Parents of Adolf Hitler Campbell lose custody
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 07:40
VIEWED: 6710
PAGE 8 of 10
Quote:I summarized this time, but it is absolutely same story. I don't appreciate your intimation that I am lying.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Rion
Ahem. Well, the story that CTSky gave you is not the story she told 6 years ago.
Then, she indicated there WAS successful treatment available which she elected not to use:
The formula helped him gain weight, but it made him sicker and vomit more. The vomiting had already stopped entirely with homeopathy, but the formula brought it back full force. When I stopped the formula, the vomiting stopped again. Also, as I pointed out originally, it is likely to result in lifelong dependence and intolerance of foods.
When you say it was a "successful" treatment, you are speaking of only one variable: weight gain. In all other respects, it wasn't successful. It made him worse.
As a parent, I have to weigh ALL costs and ALL the symptoms, not just one. I wanted a BETTER remedy, an intervention that will results in improvement in eczema, vomiting, diarrhea, increased food tolerance, AS WELL AS weight gain. I had to at least try to find this better intervention before I settled for the other one. Luckily, I found it. He now eats all foods but three and is thriving. As far as I am concerned, holding out for a better intervention saved him from a lifetime of misery that he would have been consigned to had we followed the "successful" conventional treatment.
In other words, some treatments are more "successful" than others. We were very lucky to have found a more successful treatment than the one we had before, because we didn't give up and weren't afraid to try new things.
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I absolutely agree with you that it is NOT okay and shouldn't be minimalized.
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I just don't think abuse is okay. My grandma used to beat on my dad when he was a kid. It wasn't okay, even though she did love him, she was doing what she knew, how she was raised. It wasn't okay though...
The truth is, I see minor to moderate abuse/neglect of kids EVERYWHERE. Hell, when I am here on RWED, you might even be right to accuse me of mild neglect of my kids. None of it is OK.
But I believe the solution to this widespread abuse/neglect is NOT CPS or child abuse intervention as we know it.
I think the long term solution has to be in education. Teach parents to treat children the way they themselves would want to be treated. Teach them to see kids as people too. First dialogue with compassion. If that fails, then take more aggressive intervention.
Yes, we agree on faith healing or any type of healing. It has to be responsible.
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Of course, you are right about younger children. Someone else DOES have to speak for them.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
If they have lived all their life with abuse, they may see it as the norm, even if it of a horrific nature.
But as far as "seeing it as the norm" goes, "norm" doesn't mean they see it as painless. They simply learn to assume that ALL kids live like that. They still want it to stop and will say so if given the chance.
Quote:They would only hide the abuse if the consequences are very painful. That is, if they are threatened with worse punishments if they tell, they will lie and hide it. But at that level, you can tell they are in physical terror of their abusers, no matter what they say.
To some degree or another, all children suffer from stockholm syndrome. They love their parents, even if they are abusers and may try at all costs and protect their abusers and hide the abuse.
They would also hide the abuse if the punishment of their abusers is unacceptable, such as their parents going to court or being taken away from them. Yes, children love their parents, often despite how abusive they are. But don't mistake that love for unwillingness to tell the truth. If they knew they could tell the truth without getting their parents into "trouble," if telling the truth would change the circumstances at home, they would tell in a heartbeat.
My mother once beat me so badly I ran into the street barefoot to escape her. When she came after me, I ran into a neighbor's house. The neighbor called the police. I lied my ass off to keep my mother from getting into trouble legally. That plus a little bribe and the cops went away. I did NOT want to be taken away from my family.
BUT, had the neighbor befriended me and listened to me, I would have told them the truth. Had they tried to talk to my mother, I woulda told the truth. I, and other abused kids I know, would have told the truth had we felt SAFE to do so. Our system is set up so that kids feel UNSAFE either way, and that is a big problem.
Quote:Obviously, I believe that some abuse is NOT subjective and ought to be criminalized. But short of abuse severe enough to be criminalized, I think an informal "jury" of community peers is good process for taking each individual situation and culture into account. If a formal jury is good enough for deciding guilt in criminal cases, a jury should be good enough to decide on intervention in less than criminal cases.
I have a lot of problems with abuse being seen as subjective, although I recognise that there are fuzzy areas and cultural complexities.
Quote:And I would agree to criminalize sex with children, including sending the perps to prison.
So in this society, it is never acceptable for an adult to have sex with a child. So even if a family deemed that was acceptable behaviour, it is not acceptable to the society at large and therefore it would be necessary for an external authority to protect a child.
Quote:Problem with that is kids won't call if calling means removal from home. That is why I advocate less drastic intervention. Now in theory, CPS is supposed to work with the family and remove from home as a last resort. But we all know that in the USA at least, that is simply the luck of the draw. If you get a trigger happy worker, you lose your kids before you can blink.
Kidsline is a free telephone service that children can access to get help and counselling. You may have something similar in the States.
Quote:But they nearly do in the US. All they need is some kind of rationale, any kind of rationale--even a bruise on the knee from falling the day before--and they will whisk the kids away and worry about defending that decision later in court. The parents will have to PROVE their innocence to get them back. By then, the kids will alread
I'd hope that government employees in the US never had unlimited powers. They certainly don't here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Yes, cases are complex, which is why I advocate informal intervention first. For me it is an issue of severity. If the problem can be resolved without removal of custody, then keep it out of court. If removal must take place, then file criminal charges. A crime is a crime, even if the perp is addicted or mentally challenged. We don't make exceptions like that when they hurt adults--why should be make exceptions when they hurt children?
So you would file criminal charges against a intellectualy disabled mother who didn't have the wherewithall to change her baby's nappies or go to her when she was crying? You'd send that person to jail?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, of course not. I wouldn't take her baby from her to begin with. It is not the type of situation that requires removal of custody.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you would file criminal charges against a intellectualy disabled mother who didn't have the wherewithall to change her baby's nappies or go to her when she was crying? You'd send that person to jail?
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTSky
Apparently my mistake was to read your words and accept them at face value. I apologize and assure you it won't happen again.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:No, of course not. I wouldn't take her baby from her to begin with. It is not the type of situation that requires removal of custody.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you would file criminal charges against a intellectualy disabled mother who didn't have the wherewithall to change her baby's nappies or go to her when she was crying? You'd send that person to jail?
So you'd let a baby be maltreated?????????
I appreciate that you see your system as flawed and you wish to advocate for children. I wish you well with this, and hope that it does improve. If it is as you describe, it needs serious attention. I am unable to argue with you on how your system is, only on how it works here. I do know that perceptions of child protection services can be distorted and I also know they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I find it very hard to believe that there is unlimited powers for public servants to remove children without some legal processes involved, and that children are removed for minor infractions such as bruised knees. BUt as I say, I have no way of arguing with you on what your system is, except that Rione seems to describe something a little less draconian and one that, for her brother, was compassionate towards the mother while protecting the child.
I agree that children need to have an age appropriate voice in all of this and what happens to them, and additionally need to be clearly informed - also age appropriate about what is happening. A safe service for kids to ring is essential. I also suspect that that exists in parts of the US, but perhaps is not widely known. But it is an excellent suggestion.
I also agree that parents should be offered support rather than simply removing a child. I might add that such support often comes at considerable cost, which is perhaps why it is not a first resort where you live.
I would be cautious about asking children to make decisions about their wellbeing, particularly young children but of course conceding more choice to older ones. I outlines some of the reasons why I think that is the case. A young child is unable to make difficult decisions relating to their wellbeing, which is why adults need to care for children, I think it becomes particularly difficult for children who suffer family violence because of the enmeshed and complex nature of family dynamics in these cases. Children may feel pain and discomfort but may not have the capacity to determine that what is happening to them is wrong.
Not all cases where children are removed involve abuse - certainly where I live - a parent who beats or sexual abuses a child will face criminal prosecution, and quite rightly. But there are parents who are unable to care adequately for their children because of their own issues. It may be that they can manage with help, or that sometimes removal may be required for a short period while the parent receives assistance, or that another family member can take over the care of a child. That is why professionals step in, to make an assessment. Long term removal of a child would have to be made with a judgement from a children's court (here) who takes over responsibility for a child - so it certainly isn't an easy or discretionary power held by a nameless public servant.
