We talked yesterday about to overarching rights that parents have
over their kids (education and health). However, at what point do we take
children away from their parents to get them out of harm? This is the
question we ask and will discuss in today's issue.
Limits to physical abuse: There is always a fine line on when
government or some other intervening body should step in on anything. So
we have to come up with that point and time upon which a line is crossed where
a child must be taken from the parent. With children being snatched from
parents do to small things like a spanking to discipline them, our current
standards are too loose. So when it comes to corporal punishment, it is
not a defining line. Instead, it must be proven that the physical force
being used on the child is both constant and unwarranted. In short, it
must occur on a regular basis, and that the punishment is actually abuse and
not to correct a problem behavior(s). In addition, the amount of force
used must be factored in to this. As such, if a parent simply slaps the
child on the rear, or the face then it is fine. But, if the parent
proceeds to brake the child's arm "purposefully" then there is
obviously a problem. As such the limits that are set for physical abuse
must be clearly structured with a small amount of flexibility depending on the
type of physical force being applied.
Limits to psychological abuse: This set of criteria is very
different. Here the parent or guardian performs the same kind of abuse
that would occur in a torture room. The parent verbally abuses and
threatens the child, but does not do any physical harm (though this is not
always the case). Instead, once the verbal abuse is done, the parent
shows small amounts of love to keep the child latched to them, as if they must
do everything to please their parent (their "master"). Simply
yelling at a child is not verbal abuse. It must occur on a regular basis,
and show long term effects that would undermine the child's wellbeing. So
we must not jump to conclusions at any time or risk undermining the parent(s).
Malnourished: In this case, determining if a
child is malnourished due to poverty or neglect is very important. If it
is due to poverty, then in general, the parent is still a good parent.
But, if that parent chooses to ignore the health of their children and
buy and clothe themselves over the needs of their children, then it is abuse.
Addicts: Drug addicts do also constitute a
situation where the children may have to be taken away. Abusers of
alcohol, and both illegal and prescription drugs can be a very detrimental
problem that leads to the aforementioned. So if the parent is
purposefully getting their child high or drunk, then there is a problem
(obviously). But if they do it recreationally, or are a recovering
addict, then there may not be a need to take the child away. In fact, a
parent who keeps the drugs and addictions secret and keeps their child away
from their weakness may in fact (I believe) keep their children. If
discovered, then they should be given help to overcome their addiction without
breaking the family up. This is hard however, as the law in general lacks
flexibility.
Child's Voice: One of my biggest gripes as an
outsider looking in is that they ignore the child's wishes with respect to the
children of possible child abusers. Police are told to ignore the
children and their screams as they are dragged off away from the parents they
love. While this may be right in the case of a mentally abused child, it
may not be right in other situations where there may be mitigating
circumstances. For instance, a child was pulled from the school bus on
the way to school by police. That child was part of a bad break up
between an abusive father and a non-abusive mother. The child, due to the
custody hearings called for that child to be put in the care of the father
(where the mothers’ testimony did not produce enough evidence of the fathers’
abusive nature). So as the child was being taken off the bus, the child
screamed and cried to not be given to his father. When he was placed in
the custody of his father, the dad whisked him to south of the boarder of
Mexico. Eventually the father was brought in on kidnapping charges, but
this would not have happened if the police and the courts had listened to this
child (who I believe at the time was 10 or 12 years of age). Thus, we
should and must listen to the children too.
Conclusion: This issue is not cut and dry.
Every scenario has major exceptions, but because there is little
flexibility children are separated from parents who may in fact be good parents
in the first place. On top of this the Federal/State governments have no
incentive to listen or change the laws because the federal government gives
money to States for each child put into a foster home. Sick is it not?
Hope you enjoyed the read, and remember, there is more to a story than
what you think.
No comments:
Post a Comment