DescentBB

Although I disagree with his characterization of the Pit Bull breed (topic for another thread maybe), I think he is spot on otherwise.

Many of you have heard me say this exact same thing â??people should have to pass some sort of a parenthood test before being aloud to have children. People trying to adopt already have to go though very heave scrutiny. People that want to have a child of their own should have to as well.

While this may be an isolated incident, it is a good example why there should be a test.

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

LICENSE TO REPRODUCE
Here in this country we require a license to drive a car, sell real estate, go fishing and get married. Yet, for some reason, nothing is required of potential parents who will undertake the dramatic responsibility of raising a child. There was some tragic news over the weekend that proves some people should never be allowed to reproduce.

The story begins with some dim bulb out in San Francisco named Maureen Faibish. This woman had two pit bulls. Understand that pit bulls are violent animals -- not to be trusted. So naturally, this idiot decided she had to have two pit bulls in her house. But oh, she was worried about her 12-year-old son being attacked by one of the dogs. So she shut her son, Nicholas, in the basement and propped a shovel on the door. Again, she locked the 12-year-old in the basement. Not the dog. Twisted? You bet. It gets worse.

The 12-year-old got out of the basement, and was attacked and killed by one of the pit bull dogs. The boy was found in a bedroom covered in blood, with a major head injury. And what was the response of the mother? Her exact quote: "I put him down there, with a shovel on the door. And I told him: 'Stay down there until I come back.' Typical Nicky, he wouldn't listen to me." That's right, she blamed her dead son.

No charges have been filed...but they should be. How about negligent homicide?
Basic rule: STUPID PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BREED

We should just get rid of the pit bull breed. They have been banned in the city I live in for the same reason. They are to violent and unfortunetly, dumb arse people brred them and beat them as pups.

As for parent school, I couldn't agree more. Some people just have no skills at all and can never learn. One day in teh future, we will require all potential parents to pass some test before thye are genetically "enabled" to have kids.

No charges!!! WTF! If I leave a loaded firearm laying around and my daughter (when she was younger) picked it up and accidently shot herself...do you think I would not have been charged? The mother in this case should be locked in a room with her dogs and don't give the dogs any food...

I that womans case, I don't believe it was a license to reproduce that was the most relevant license, she should have been denied a license to use our oxygen in the first place.

Don't worry Merlin... there will be another breed that people will want to ban for exactly the same reasons...

People are morons. Their children will be morons too. My parents were idiots and they made little idiots. for some reason I have the vision to be able to step back and look at myself and how I fit into the society around me. I had a vasectomy when I was very young. It took a long time to convince a doctor to do it, but my will prevailed. I, for one, will never breed. There are enough idiots walking around already. When I think of some of the reasons I've heard people give for having childen, I shudder. My mother got pregnant because she believed it would make my father love her more. Little did she know she was just providing victims. We are nothing more than glorified animals, a little smarter and a little more dextrous than all the others. Does this set us apart? Yes, and sadly, it is not a good thing. How can a woman put her childen into a car and push it into a lake? How can a man kill his wife, children and then himself? Pitbulls are way more civilised then humans. Maybe we are banning the wrong animal?

Dunno -- Darwin kinda worked in this case..


[/cynism]

Do you guys REALLY anything different out of SanFransisco? .. i mean really.

Yes, I agree.

All children, bar none, should be sterilised at birth, and only unsterilised after the age of 25, and having passed rigourous community standards for child care.

This at least might introduce something approximating the complete and utter lack of evolution's tool of Natural Selection. We can do better: Scientific and moral selection. The bar would be the same height for every person, adjusted for genetic defects. Those who qualify on mental grounds, but fail the gene test would be permitted to either have gamettes gene-spliced to correct the genetic defects, or adopt children.

You know, I almost believe it!

I think y'all are whining a bit too much about one end of the population bell curve (well populated though it may be). If humans really are idiots then don't expect that they could steer evolution well by "scientific" selection. Survival and fitness of the species is more likely to be produced by a substantial diversity of individuals in the population.

Having a test is all well and good until somebody tells you that you did not pass it, so tough luck on having children. Perhaps we should find a way to encourage good parents to have more children. However, the trend seems to be in the opposite direction *sigh*

Mobius wrote:Yes, I agree.

All children, bar none, should be sterilised at birth, and only unsterilised after the age of 25, and having passed rigourous community standards for child care.

This at least might introduce something approximating the complete and utter lack of evolution's tool of Natural Selection. We can do better: Scientific and moral selection. The bar would be the same height for every person, adjusted for genetic defects. Those who qualify on mental grounds, but fail the gene test would be permitted to either have gamettes gene-spliced to correct the genetic defects, or adopt children.

