical, no?)

You know that an examination of the children may reveal current/previous injuries. You know that the batterer remains in the home.

Isn't it prudent to get immediate examinations of the group, offer 72-hour shelter and institute legal proceedings to protect the group?

If you answered yes, you know that the legal/medical process could result in separation and CP.

If you answered no, what do YOU suggest?

The fault is not with the system, but with the decision makers within it and perspective. Yours, mine, and everyone else's.

This is my 4th (unanswered and ignored) request to you: Give me the better system.
Do not whine.
Do not cite anecdotes.
Tell us what you've got that works better.

Do it now.
Deny ignorance!
jw



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Well, it definitely sucks that things have degraded to this point in the world. Human rights are being completely violated by a system that continuously grows stronger daily, and its evident that totalitarianism is closing in.

However,...what if the woman WAS too stupid to have the kid?

There is still that possibility. I see tons of people too stupid to breed, and yet, breeding is the only thing that they seem to get right. And, unfortunately, the welfare system is growing thinner by the day due to the economy.

Even worse, now we're providing a reality show for the woman who had octuplets that she could not financially support. I guess she won't have a problem with money anymore, because now we're turning her into a celebrity.

This is the sort of message that we send out to our young, and then wonder why the government MAY want to regulate who gets to parent the next generation.

At any rate...I think most of this is our faults. We've let the government get out of control and then wondered why they finally took it for everything it was worth. Its a pretty basic fact of life...if you're willing to give, someone is willing to take.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
It amazes me that I have not seen this reported on the news channels. So if you look stupid they can take your child away from you? Goodness gracious, This Government have tried to control evey aspect of our lives since they came into power. But we the citizens are fighting back. Makes me wonder why no human rights groups have taken this fight up also. If she does go to european court of human rights, I for one hope she wins.

Oh and another thing I would rather live in the UK than live in the USA thank you very much. You might think we have let the Gov over here railroad us. But you are mistaken. They will know what we think of them when the EU and Local elections happen on thursday.

[edit on 2-6-2009 by Laurauk]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOtheories
However,...what if the woman WAS too stupid to have the kid?
There is still that possibility.


She may be, but even stupid people deserve protection of the law, and she was clearly denied what we in the US call "due process."

It may turn out that she can't even take care of herself. But, her doctor says she can, the baby needs no special attention, and the council didn't let her have her own attorney.

Too easy for the State to take over, even if it turns out they're right.
(What's up with their National Health System, that she is 3 years down the line without assistance?)


I see tons of people too stupid to breed, and yet, breeding is the only thing that they seem to get right.


Haven't we all. Some of 'em know how to post on internet forums, too.


But, as I said, our laws allow for someone to assist people, even in legal proceedings. There are 'guardianships' for personal and financial care, and 'ad litems' who assist (at no personal expense) those caught up in the legal system.

I don't kow what we can do about reproduction, short of an institution; and, no one really wants to see that.


Even worse, now we're providing a reality show for the woman who had octuplets that she could not financially support.


This is what you get in a country where "a woman's right to control her body" and "reproductive rights" take precedence over common sense.

Not that either are incorrect, but we seem to have forgotten that along with "rights" we have "responsibilities."

I don't think you can legislate responsibility, but courts will jail you for irresponsibility if it is likely to harm yourself or others.


This is the sort of message that we send out to our young, and then wonder why the government MAY want to regulate who gets to parent the next generation.

At any rate...I think most of this is our faults. We've let the government get out of control ... . If you're willing to give, someone is willing to take.


As soon as we are willing to take responsibility, there will be less perceived "need" for government to choose wisely for is if we don't do it ourselves.

Star for you, for asking tough questions.

jw



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
www.parentguidancecenter.org...

Texas SENATE BILL 1440 will allow CPS access to your home without a warrant and without probable cause. CPS just has to say it wants to investigate and a judge will give them permission.

This stuff is happening in the U.S.

And does any one here remember the TX raid where they stole dozens of children from their families because of a false tip? And kept the children for months? How much trauma will CPS be allowed to inflict upon families once this bill passes?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Jessicamsa
 


For some reason, it seems these raids, and illegal searches happen to people that don't pose a threat to the government or law enforcement, and don't provide much resistance.

Waco was not originally a child welfare problem, it was an arms problem.

Other than that, you don't hear about violent resistance to these things very often. I hear a lot of people (especially on here / myself included) say that they dare them to try and come into my home. But, you don't hear of that happening on the news or elsewhere?!?

Do they pick and choose their targets? Or, is there just concern at the places they do go? Maybe the people who would defend themselves from such an unwarranted search happen to also be good parents and citizens.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Reply to Post by Jessicamsa

What kind of an "advocate" are you? Why do you post misleading, partial quotes, and incomplete misrepresentations?

Here's the entire story, and my responses:


Originally posted by Jessicamsa

Texas SENATE BILL 1440 will allow CPS access to your home without a warrant and without probable cause. CPS just has to say it wants to investigate and a judge will give them permission.


No, the Act allows CPS intervention, after review by a Family Law judge ( or Associate judge to whom the matter is referred), ONLY after filing a sworn statement that sets out facts supporting a reasonable conclusion of potential harm to a child.

Specifically,


An application filed under this section must be accompanied by an affidavit executed by an investigator or authorized representative of the department that states facts sufficient to lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that:
(1) based on information available, a child's physical or mental health or welfare has been or may be adversely affected by abuse or neglect;
(2) the requested order is necessary to aid in the investigation; and
(3) there is a fair probability that allegations of abuse or neglect will be sustained if the order is issued and executed.


Hardly 'just because CPS wants' to intervene, and punishable as perjury if found untrue.

Moreover, what's wrong about this process if the allegations ARE sustained?

In any case, the Court "may" issue an Order, not shall. The Court has the option to call for a full hearing, with Notice, if it questions the application.


And does any one here remember the TX raid where they stole dozens of children from their families because of a false tip? And kept the children for months?


Do you remember that the case you refer to involved a polygamous compund run by Warren Jeffs and his followers?

Do you remember that Jeffs and his FLDS sect advocated child brides as young as 10 years?

Do you remember that Jeffs was CONVICTED in Utah and sentenced to 10 years in prison, and that several of his followers in Texas are under grand jury investigation for child abuse and bigamy as well?

Do you remember that most of the children removed from the FLDS compound refused to identify themselves, or that several of the "child brides" refused to give their ages to avoid implicating their "husbands?"

Do you remember that the Courts are STILL investigating the FLDS compund, despite the mothers refusal to cooperate?

Finally, why don't you report that the same organization from whom you obtained the information about SB 1440 has this to say about Texas' CPS agency:



The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) in turn did a remarkable job after these rulings by changing, adjusting, re-educating, and clarifying their Policies and Procedures Hand-Book and employees knowledge so that these rulings would be upheld and their work in investigations and with families could be improved. DFPS was on the right track and they were getting the message!


Once again, for the 5th time, tell me the system YOU have in mind to protect innocent children.

And again, I do not advocate random intervention by the State into ANY aspect of our lives. But, at some point, a child's needs outweigh those an incompetent or dangerous parent.

(Of course, you'll just reply with inaccurate references, incomplete quotes, and inapt anecdotes.)

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Jessicamsa
 

Here, what should CPS do, or have done:


Texas mother charged with feeding her child feces


A woman has been accused of smearing human waste on her 3-year-old daughter's i.v. line, causing life-threatening infections.

The sick child was admitted to the hospital with a high fever and "a long history of chronic diarrhea." She had a catheter and doctors conducted a blood test, which was positive for foreign bacteria common in feces.

An attorney representing McDonald, told the newspaper she is a "fine young woman from a fine family who loves her children very much."

"I believe that as the facts unfold, the impression people have of this young woman will change for the better."


Read the whole story for the details:
hosted.ap.org...


Woman charged with abandoning toddler in garage
A 42-year-old woman remained Tuesday in the Bexar County Jail, accused of abandoning her girlfriend’s toddler at an East Side garage this weekend, authorities said.

www.mysanantonio.com...


Makes everything alright, no?

jw



[edit on 3-6-2009 by jdub297]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join