Loyalty to the State
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Monday, March 31, 2008 03:34
VIEWED: 19263
PAGE 25 of 27
Local, since that's where we would have some form of jurisdiction.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well double drat, this is my third attempt to reply. And since my computer ate the first two times now you get the really, really short version.
The Wisconsin 'neglect' code sounds great, except as noted in the case above other portions of Wisconsin law exempt medical care (and possible charges of neglect) if the parents really believe the child will get better with prayer. In other words, there are provisions elsewhere in the law which nullify the 'neglect' rules. Therefore parents aren't held to any standard.
The emotional abuse definition is a crime (read it).
These laws, where they are enforceable and not exempted by other laws, are minimal - about what is required for pets.
Laws vary from state to state (Utah being one of the notorious ones, but there are others).
And finally, all CPSs are invoked only when a complaint is filed. That doesn't help the child who is isolated or 'disappeared' - which means that they really do live, or die, without any protection at all. And parents or other caregivers of dependents (the mentally retarted pregnant woman who was slowly tortured to death by an entire family) who understand this know that the way to keep out of trouble is to keep their victims out of sight.
So, are you willing to live with this as the best children can expect ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And finally, all CPSs are invoked only when a complaint is filed. That doesn't help the child who is isolated or 'disappeared' - which means that they really do live, or die, without any protection at all. And parents or other caregivers (the mentally retarted pregnant woman who was slowly tortured to death by an entire family) who understand this know that the way to get keep out of trouble is to keep their victims out of sight.
So, are you willing to live with this as the best children can expect ?
I don't know, are you willing to describe your measures to prevent these 'disappeared' children?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
IF we had universal health insurance.... which we don't... we could have well-baby nurse visits: at one moth, six months, and yearly until the age of 5. It appears that most dead children < 5 years old.
We actually had a nurse visit our house a couple of times and an evaluator from the Regional Center visited once because our child was so "at risk" from a lot of things: seizures, mental retardation, behavioral issues, and the attendant possibility of abuse.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would not prevent 'disappeared' children - I would investigate their circumstances at regular intervals. Just as having a person run at the sight of a police officer is legally considered in and of itself cause for pursuit (knowledge of guilt), having a child drop off the map would also be cause for investigation.
But perhaps you should indicate what YOU would do for these children, or if indeed you think they are worthy of any protection, all things considered.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
... if indeed you think they are worthy of any protection, all things considered.
Let's look at the nature of this argument, since it's the only one you and Signym have been making for the last couple hundred posts.
1. I think X would make things better.
2. If you don't think X will make things better, then clearly you don't want things to be better.
Right. You scream "It's for the children!!!!", and we're all just supposed to crap ourselves and give in to whatever hare brained scheme you think needs to happen. The problem with such cheap demagoguery is that anyone, on any side, can play.
Haven't you got anything else?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sarge, I asked how much $ kids were "worth", and how many kids "parent's rights" were worth and got... nada.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SergeantX
Well, for one thing you dropped out of the conversation about the time we started posting actual reports of kids who were removed from school and then died or were killed; and after we posted statistics about how many children were documented to be abused and neglected (btw the newly linked state report puts the figure at 3%.)
If you have something to say about it, then say it.
Or if you need a personal invitation to have an opinion about it, let me ask you then - kids who are disappeared are at higher risk of abuse and neglect. Is that worth doing anything about ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Seems like a simple question, Sarge. It only requires a yes or no answer.
Is it worth doing anything about?
Or are you afraid to commit to an answer?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME