DescentBB

link

My foster daughter of the past year being geared up to go back to her birth parent soon. I (being the normal protective father) don't like it.... even though I admittedly don't have nearly as much reason to dislike it as in this little boy's case. I'm scared to death that this could happen to my baby girl. Some days I wish "parental rights" ceased to exist the moment that people did something dumb enough to get the State/County/City involved.

I feel for ya snoopy, the Wife and I have been un-official foster parents for a 3 and 5 year old(friends of my oldest son), for several years, and they have lived with us for many months now. now the parents are in the middle of a divorce and we are trying to save the kids.

the father is physically abusive, and was reported to the CSD and the Mother is documented with the state to not have the kids. yet here we are watching them tear up that family, with not legal authority to stop it. We might have to seek legal council.

Anybody who's working hard to raise kids right in this environment is a stud in my book (and that goes for teh lady's too)

Agreed. Snoopy, Cuda, having to protect little ones from their own parents... I can't imagine.

This brings up an interesting question: From what I've heard, decisions on parental rights in the U.S. often lean heavily toward biological parents. I'm wondering, is this a legal thing (i.e. are there laws in place giving rights to them), or is it a cultural thing (i.e. the people making the decisions tend to think the kids "should" go to biological parents)?

Snoop, how old is your girl?

My daughter is adopted. at 16 she went looking for her parents (we never really kept it a big secret).

I'll spare you the details, but it didn't end well. Not to scare you. It doesn't have to end up that way, but when one person is a pathological lier and an emotional cripple and the other is a simple grease ball that date girls 25 to 30 years younger than him. (trust me here, it goes beyond that....and that's all I'm sayin') things are not going to wind up like roid's desktop. (dude, seriously??! ;D )

However, my daughter has always struggled with rejection in that she's never been secure. Her natural mother didn't want her and went to stupid extremes to "lose" the baby.

I hope your situation runs a better course than mine. It can be good thing.

Foil wrote:Agreed. Snoopy, Cuda, having to protect little ones from their own parents... I can't imagine.

This brings up an interesting question: From what I've heard, decisions on parental rights in the U.S. often lean heavily toward biological parents. I'm wondering, is this a legal thing (i.e. are there laws in place giving rights to them), or is it a cultural thing (i.e. the people making the decisions tend to think the kids "should" go to biological parents)?

There's a real value placed on a sense of "ownership" that bio parents have to children in lawmaking. Beyond that - I think it's a bit of a "which came first?" thing. There are laws/rules in place (I believe primarily on the state level) that place a level of preference in the order of Bio Parents, Kinship, Random Foster. They are in place because it's an accepted idea that this order is, on average, the best. There are also laws in place in most states that require cases to be resolved within a certain amount of time - kids can't be kept in limbo for their whole childhood. You have to get pretty extreme to have the "ownership" factor negated.

Psychologists say:
1. There is a real sense to "clan" that people possess. Children who are raised outside of their clan miss out on something real. (Hence the preference for kinship)
2. Children who are raised in an interracial family wind up stuck "in the middle" - not quite belonging to any particular racial culture. (this is my case)
3. Foster care is generally associated with older children, where they grew up knowing their Bio parents as their parents, and it's an adjustment to "change parents" (not my case - my daughter's only known us as her parents)
4. Foster care is generally associated with instability for the child, being moved form family to family etc. (again, not always the case nor my case)

I think there's also a sense in general that people should have a chance to redeem themselves, and not be out after one strike.