From what I have seen - and I am talking again about my own locality - people who work within these systems have a genuine care for children's wellbeing. They are being swamped with cases where children are suffering and finite resources to help them.
The way that I see it, is not that the government or any judicial system is to blame, it's just that as a society, western individual rights focused materialistic societies such as the US and Ausralia, on a systemic level we don't nurture our children adequately. Too many parents live in an isolated manner, and that includes the isolation of nuclear family units as well as single parent families. If mum or dad or both are not up to the task, which lets face i
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't want to get involved with this conversation again, but I suppose I also can't leave CTS behind.
Quote:
So you would file criminal charges against a intellectualy disabled mother who didn't have the wherewithall to change her baby's nappies or go to her when she was crying? You'd send that person to jail?
....
So you'd let a baby be maltreated?????????
Based on your representation, it doesn't sound like you're satisfied with any solution. Which is fair, because it's a pretty awful scenario to start with, and all possible solutions may have their downsides. At the same time, I'm also not sure it's fair to react with shock when CTS merely tries to answer your scenarios, especially if she's damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't.
Anyway. On that particular issue, we don't necessarily know that a parent without "wherewithall" would continue mistreatment after being informed that their behaviour constitutes mistreatment. In addition, there might be other arrangements to compensate for a parent who is not always reliable or comprehending, without yet needing to remove the child.
Perhaps it may be necessary that some kind of case worker stay with that family or perform daily visits during the transition period where the parent is learning to prevent relapse or to reinforce some behaviour (and keep accidental mistreatment from continuing), but it may not be necessary at that point to remove the child.
Should it become necessary, either because the lesson can't be learned by the parent and the child is in continuing danger, other family members might be considered, and then FINALLY, removal might be considered. Or, if mistreatment were to continue out of malice instead of ignorance, then it would be abuse and intervention WOULD be needed.
Asking as you did if the opposition side of this debate would "let a baby be maltreated?????" is somewhat reactionary, and not representative of the argument being made.
1kiki: I'm very confused why you believe what CTS said means that you can not take her at face value. It almost implies you believe she is lying?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS, it sounds like we agree on most things here, we just have different ways of saying it. I'm glad that you guys found a solution so that your son is doing well.
WIth Magon's example of the developmentally different mother, I have to wonder who failed to look after her affectively in the first place, thus resulting in pregnancy and a baby? But it happens all too often so that point is not the thing here. I should hope that the thing tried/suggested would be for the woman and her child to live in a household with other family members. That way the woman and her child are both looked after and she can still be with her child and be part of its raising.
Magon's, our situation worked out really well but there are many that don't. Fortunately we knew my little brother and his mom already and so he was sent directly to us when he was taken away from his mother. The plan was for us to keep him until she took some classes, got stable, did the things she needed to do in order to get him back. But she was unable to get it together after two years of trying so we got to adopt him. She's stable and does fine in her apartment, takes care of her puppy, does her shopping etc. but she isn't built for parenting. We take my lil' bro over once a week to spend the evening with her, we drop him off and pick him up a couple of hours later. They have a nice time, she loves him and he loves her, she's just not built for parenting on her own. And since she lives up here away from her own family on her own is what she was doing.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Should I feel saddened that you have to ask?
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you'd let a baby be maltreated?????????
I have worked with disabled persons before who have many limitations, but still strive to live as independently as possible. They simply need some support. In cases of mentally retarded persons, they often need a helper to come in from time to time to check on them, continue training them in self-care tasks, etc. The type of external support varies, depending on the level of retardation and circumstances.
I would advocate leveraging all community and family support available for the mother and child in this case. If the mother is so seriously retarded that she could not manage even with support, then only as a very, very, very last resort would I remove custody, if possible, to a close relative. But in that case, there is probably no awareness of custody to begin with. No, of course, there would be no criminal charges here, but this scenario would be entirely an exception to the rule. Furthermore, I would not make removal of custody permanent--I would do everything to maintain that familial tie.
-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME