Parents of Adolf Hitler Campbell lose custody

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 07:40
VIEWED: 6710
PAGE 9 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, December 2, 2011 12:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I didn't want to get involved with this conversation again, but I suppose I also can't leave CTS behind.

You are too kind. :) (I hope that didn't offend you.)

Quote:

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?

Of course she does. She went from intimation that I'm lying to saying it outright via sarcasm.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, December 2, 2011 1:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
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.

It's never good to assume an emotional reaction when you are interpreting someone's written words. I wasn't particularly shocked at CTS's reaction. My problem with CTS is the all or nothing quality to her statements. She says unequivocably "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" she doesn't say... depends on the case and the circumstances. So in her world view, I assume, that a child should never be removed from a mother who has an intellectual disability regardless of the level of care of the child, which may include chronic neglect and maltreatment. Not changing nappies and attending a crying baby is maltreatment.

Quote:
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.

Really Byte, have you actually read anything I have written? This is exactly what I have been saying.

Quote:

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.

I think my initial response was a casual one, but I did go on to elaborate. Did you note that? My view is that CTS has a simplistic view of these matters and that was demonstrated by her response.

1KIKI

Friday, December 2, 2011 1:09 AM

CTSky

You said you are for anything that works. By your original account formula feeding works. But you elected not to use it, apparently for other reasons. Hence, by your posts, you contradicted yourself - you are NOT for ANYTHING that works, since you rejected something that worked.

Therefore, I will be less trusting of your words next time you post.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, December 2, 2011 1:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you'd let a baby be maltreated?????????
Should I feel saddened that you have to ask?

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.

If you hadn't been so cut and dried to start off with, I wouldn't have responded the way that I did.

I don't see this case as an exception to the rule, but one of many scenarios where child protection services and/or family support services may need to be involved. Similar scenarios exist where parents have mental illnesses, drug or alcohol problems etc etc. Parents who don't manage their own lives will struggle to care adequately for children, and abuse is often the end result for parents not managing. The earlier intervention takes place then the more likely that abuse will be prevented.

You have seen no argument from me that removing a child should be a last resort, I wonder why you continue to state this.

The difference is regarding your claim that removal should only take place where criminal charges have been laid, and I think I given a number of examples where charges would not be laid, and children could be removed, which you have also conceded.

1KIKI

Friday, December 2, 2011 1:16 AM

"I have to wonder who failed to look after her affectively in the first place, thus resulting in pregnancy and a baby?"

There are legal issues of custodianship. Someone who is of age and doesn't meet the legal requirements for custodial care (giving others control over their lives, including medical decisions like birth control) are free to do whatever they wish, whether they have the wherewithal or not.

RIONAEIRE

Friday, December 2, 2011 1:21 AM

I'm aware of that technicality Kiki, but there is a lot of looking after and teaching about good choice making that can still go on, and should still go on.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

1KIKI

Friday, December 2, 2011 1:43 AM

It's not just a 'technicality'. Grown people with less acute minds have wishes, personalities and impulses all their own. You can be kind, concerned, patient, caring and involved - but if they want something, don't understand the reasons why not, might be too fidgety to listen, are perhaps slightly oppositional, impulsive - or whatever - there is nothing you can do to stop them. I liken it sometimes to leading a bull by a silk thread. They have to want to go along. When it comes to their choices, in the end, no matter how bad you think their choice is, they are free to make it. And bad choices are not necessarily a failure of family, friends, or 'the system' to be involved.

BYTEMITE

Friday, December 2, 2011 1:58 AM

Magons: Hmm. All right.

1kiki: I think you're being unfair to CTS. I don't believe your interpretation is what she meant - what I read is that she feels that the traditional medical treatment would have resulted in harm for her child, and that her trying ANYTHING was in regards to trying to find something that would not cause harm.

It's almost seeming like you want to think the worst of her. That's just how this is coming across.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, December 2, 2011 2:00 AM

Rione, the point was not to go into the whys and wherefores of a particular example, but to ackowledge, as you have done, that some people who are parents are not really equipped to be parents, and may never get to that stage regardless of support or education.

1KIKI

Friday, December 2, 2011 2:01 AM

Also, I have been thinking about how to answer your question re the ill child in my life. I try to not delve into the details of others I know, since I don't want to infringe on their privacy. But if this helps explain it - I've had three Chinese coworkers all say the same thing, which is that I am 'the second mother'.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE