Parents of Adolf Hitler Campbell lose custody
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 07:40
VIEWED: 6710
PAGE 5 of 10
So, once kids are taken away, the reason should be made public? Ok, who benefits from this, and who does it harm?
Well, it harms innocent parents, it taints a jury pool so it may benefit guilty parents, and it benefits CPS by raising their actions above suspicion. So, sure... go for it. If your main goal is to shine a light on CPS operations I've got no problem with that approach.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
it taints a jury pool so it may benefit guilty parents
Technically it would more taint a jury pool against both innocent and guilty parents (and I don't really care if a jury pool is tainted against guilty parents), but again, that's why there REALLY needs to be enough investigation and evidence to justify this.
I think evidence of abuse, harm, or incompetence should be overwhelming if an agency is going to do something like this. The damage and fall out otherwise is not sufficient to justify the actions of the agency.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A parent could be found innocent DURING an investigation, and the charges (if any are pending) dropped.
As far as benefiting a guilty parent, if a jury pool is tainted enough it may mean selection of lesser-qualified jurors, as in the OJ Simpson case.
I agree that if a child is taken away the evidence should be clear. There are other actions that CPS can take, such as counseling the parents or requiring sobriety checks or checking up on the child, but in order to do that right you need time which means money.
There are far too many cases where a thread of evidence was ignored and a child died. Then everybody gets to kick CPS around for not doing a more thorough investigation.
The problem is that people can be abusive parents. Who should step in? You could say "private charity" but the Boys Town and Fresh Air Fund incidents point out that even this is not a sure-fire answer.
There is a fine line between respecting parents' rights (as granted to them by law) and allowing parents to treat their own children as property. I know you are anti-government, but you have to decide how to balance the harm between doing nothing and doing something.
Anyway, as I said before, if there are improvements to be made, please suggest them. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that your first suggestion (the reasons for taking away a child should be made public) is agreed to.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here is more grist for the mill:
Quote:
A Cleveland third grader who weighed more than 200 pounds was taken from his mother after officials reportedly said she did not do enough to help the boy, who suffered from a weight-related health issue, to lose weight.
“They are trying to make it seem like I am unfit, like I don’t love my child,” the boy’s mother, who was not identified, told the Cleveland Plain Dealer. “It’s a lifestyle change and they are trying to make it seem like I am not embracing that. It is very hard, but I am trying.”
Officials first became aware of the boy’s weight after his mother took him to the hospital last year while he was having breathing problems, the newspaper reported. The child was diagnosed with sleep apnea and began to be monitored by social workers while he was enrolled in a program called “Healthy Kids, Healthy Weight” at the Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital.
The boy lost a few pounds, but recently began to gain some back, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported. At that point, the Department of Children and Family Services asked a juvenile court for custody of the boy, citing his soaring weight as a form of medical neglect, according to the newspaper.
Taking obese children from their families has become a topic of intense debate over the past year after one high-profile pediatric obesity expert made controversial comments in the Journal of the American Medical Association advocating the practice in acute cases.
“In severe instances of childhood obesity, removal from the home may be justifiable, from a legal standpoint, because of imminent health risks and the parents’ chronic failure to address medical problems,” Dr. David Ludwig co-wrote with Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and researcher at Harvard’s School of Public Health.
A trial is set for the boy’s ninth birthday next month to determine whether his mother will regain custody.
But one family who has been in the same position as the Ohio family told ABC News they disagreed with the practice when “Good Morning America” spoke with them in January.
“Literally, it was two months of hell. It seemed like the longest two months of my life,” mother Adela Martinez said.
Her daughter, 3-year-old Anamarie Regino, weighing 90 pounds, was taken from her parents and placed into foster care a decade ago.
Anamarie didn’t improve at all in foster care, and she was returned to her parents. The young girl was later diagnosed with a genetic predisposition.
“They say it’s for the well-being of the child, but it did more damage than any money or therapy could ever to do to fix it,” Martinez said.
Anamarie Regino, who is now a teenager, agreed.
“It’s not right, what [Dr. Ludwig] is doing, because to get better you need to be with your family, instead of being surrounded by doctors,” she said.
When told of the Regino case, Ludwig said his solution of state intervention did not always work.
“Well, state intervention is no guarantee of a good outcome, but to do nothing is also not an answer,” he said.
The choice between foster care and "doing nothing" is a false dilemma. This is, IMHO, one of those time-and-money cases. What they REALLY should do is put the child in hospital for a month, where parents are allowed to visit at any time. In this case, have they done a thyroid check on the child, or looked for overgrowth syndromes? Cases of apparent medical neglect or abuse or even purported Munchausen's by proxy can be resolved by hospitalization. Often, genetic defects or behavioral disorders (eg pica) are detected. But yanno, doing the right thing is expensive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
As far as benefiting a guilty parent, if a jury pool is tainted enough it may mean selection of lesser-qualified jurors, as in the OJ Simpson case.