And while we're at it, make sure they have blonde hair and blue eyes. Let's start with you.

Well said, Ferno. While I can't agree any more that idiots like this don't deserve to waste oxygen, not to mention have children, reproduction is a fundamental human right. Would you rather the rest of the world end up like China, with state-enforced sterilization, often without the subject's knowledge or consent? The fact that cases like this exist does not justify absolutely totalitarian, completely invasive policies. We've managed to survive this far despite the presence of idiots; I think we can continue on without too much harm.

Top Gun wrote:reproduction is a fundamental human right.

Should it be? I don't see the harm in requiring want-to-be parents having to meet the same criteria that adoptive parents have to meet. I don't see it as punishing the parents so much as protecting the children.

Let me remind you of the recent thread on the Patriot Act:

Dedman wrote:

bash wrote:Wake me when an actual abuse occurs.

By then it will be too late.

I just can't see how someone could be so strongly against the Patriot Act, and yet for something as abuse-able as a parenthood test.

Lothar said it perfectly.

As someone who works for CPS in Texas I know this all too well. The temptation to the dark side of parental tests, manditory sterilization, butterfly nets/high powered hoses, and shooting people into outer space is strong. In the biz we call it "compasion fatigue". I could tell yall some stories...whew.

However, the point is that such measures would be totalitarian in no uncertain terms. the potential for abuse is tremendous.

Further (as lothar points out), it would be totally inconsistent to be in favor of such measures and yet feel the patriot act tramples the bill of rights (which it does).

Palzon wrote:However, the point is that such measures would be totalitarian in no uncertain terms. the potential for abuse is tremendous.

Is it totalitarian to make adoptive parents go through a screening and qualification process before they can adopt?

Dedman wrote:Is it totalitarian to make adoptive parents go through a screening and qualification process before they can adopt?

Nope.

It is the custom of a free society that the right to procreate does not have to be sanctioned by the state. Yet, the state has to sanction each adoption. The reason is that each legislature defines the relation of the family - whether adoptive or biological.

In a biological family, the responsibility of the conservator is spelled out in the statue. The biological parent is legally responsible for the care, custody, and welfare of the child until some legal judgment changes that, i.e. parental rights are terminated by a judgment or voluntarily relinquished, or the parent is deceased. However, the adoptive parents responsibility is only established after the state establishes the adoptive parents conservatorship.

until the state establishes the conservatorship of the child by someone not biologically the parent - that responsibility does not apply. The relationship of the conservator being that person who is legally responsible for the care, custody, and welfare of the child.

It should be obvious that the state would take an interest in ensuring adoptive parents are appropriate candidates because the state could be held responsible if they are not appropriate. Pre-adoption homestudies or screening is the state covering its a$$ - legally, financially, morally, etc.

Conversely, sterilization or requiring parental licenses to be obtained would certainly lead to descrimination of all sorts. the fact is that in america, we are a FREE society. and that means that there is no law against being a bad parent. there's also no law against being an idiot, or a d1ckhead, a$$hat, etc. There's also no law against being poor, or being a highschool dropout, or single mother, or pregnant teen. Could we improve some of societies ills by being totalitarians about this? I'm sure we could, but we would surrender democracy by doing so.

As someone here who is reminded 40 hours per week just how bad child abuse is, I also know that the state cannot become responsible for parenting, eugenics, or utopian ideals without becoming tyrannical.

You work for CPS pally? holy crap. I bet you get to see all the strung out trailer-poor crackheads...

oh on the subject of parental licences: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net ... kidlicense

Hmm the state doesn't have to answer such questions itself before it assumes custody of the child.
yet it requires prospective adoptive parents to.

in otherwords, it holds itself to a different standard as it holds prospective adoptive parents. depending on how it's own standards of care are for the children, it could theoretically turn down BETTER options for the child than it itself can offer in an orphanage.

not saying that's wrong. it's just interesting.

roid wrote: Hmm the state doesn't have to answer such questions itself before it assumes custody of the child.
yet it requires prospective adoptive parents to.

I would have to say you are incorrect about this unless I've misunderstood what you're saying. The state has numerous statutes and guidelines, which must be met, prior to assuming custody. Further, it is not protective services that determines custody, but a judge. In Texas, judges routinely go against the recommendations of protective services that would have the state assume custody.

roid wrote: in otherwords, it holds itself to a different standard as it holds prospective adoptive parents. depending on how it's own standards of care are for the children, it could theoretically turn down BETTER options for the child than it itself can offer in an orphanage.

First, remember that the discussion here is about standards for being eligible to parent (or adopt), which may or may not have anything to do with standards of care beyond a minimum standard, i.e. the child's basic needs must be met. Also, a home study looks for risk factors that would suggest a child would be at risk in a particular placement. Beyond those two factors - it's really icing on the cake. I could say more if this fails to address your comment.