All of that being said, the system and the judges are supposed to handle cases individually, and act in the safety of the child. They also have to define, early in the process, a concrete standard that will be defined as "proof of redemption" for the birth parents to get their children back. In the majority of cases: the bio parents do just enough to get the kid back, and then relapse. The standard can't be too high, because it'll drag that case out too long (which is bad) so they try to set it high enough that the relapse isn't all of the way back, and the kid grows up in dysfunction but not dangerous dysfunction. the ultimate standard is supposed to be the safety of the child - not the "brightest future" but "nothing dangerous is going to happen to them." The only appeal that I have (and I'm going to use) is to plead that more action be taken to guarantee the safety of the child. (By the way, foster parents do not have standing in court.) The question about the better choice comes down to the value that you place on points I stated above against the value you place on the difference in dysfunction in the homes - but the court's not there to decide on the better choice, they are there to decide on the safety of the child.

Duper: she's 16 months now.

snoopy wrote:Some days I wish "parental rights" ceased to exist the moment that people did something dumb enough to get the State/County/City involved.

Certain people shouldn't be allowed to have kids in the 1st place.

I contest that, Grendel. No one has the right to make that decision for another person (or persons, in this case).

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I contest that, Grendel. No one has the right to make that decision for another person (or persons, in this case).

What's your problem w/ having your peers evaluate your ability and comitment to having kids before you are allowed to make them ? Or to having that privilige beeing taken away after it turns out that you are incapable to care for the kids you have ? (Which in case of spending time in jail happens already anyway.)

Funny, but there is actually an institution in existence to do just that, but has been so bastardized it can no longer perform that function.

'It takes a village to raise a child'

TBH i think OP is a part of that kid's extended family from now on, to an extent that it should be recognised legally and socially (ie: If we don't have common words for "once-foster-carer-&-thus-now-part-of-family", then we should probably make some words up). To extend on what Duper touched on, adopted kids inherently have to deal with rejection issues enough, i think giving them a legally&socially protected PERMANENTLY extended family support base - to overcompensate for this - would be a good idea. None of this swap one family for another - no - they should all be additions, not replacements. Why should a family lose members? MOAR MOAR MOAR

The complexities of modern families often goes far beyond the nuclear family stereotypes, things should be more accomidating so that these families and family members (incl the kids) arn't silently excluded from organised normal-family activities just because we havn't yet developed the societal acceptance of this as a part of a healthy "normal family" arrangement.
(i'm not sure this sentence is entirely understandable, it seems a bit weird)

Mind you, counter that with the fact that most child sexual abuse comes from people the child knows... maybe it's not the best idea to just extend kids' family sizes with such abandon. hmmm... questions questions.

Grendel wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I contest that, Grendel. No one has the right to make that decision for another person (or persons, in this case).

What's your problem w/ having your peers evaluate your ability and commitment to having kids before you are allowed to make them ? Or to having that privilege being taken away after it turns out that you are incapable to care for the kids you have ? (Which in case of spending time in jail happens already anyway.)

Having children is not a privilege, it is a basic human right. Raising them and caring for them is a responsibility personally, socially, and before God. To start out, frankly I don't know how you expect to be ABLE to evaluate someone's responsible to conceive a child, and then how you expect to be able to RESTRICT conception. I would contend that from a system of individual liberty it can't work.

I think you're wanting to impose something that I, as an American, am not going to put up with.

We could return to being a society that frowns on conception outside of marriage (a commitment, and a much more stable environment for raising a child). I suspect that the people pushing those boundaries are the very one's who would go along with controlling conception.

" I don't know how you expect to be ABLE to evaluate someone's responsible to conceive a child"

Oh I don't know.. society seems to know how to evaluate someone's responsibility to drive, to drink, to own a firearm, to fish, to run a business, to adopt, to foster, to teach, to cook, to build, to repair, to heal.

and somehow, to be able to participate in one of the most important aspects of life.. competence is optional.

nothing worse than seeing a kids' life wasted due to circumstances they couldn't control because the parents thought it was "their right".

And, so what…a reproduction license?

I agree Ferno and vote 100% that we start with you .

Spidey wrote:And, so what…a reproduction license?

