Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Senator, Proposes Law That Declares Single Parenthood Child Abuse

All of a sudden the "one child per family" law in china is starting to look very rosey in comparison.

reply to post by silo13


As a single parent for many years, i think this law is totally stupid,

single parenthood a contributing factor to child abuse

Most single parents work very hard to give there children the best, they also struggle , juggle jobs , children and school activities, all there money goes on food for kids , clothes for the kids, rent, bills,school trips and what time we have after working hard an paying bills we spend with the kids , doing homework, playing with them, we cant just hand them over to someone else and say here you have them for a bit.
i think this senator should become a single parent for a month and see how he does, we do the best for our children , the best we can, how anyone can think this contributes to child abuse i dont know !!!

reply to post by DoNotForgetMe


The fact that this even got any stars is proof that ignorance runs rampant on ATS.

I'm sorry, but you're very, very wrong here.

At the rate this country is swirling the drain, we might as well just tune out completely.

reply to post by DoNotForgetMe


And what if the parents don't want to teach the birds and bees?

I bet most of them tell their kids to suck it up and use abstinence.

This could have been an informative and useful thread, but somewhere along the way it got derailed. The Senator's action was directed to the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board. Not to the police, not to the courts. There is no punishment for single parenting. No children would be taken away. Nothing bad would happen.

Do you know what the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board does? It administers the Children's Trust Fund. That's it. doa.wi.gov...

AGENCY DESCRIPTION
The Wisconsin Legislature created the board as a public-private partnership in 1983. The 20-member board administers the Children's Trust Fund. The Governor appoints ten public members for three-year terms. The other ten members serve unspecified terms and represent the Governor, several state departments and the Legislature. A policymaking board, it is attached to the Department of Children and Family Services solely for administrative purposes.
MISSION
The board's mission is to promote the development of a sustainable, comprehensive prevention infrastructure that reflects research and promising practices in child abuse and neglect prevention. Through strategic partnerships and investments, the board supports Wisconsin communities in the provision of services to prevent child abuse and neglect.

And what does the Children's Trust Fund do?
wctf.state.wi.us...

Our Vision
The Wisconsin Children's Trust Fund believes that all Wisconsin children grow up in healthy and nurturing environments – free from violence with an equal opportunity to reach their full potential.
Our Mission
We promote the development of a sustainable, comprehensive prevention infrastructure that reflects research and promising practices in child abuse and neglect prevention. Through strategic partnerships and investments, the Children’s Trust Fund supports Wisconsin communities in the provision of services to prevent child abuse and neglect.

The Senator is simply saying that when the Children's Trust Fund looks into causes for abuse and neglect, like poverty, neighborhood violence, lack of education, the way the parents were treated, mental health issues, etc., they should also consider the number of parents present. That's a good idea and I'm surprised it was needed. The number of parents present should have already been on the list of things to consider.

This doesn't make any significant changes to anything. Shame on The Huffington Post for using such a scare headline which doesn't reflect reality.

reply to post by charles1952

This could have been an informative and useful thread, but somewhere along the way it got derailed. The Senator's action was directed to the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board. Not to the police, not to the courts. There is no punishment for single parenting. No children would be taken away. Nothing bad would happen.

Thanks, charles. Your (apparently) savvy response is much appreciated. Once again, an example of how MSM spins the news from mundane to sensational.

Originally posted by DoNotForgetMe
Reply to post by silo13

 

Everything you posted is backwards. The parents should teach the child the birds n bees, NOT a teacher that may be a pedophile. Women are the ones who do not care about contraceptives, if they did there WOULD BE LESS ABORTIONS-the woman carries the baby, it is HER responsibility to protect herself if she does not want a baby. TPTB do NOT want bastard children, they DO want to end people with no children supporting people with children who are unfit to do so. A woman that intentionally has a baby out of wedlock because she is "independent" and wants to prove to the world she can raise a child on her own-fine, do it, but without welfare and any other handout, want to be the mother AND the father, great, first time your kid funks up, you be the one that gets charged. The kid that killed students this week had a broken home, maybe the Senator is tired of it happening. Women go to the extreme when seeking independence. Guys do not care if you can walk and chew gum at the same time, GUYS WANT A MOTHER FOR THE BABY.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

You cannot be serious. Then why aren't guys keeping their virginity and saving it for marriage? The only thing you got right is the guys don't care part - they want women that are stupid so they can have unprotected sex and then blame the stupid girl. Guys like you are the biggest problem of all in this scenario. You prove it by always generically blaming the woman don't you?
This has been the problem since time began, flat out male bigotry! You want woman to be ignorant to tolerate you, then you want to blame them for everything under the sun. The welfare system was created for this exact reason, not because women were running around wantonly getting pregnant. Get your history and facts straight - o sorry, you can't do that can you?

I wanted to comment more on welfare:
This system from its inception was designed to divide families, especially poor families. If you look at the history of welfare, it started just like most of these bills that this congressman is pushing: an answer to a perceived social problem that could easily have been avoided if only education and opportunity, real opportunity, were available in society to begin with. This is more than 'they want your children' it's more like 'let's see if our previous influences and past social controls will work yet again.

reply to post by silo13

This is just an act of attention seeking. To look at this deeper, I would percieve it to almost create children into mindless robots with no values etc.

Well, I propose a law that removes from office any politician who supports legislation that labels single parenthood as child abuse. All the legislation attempting to turn this country into a nanny state should be stuffed up the arses of the weasels who support it.

reply to post by SatansGift


CONGRATS TONS.

YOU ARE DOING A WONDERFUL JOB.

PLEASE BE SURE TO GIVE YOUR KIDS TONS OF AFFECTION. Condition them to enjoy it even if they don't as their brains and immune system and their other developmental stuff desperately needs lots of healthy affection.

I doubt you could be doing anything any better.

You are probably greatly minimizing any ATTACHMENT DISORDER with your kids. maybe to the point of it being fairly inconsequential.

Just be as emotionally bonded and affectionate with them as possible. that will go a long ways toward minimizing the negatives of one parent living.

GOD'S BEST TO YOU AND YOUR KIDS. CONGRATS.

reply to post by wildtimes

You don't even need to consult the DSM-IV-TR to know this. It was a simple wikipedia link

Like the Romanian orphans who were left in their cribs, and only fed and diapered by non-interactive "staff". And Ted Kazinski.

Your statement above is beyond exaggeration, it is plain false.


I've no idea where you picked up this nonsense, but as a professional with a code of ethics, I must refute it.
That's some scary stuff you're spewing there, friend.
Please review your sources and look into a few more before making pronouncements like this. Some might take you seriously.

PLEASE, by all means, share with us what your professional degree/training is in. You seem to imply that it relates to this topic so please enlighten us on that score.

Perhaps while you're at it, you can elaborate on how it is that you seem to have come to the conviction that

professionals agree so much with each other about ATTACHMENT DISORDER.

Personally, my convictions are as follows . . .

1. ATTACHMENT DISORDER CERTAINLY comes in many DEGREES from slight to extremely serious.

2. ANY OF THE FOLLOWING--BETWEEN THE AGES OF 0-6 OR SO CAN CAUSE ATTACHMENT DISORDER to some DEGREE.

A) physical, sexual abuse--from slight to serious
B) workaholism, drug abuse, alcoholism, ragaholism, gambling . . . on the part of one or both parents
C) coldness, harshness, distance, absence on the part of one or both parents
D) emotional abuse
E) verbal abuse
F) unreasonable punishment--particularly beyond the strength of the relationship--i.e.--punishment without RELATIONSHIP produces REBELLION
G) lack of convincing routine DEMONSTRATION of parental love sufficient for the child to FEEL loved.

3. Statistics quoted by many professionals not that long ago indicated that 20% of all Americans had ATTACHMENT DISORDER. I was shocked. I was and am certain it's a lot higher. I'd say more like 20% don't have very serious degrees of ATTACHMENT DISORDER. Then I looked at their criteria. They were talking about the greatly more serious degrees of attachment disorder.

4. Certainly in my classes . . . out of 24 students, I'd say maybe 2-3 don't have a significant degree of ATTACHMENT DISORDER.

5. IIRC, 95% of all our inmates in all our prisons have ATTACHMENT DISORDER.

6. Any significant degree of ATTACHMENT DISORDER, RECENT RESEARCH has indicated leaves the child's brain--DAMAGED--more or less permanently--in the areas of the brain that have to do with successful relationships and successful communication of emotional content in relationships.

7. I was also speaking from the stand point of the globalist elite puppet masters who are creating and targeting classes of folks they plan to genocidally EXTERMINATE.

8. THEIR research and statistics convince THEM that single parented children are AS A GROUP, ON THE WHOLE a lost cause to society--more trouble than they are worth. Think THX-1138. George Lucas' Master's Thesis film.

9. OF COURSE there are exceptions. THANK GOD FOR THAT. I wouldn't be here without there being exceptions. However, the rule still holds.

reply to post by Laurauk


AT this point in our miserable descent toward Armageddon at the hand of the globalists . . .

probably MOST two parent families produce ALMOST as many and as serious a case of ATTACHMENT DISORDER as single parent families do--in the same ways.

For one, DAD IS USUALLY AN EMOTIONALLY ABSENT PARENT even if he sleeps in the home every night.

The Columbine kids were in 2 parent families and had horrific degrees of ATTACHMENT DISORDER . . . and the Mom, still clueless after years of therapy and guilt still evidently has no clue about how their parenting contributed.

Sheesh.

reply to post by Pixiefyre


Sounds like you did a great job.

Sounds like you raised a well functioning mature child.

However, in the terms of my original statement . . .

the odds are quite high

that your daughter would still have BEEN BETTER OFF raised by two loving mature healthy adults.

Perhaps the difference between your level of success and BETTER OFF would be, in most cases, RELATIVELY NEGLIGIBLE, I don't know. However, the difference would be there in some form.

reply to post by BO XIAN

PLEASE, by all means, share with us what your professional degree/training is in. You seem to imply that it relates to this topic so please enlighten us on that score.

I received a master's degree in August of 2002 in Social Work from an esteemed school of such, specializing in Children and Families and Clinical Practice, and was a practicing psychotherapist for several years.

I own a copy (very dog-eared) of the DSM-IV-TR, and I know what this disorder is.
I studied that book then, and still refer to it now.

Your claims are inflammatory and extreme. The very link I provided in my previous post (even though it's only wikipedia) refutes your stance!
And your training is.....what?

ETA: You have not provided even one source for your "theories."
How do you claim knowledge of these things, "PLEASE'?


Of the "while I'm at it" items:

C) coldness, harshness, distance, absence on the part of one or both parents

no, if one parent is consistently available, affectionate, and warm, the child will be fine
and

G) lack of convincing routine DEMONSTRATION of parental love sufficient for the child to FEEL loved.

This is true, and no "normal", healthy parent would withhold love like that.
As I said, it has to do with a LACK of affection, stimulation and love.

You are confusing abuse with complete neglect. They are two very different things. Even an "abused" child wants the love and approval of their parent(s). A child/adult with RAD is totally indifferent to the affection of others.
Any other questions?

reply to post by charles1952

Though I appreciate most all attempts made by government to 'protect' children I find the 'system' lacking and doing far more harm than it's failing attempt to 'do good'.

When I see any official singling out any part of society and labeling them a risk - I also find that... Well, I'll not state my (informed) reaction to that overstepping of authority.

What if (for whatever reason) this 'law' was directed at 'all those who are not white'. Or those who are religious. Or those who are double parents but both of the same sex?

Pinpointing persons it counterproductive in my opinion and a libatious concept. Nailing poverty, lack of education, everything the government can and should be 'fixing' - is not. But it's far easier for the government to point it's long bony finger at those who are already (in general) struggling and screaming 'See! It's them!' - than reviewing their own failings and then proceed to do something constructive to counter it.

Also - once legislation becomes law? It's terribly difficult if not impossible to repeal. That being said? Again, I feel, it's my opinion, this piece of legislation is just another big boot toe being shoved between door and frame of the American family.

Get out I say! 'Fix' your problematic government and leave families alone!

peace

reply to post by wildtimes


The best book I know of on ATTACHMENT DISORDER IS:

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330838659&sr=1-1


My PhD is in Clinical Psychology from a highly ranked professional school. I've taught part time and counseled part time across 2 continents for 30+ years.

My school and class were significantly involved in the revision of the DSM IV

I'm not at all impressed with the Wiki article on ATTACHMENT DISORDER. Nor with your respect for it.

no, if one parent is consistently available, affectionate, and warm, the child will be fine
and

Depends on several things.

A) degree of "consistently available affection and warmth."
B) the child's genetic make-up and needs for same
C) one's definition of "fine."

Certainly one parent providing such EFFECTIVELY AND CONSISTENTLY goes a LONG ways toward minimizing the DEGREE OF ATTACHMENT DISORDER. It does NOT remove all signs of it.

This is true, and no "normal", healthy parent would withhold love like that.
As I said, it has to do with a LACK of affection, stimulation and love.

Again, it DEPENDS on several factors and the degrees of those factors.

I know lots of "normal" "healthy" parents who are tooo exhausted and toooo absent too many hours providing home, clothing, food, transportation etc. to be very available very often very emotionally accesibly to their children.

You may well not be aware of a STUDY OF ALL STUDYS about 35-40 years ago. It studied all the other studies up to that time on Child Rearing factors and practices.

They studied everything available.

They wanted to know what resulted in children being successful as adults.

Success as adults was defined as:

A) Stable marriage
B) Stable work record
C) Never in trouble with the law
D) Never on welfare.

They looked at socio economic factors; types of discipline factors dozens of factors.

ONE VARIABLE ACCOUNTED FOR 80% OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAILURE VS SUCCESS AS ADULTS.

What do you think that one factor was?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

No, it wasn't love or even affection and warmth etc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It was WHETHER OR NOT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The child FELT loved, or not.

You are confusing abuse with complete neglect. They are two very different things. Even an "abused" child wants the love and approval of their parent(s). A child/adult with RAD is totally indifferent to the affection of others.

Goodness! What did they teach you at your school!

1. Neglect IS abuse. Particularly beyond a certain degree.

2. No, in terms of their effects on producing ATTACHMENT DISORDER, they are NOT THAT different in their effects.

3. OF COURSE an abused child wants the love and approval of their parents. If you think the meager amounts, degrees, qualities that MANY get and the confusion surrounding such are great at preventing ATTACHMENT DISORDER, you are grossly mistaken.

4. NO, NOT ALL CHILDREN with RAD are TOTALLY INDIFFERENT to the affection of others. THAT'S

ONE *TYPE* OF ATTACHMENT DISORDER. Do you know how many TYPES of ATTACHMENT DISORDER there are and their labels?

It apears that somehow you have ended up with a very simplistic and overly inaccurate understanding of ATTACHMENT DISORDER.

BTW, the brain damage studied resulting from ATTACHMENT DISORDER was verified by sophisticated imaging technologies.

reply to post by BO XIAN

for 30+ years.

So, your education (proclaimed PhD) was granted 30+ years ago?

Wow, I'm so impressed with your approach and your diplomacy that I don't have anything else to say! /sarcasm

These unverified credentials in no way "validate" your statements.

And as far as my "respect" for anything, I don't give a rat's butt what you think of it!! I have also raised two kids, worked as a nanny for four others, and spent years as a parent educator...

A child who receives unconditional love, affection, stimulation and recognition from their caregiver is not at risk for RAD. Moreover, every child has his/her own capacity of resilience. A child who is hypersensitive might be hurt by a parent's "absence" (whether physical or emotional), and a child who is not hypersensitive will do just fine.

In addition, your "credentials" when underscored by your claimed educational achievement don't impress me. Nor does your effort to discredit me.

reply to post by BO XIAN

reply to post by wildtimes


I have no need nor desire to discredit YOU.

I merely chided you about SOME of your purported quality information and beliefs on the topic.

Now what were you saying about brittleness and diplomacy?

reply to post by wildtimes

A child who receives unconditional love, affection, stimulation and recognition from their caregiver is not at risk for RAD.

More blanket statements. Been a long time since I had such a discussion with a Social Worker. I'd forgotten about their proclivity for blanket statements--of course--while complaining about others' statements they see as 'blanket statements.' LOL..

How many children or what percentage of children do you observe receiving lavish amounts of unconditional love, affection, stimulation and recognition from much of anyone these days?

Moreover, every child has his/her own capacity of resilience. A child who is hypersensitive might be hurt by a parent's "absence" (whether physical or emotional), and a child who is not hypersensitive will do just fine.

Mostly true. Though it depends on the definition of "just fine."

Cheers. I hope you enjoy your brilliant professionalism. It's been interesting.

OH, at my age of 65 . . . I no longer care THAT much whether you care to affirm my much of anything, or not.

I'm comfortable in my own skin and with my training and experiences and observations.

I'm particularly comfortable with how much they've allowed me to love others precious individuals into more fulfilling lives and relationships.