Last, there really are no longer "orphanages" in the USA, not in the traditional sense. The closest thing we have to orphanages would be a residential treatment center (RTC). But as the name implies, these are facilities designed to be therepeutic, not family based. RTC environments are for only the most troubled. Basically, an RTC is the last stop before juvi and then prison; the last chance if you will. Otherwise, an effort will always be made to find a permanent placement for a child in a more traditional home/family setting.

Pally, perhaps you can help us understand the Wernecke story from an insider's perspective. From what I've been reading Texas CPS appears rather heavy-handed (to put it politely). Yes, I understand a judge rules on taking a child into custody but it flows from a CPS request.

This is somewhat of an inversion of the Schiavo case wherein here the government appears to be superseding what I would consider a parental right to determine a course of treatment for their child. There doesn't appear to be any negligence on the part of the parents from what's being reported. Yes, the cancer returned, but that seems like a rather post hoc justification for breaking up a family that outwardly reads like they were doing what many parents might do in a similar situation. It's being reported it was the parents intention to resume treatment after a waiting period to determine if the cancer returned. They guessed wrong in hindsight, true, but that sort of coin toss happens everyday. Cancer returns fairly regularly despite many different types of treatments. That's sort of the nature of the disease. Still, isn't a parent's right to toss that coin? It is not unusual to have a wait-and-see period to let the patient recover strength from a *cure* that can feel worse than the disease, especially when radiation itself comes with a few risks. I know because I have three cancer victims (one survived) in my immediate family.

Also, why did CPS sieze the other three children initially? I'm just starting to follow this story so forgive me if I've gotten my facts incorrect but the tone so far doesn't reflect well on Texas CPS. Perhaps it's been shaded that way by the MSM and, if so, what are the issues involved that aren't getting the proper play in the news?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/16/medic ... index.html

edit: thought this quote was not in the article you posted but it is there:

"Earlier this month, Child Protective Services officials took custody of Katie after doctors said the Werneckes were risking their daughter's life by refusing the radiation therapy. A scan last week revealed that the cancer had returned, and on Wednesday Katie's former doctor testified he thought its return was linked to the family's refusal to go forward with the radiation."

OK insider view:

I feel we're missing a lot of the story. Far from being heavy handed, my experience is that Texas leaves children in sketchy situations far too often. But do not underestimate the judges power here. I cannot tell you how many times supervisors have told me a judge ordered them to return a child when they recommended otherwise.

as far as the siblings removal, i can only speculate that one of several things occurred...

1. the judge ordered it even though CPS had not recommended it because the judge had info that indicated abuse, neglect, or risk 2. info that is not being released caused CPS to feel those children were also in a state of abuse,neglect, or risk - so CPS requested the removal and the judge approved. 3. the state (cps and the judge) did not want to take any chances since the case was receiving media exposure and decided to remove the sibs temporarily pending the full investigation. (nothing is more "embarassing" than removing one only to have a child you left die.)

Believe me there is more to this than the state is able to reveal to the general public while the case is pending. The families statements to the press smack of posturing for their impending court engagements.

I love how the MO says she would fly there, then says she would drive there. Which is it? Guess what...neither, cuz she didn't go and the state had to step in. A coworker told me the family had talked about getting alternative treatment...well i bet if they had obtained alternative care to the doctor's satisfaction the state wouldn't have their kids.

However, i will guarantee you this. if CPS removed, this child was definitely at risk of death or serious harm. my insider perspective is that removal is the last thing a cps worker or judge wants. the entire system is geared to leave the kids right where they are.

the fact is that removal is rare and reunification after a temporary stay in foster care is the norm. it is very rare for parental rights to be terminated.

one last edit: every coworker i've spoken with agrees that there is more to this story than is being reported in the news and that the news story makes the actions of cps seem extreme.

what happens to kids when they have no-where to go Palzon? they have to go SOMEWHERE in that time inbetween "no-guardians" and "yay new guardians". don't they goto orphanages?

you don't have foster care in aussie land?

i'm not sure, i've never given it much thought until now.

foster care is where a child goes into a family's care - temporarily, yes?
so are you saying an example of a situation would be like this?:
- little girl's family all dies in a godzilla attack.
- this comes to the attention somehow (instantly?) of some government body which deals with these things.
- she is picked up by employees of said gov-body - perhaps from the policestation where she has been waiting, and quickly driven to the address listed on the top of the "available foster family" list.
- this foster family welcomes then comforts the child.
- ...until further notice.

fliptw wrote:you don't have foster care in aussie land?

Yeah they do....just ask the Abo's how it works.