It's a start. It would have to include ways to test financial responsibility, ethics, social norms, and a level of commitment.

well if you guys are really going to get into this can of worms, I put my feet on the side of freedom of procreation.
Enforcing any such restrictions would be a violent mess and civil liberties nightmare. Any such violence against people's bodies (forced sterilisation) also seems completely contradictory to the women's rights movement.

why visit China, lets just bring China to the US. jail time and force abortions for all who break the law

Maybe the better choice would be to teach people about Family and the importance of it, and educate them in how to raise a child. Teach Men to be Men and how to lead their families and to take responsibilities. teach women how to be Mothers and to protect and nurture their children. I'd be all for that. get pregnant and you are mandated to take an 8 month course in how to raise a child and how to manage a family. with 40% of birth certificates not listing a father on them, this nation has serous problems.

Ferno wrote:It's a start. It would have to include ways to test ...... ethics......

who's ethics??????

A license to procreate is a fundamentally terrible idea, though there are admittedly times when it seems appealing. Like, say, when you realize there's going to be a spawn of Snooki running around...

Ha Ha…this is the classic case of individual vs. group rights. I agree with ST that reproduction is a basic human right, but at the same time, it is not at the same level of say…food, water & shelter. And the right to pass on ones genes is dubious at best.

So where does one right take precedent over the other…that’s the hard part.

I’d have to lean slightly toward the group in this case. The health and well being of the group and all like that…

As CUDA points out, we already had an institution that provides some of the needs in this area, but that institution has become useless due to the fact that it has been lowered to a ceremony celebrating love. “Stay together for the sake of the children, how dare those inconvenient children stand in the way of our happiness”

So of course as usual, we now have to go back to the drawing board.

BTW that institution was voluntary…the preferred way…yes?

Ferno wrote:

Spidey wrote:And, so what…a reproduction license?

It's a start. It would have to include ways to test financial responsibility, ethics, social norms, and a level of commitment.

Only allowing those who pass a test of social norms to procreate, would be dangerous for society for slippery-slope reasons.
In democracies we allow alternate viewpoints to be born. The whole point of democracy is to have a variety of political ideologies/policies to choose from when we vote. The winners don't win the right to kill off their opposition.

Do you realise how frightfully authoritarian and violent the things you are suggesting are?

what like.. not pretending to be someone's friend and cleaning their bank account out for example?

how is that authoritarian or violent? because by social norms i mean not viewing others as a stepping stone for personal ambition for instance.



cuda: I'm not sure any of us have an answer for that question. not yet anyways.

Ferno wrote:what like.. not pretending to be someone's friend and cleaning their bank account out for example?

fraud is already illegal.

viewing others as a stepping stone for personal ambition for instance.

this is not illegal and should not be.

If you wish to sterilise people who break the law, then that's one (pretty fucked up) thing.
But to go even further, and suggest we sterilise people for merely breaking non-legally binding Social Norms? That's just monstrous.

The name for someone who breaks social norms is a Deviant, and you can see where this is going. To use social norms as your measuring tape - you will thus end up sterilising people for being different, eccentric, weird, queer. To show how petty social norms can be: Included in social norms are things like saying "bless you" after someone sneezes. Oh you didn't say bless you? OFF YOU GO TO THE MOONSterilisation Ward.
[youtube]k4f9m4OYkCY[/youtube]

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Having children is not a privilege, it is a basic human right.

You can very well exist happily ever after w/o having one. You also need a mate to create them. That in my eye makes it a privilege. You don't have the right to a mate for reproduction. But if you do reproduce you and your mate are responsible for the fate of a human life. If you can't fulfill this responsibility (because you are an addict, poor, unwilling to work etc.), well, now what ?

Privileges are granted…who is doing the granting in this case?

Spidey wrote:Privileges are granted…who is doing the granting in this case?

Currently, your mate.

Spidey wrote:Ha Ha…this is the classic case of individual vs. group rights.[..]

Yep. Unfortunately as the group becomes bigger, the individual loses out.

Rights can be inherent to a person, or a group, in this case one would have to assume we are talking about a mating couple, as an individual unit.

And assuming your mate must grant you the privilege to reproduce…how does that relate to the society as a whole, which I thought was the point here?

Spidey wrote:Rights can be inherent to a person, or a group, in this case one would have to assume we are talking about a mating couple, as an individual unit.

I was talking about individuals, not groups or units.

Spidey wrote:And assuming your mate must grant you the privilege to reproduce…how does that relate to the society as a whole, which I thought was the point here?

I don't think I understand the question. There is no assumption that your rmate must grant the priviledge -- that's what it is. You can look around you to see how that relates to the society as a whole.

Let me rephrase the question.

Understand what I’m trying to get here is how being a “privilege” relates to the society as a whole.

It’s a given that one person must let another “mate” with them…but why is that important to the larger group?

Are you trying to say that in any given mating couple there will always be a responsible person to disallow the privilege?

See, I just don’t get how the relevance of being a privilege as far as the couple is concerned, relates to stopping some people from reproducing.

Grendel wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Having children is not a privilege, it is a basic human right.

You can very well exist happily ever after w/o having one.

That's a very misleading statement. Children are a big part of a happy/joyful and fulfilling life. Anyone who lives their life without that part of life is missing out. I could give any number of reasons for this. It could get lengthy, though, so it would be better if you had ever had any exposure to children in a family environment ever, and could acknowledge the truth of my statement.

Grendel wrote:You also need a mate to create them. That in my eye makes it a privilege.

No it doesn't. Just because it involves two people doesn't mean it isn't a right.

Grendel wrote:You don't have the right to a mate for reproduction. ...

Now that's just confusing the issue. Of course you don't have the right to a mate, because a mate is another individual with rights. Such an association is by the will of both the man and the woman in question, and they have the right to make that choice but not the right to assume or demand an association in the absence of a consenting party.

Grendel wrote:But if you do reproduce you and your mate are responsible for the fate of a human life. If you can't fulfill this responsibility (because you are an addict, poor, unwilling to work etc.), well, now what ?

Obviously if you are grossly irresponsible then the effects of your irresponsibility will spill over and have a negative effect on the society you are in. Therefore a demand must be made by society that you rectify the problem and unburden society of your responsibility, and there must be reasonable consequences for failing to do so.

Grendel wrote:

Spidey wrote:Privileges are granted…who is doing the granting in this case?

Currently, your mate.

Where I come from this is called being argumentative, and it is overcome by forcing the specific argument to its wonderfully impertinent conclusion in this case--that your mate is the only one that can divest you of your privilege to procreate.

It is not a privilege.

LOL: read my reply to my dad and he said, "I don't know where he's from but around here the men decide when to procreate and the women consider it a privilege". (mom proceeded to give him a good beating)

I'd like to know thorne; why do you think it's a right?

I think you've all got it incredibly wrong.

it's not a "privilege"

it's not a "right"

what it is, is a huge responsibility. If you make the choice to bump uglies, then you better stand up and be accountable for your actions.

Ferno wrote:I'd like to know thorne; why do you think it's a right?

Well, I can’t speak for ST but…I believe reproduction to be a right, because along with other things…reproduction is one of the very definitions of life itself.

Therefore the very essence of life is reproduction, so how can it not be a right?

Hell, there is so much of life dedicated to doing just that, I find it laughable for someone to consider it anything but.

It’s a basic function…for crying out loud.

so is taking a whiz in public but.. you don't see that happening.

Lol…I see that all the time.

I agree with Spidey. I believe it is a right that pertains to a man and a woman together, rather than a person individually. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"... how does this not include bringing the next generation into the world?

So it's not a right or a privilege, but a responsibility, eh CUDA? Gonna have to think about that. Do I have the right to take on that responsibility without the consent of a government that would like to believe it is a privilege?

Well I could have called it a commandment but that probably wouldn't set well with a few here