Ah. I see your point now. On the other hand, I'm not so sure it's "benefited" OJ. He may have been acquitted, but public opinion is still mostly against him, and I'm not sure he's really been able to find work.
Innocent parents who are acquitted might face the same social problems. But I think that would happen anyway just from criminal charges and having their kids taken from them, whether or not CPS said in advance why.
Quote:
I agree that if a child is taken away the evidence should be clear. There are other actions that CPS can take, such as counseling the parents or requiring sobriety checks or checking up on the child, but in order to do that right you need time which means money.
There are far too many cases where a thread of evidence was ignored and a child died. Then everybody gets to kick CPS around for not doing a more thorough investigation.
True, they do need money. I have put aside my not-liking-government issue in favour of discussing this issue and coming to some manner of solution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"So far, I saw no hard concrete evidence that abuse or neglect was occurring other than their horrible judgment in names."
I just wanted to second the idea that we may not know everything.
There was a story many years back about a psychic who had an MRI, was released, fell on the sidewalk at the hospital entrance and hit her head, sued the hospital >> for loss of her psychic ability <<, and won a few million in damages.
At least so the TV news and newspaper stories went.
In truth what happened was that hospital policy was to monitor patients for any untoward reactions to the contrast used. They didn't do so. She had a reaction outside on the sidewalk, fell and hit her head, and suffered some measurable brain damage. They were clearly negligent, and she clearly suffered damage, hence the monetary award.
But you would never know that those were the facts behind the lawsuit awards by the presentation in the media. And this was a public case, with the information publicly available to the media who COULD have looked up the facts if they chose to do so, before reporting their 'news'.
(If you're wondering why they chose such egregious spin, I suspect it was b/c this was during the political flurry over tort-reform and frivolous lawsuits. I think the initial reports were done by somebody with an ax to grind, and the 'news' was picked up and uncritically repeated by other 'news' outlets.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:I haven't read the story thru, so... what is the timeline? Criminal charges need time to be developed; evidence needs to be gathered and the prosecutor needs to decide whether there is enough to go forward.
So in a case when there's no criminal charges and not enough information, it raises some questions about whether the actions of CPS were justified.
And what happens if there is good evidence that criminal activity IS taking place, but the child is left in the home and is killed before charges can be brought? CPS once again becomes "the enemy".
There is sometimes local politics involved, sometimes outright corruption, and quite frequently overwork and burnout in CPS operations. If you can think of a better way to protect children while at the same time protecting the rights of the parents, please feel free to suggest improvements.
As far as whether or not the parents in this particular case have the savvy to go to the press, there are advocates available to help them.
IMHO a lot of this all boils down to money. The reason why CPS and foster care are screwed up is because everybody wants to do this on the cheap. God forbid we should spend government money on protecting children.
Good post, signy. You've said all I was going to say. Not everything is a government conspiracy or a cover up. There are very shitty parents out there and children who need to be protected. Who protects them then, if you don't allow authorities to intervene? Do you let your parnonia of government have kids stay in homes where they are abused? And if the system doesn't work, it is about money as signy correctly states, and the fact that notifications of abuse are on the increase. Here in Australia we have mandatory reporting, that means I report on a regualar basis, even if it is something that ends up relatively benign. To date, not one child has been taken from their parents, but it has impacted on which parent has care of their child, and parents have been offered support of various kinds. Taking kids from their parents and putting them in foster care is the last step they take, and they have to be parenting in a pretty appalling manner for it to happen - usually drug and alcohol and tiny infants are involved.
And yes, investigations are confidential for all the reasons signy states. Child protection services cop a lot of shit all the time, either they should have taken a kid away and didn't and it ends up being killed or they take kids away and they get a serve for that as well. No wonder the burn out rate for workers is so high. What a depressing job.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There is a fine line between respecting parents' rights (as granted to them by law) and allowing parents to treat their own children as property. I know you are anti-government, but you have to decide how to balance the harm between doing nothing and doing something.
I wonder if US law is similar to Australian. Parents have no rights. None whatsoever, whatever people may believe. They have responsibilities. Children have rights. And the biggest right is not to be abused.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay. I was already in a pretty foul mood, but seeing everything I just said passed off as "don't like government, let the kids suffer durr-hurr-hurr-hyuck" has done it.
I will fulfill your fondest wishes, and try not to respond to any of you until such time as I'm not utterly and completely pissed off at everyone here and the rest of the world. Then you may speculate on what I might say and what you'd LIKE me to say at your leisure.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte, have you thought more about taking B complex vitamins?
You do tend to come off as reflexively anti-government. It's not that there is anything wrong with being anti-government, it's the "reflexive" part that may be a problem.
Anyway, if you can set aside your feelings (and this goes for everyone) perhaps a solution can be found.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME