- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
You must log in or # to comment.
Although hired as a consultant by Washington County in this case, Baird had a long-standing independent agenda: helping foster parents across Colorado succeed in intervening and permanently claiming the children they care for. Often working hand in hand with Tim Eirich, she has been called as an expert in, by her count, hundreds of child welfare cases, and she sometimes evaluates visits between birth families and children without having met them. Baird would not say how many foster parent intervenor cases she has participated in, but she can recall only a single instance in which she concluded that the intervenors should not keep the child. Thinking that particular couple would be weak adoptive parents, she told me, she simply filed no report.
what the fuck
I fully believe that woman is a monster. She doesn't care about any of those kids. She's being paid to get the foster parents a baby, so that's what she's determined to do. Eirich is just as bad. They're getting uncomfortably close to being traffickers.
Of course there are parents who should never get custody back, but I've seen plenty of cases where they work extremely hard, make big changes, and are very successfully reunited, and everyone deserves the chance to try before we just decide they can never have their kids back.
deleted by creator
There are specialized lawyers for everything. There are also judges who specialize in child welfare cases. Eventually, in the future, I fully believe there will be a license requirement to have children that includes showing you have the available income to support the child, adequate space in the home, and a background check and drug tests to ensure both parents are safe to raise a child.
and she sometimes evaluates visits between birth families and children without having met them.
she can recall only a single instance in which she concluded that the intervenors should not keep the child.
Thinking that particular couple would be weak adoptive parents, she told me, she simply filed no report.
I also don't find the concept of "You have to be rich and stable enough to be allowed to reproduce without your child being taken from you" quite as comforting as you seem to phrase it.
You're not wrong, but I can see it happening. The cost of childcare is growing beyond $10K a year and it's certainly something that can be regulated under Child Protection Laws.
The current counter is that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects this liberty, incorporating “the right to marry, establish a home, and bring up children.” That doesn't prevent regulation of bringing up children, meaning qualifying factors. These factors could not be based on race, religion, or any other protected status. Financial would likely be the hardest barrier were the mother would have to show that the child would be financially stable. That might mean having a married partner, support of the larger family, or other means of support.
I love the move from good ethical moral thinking leading to "the welfare of children should be supported by the state" to the current "no kids if you're poor or we don't think you're good enough to raise them".
No way that system won't be MASSIVELY ABUSED to discriminate against women and minorities. Nope, that's just a good idea plan all around, 100% no potential issues. Caught having kids without a permit, to the gulag with you! Your kids get given to a nice family who will take good care of them. We could even reversibly sterilise women until they're licensed to breed, on a voluntary basis of course. And if they refuse and they're too poor or don't meet the moral standards of the government (unfit), we can place them in a nice house so any kids they have can be raised by fit parents. In the meantime they should have a job, I mean you can't get out of poverty if you don't work hard. Oh I know maybe they can take care of the house hold, you know cook and clean a bit, good opportunity to learn good moral fiber and potentially become a fit parent. I'm sure the rich household would live to give these women a chance to earn their keep!
OMG you just invented the Handmaid's Tale and you don't even see it.
So your belief is that children should live in extreme poverty which leads to a life of drug use and crime.
The proposed regulation would allow 99% of couples to have at least two children.
I literally said I think the welfare of children should be supported by the state. A just society takes care of it's children/future.
As to "the costs" that whole argument is laughable. First child support services are not a significant portion of the budget in any modern country. The biggest slice is education, maybe you want to argue against educating kids too. Then if that's not enough, investing in children and families LITERALLY BRINGS IN MORE MONEY THAN NOT. Healthy well educated kids become far more productive adults that bring in far more taxes than was spent on them.
Next, contrary to your claim, literally no one is proposing any such "regulation" unless you think your post constitutes a regulation let alone a regulatory framework sufficient to enact such a ridiculous dystopian policy.
This brings me to the last point, since nothing you have proposed or referred to even remotely approaches "regulation" you have NO basis for your claim that 99% of couples would be able to have at least 2 children.
In the US alone more than 10% of Americans have used illegal drugs in the last month and a quarter of those (almost 3% of the population, have a drug disorder)
More than 40% of Americans drink in excess, 5% of Americans have an alcohol use disorder.
https://www.addictiongroup.org/addiction/statistics/
The current poverty rate in the US is over 12%
https://time.com/6320076/american-poverty-levels-state-by-state/
I don't know what your definition of "too poor" and "unfit" are, but no reasonable definition would allow 99% of Americans to have children.
If you're not in a modern country that isn't America the numbers may be somewhat better in large part due to the state supporting it's citizens, especially it's children. Which again, is whatI advocate for.
available income to support the child
So poor people don't get to have kids, huh? Which is easily and quickly turn into only rich people get to have kids. How would you enforce that? Involuntary sterilization? Involuntary abortions?
Why would you have kids if you are unable to support the kids?
Rather than forcing basically eugenics on people, why not make sure that everyone is able to support children?
Socialism?! In MY America?!
No no, a fascist eugenics state that preys on poor brown people is clearly the better option.
Being able to have children is a fundamental human right. It’s the whole reason we exist according to biology. Restrictions on that right, no matter how well intentioned, is effectively genocide. Especially when considering how authorities have tried to wield that power in the past
You think the whole reason we exist is to have children, why?
The whole reason life exists at all in the universe is to propagate
Edit: this isn’t to say that individuals should have to have children or that anyone is living life unfulfilled by not having children. Just that biologically it’s the purpose of life not the existential “purpose” of life
Why do you think that's the whole reason we exist? I don't care if you're atheist or super religious (they seem to intersect here), but what if there isn't a purpose? Maybe it's just the environment playing out.
Edit: I'm not attacking your position, I'm just wondering why you think that? It's odd to me.
Edit 2: I think I have to explain this a little further, viruses, bacteria, cancer cells, all want to propagate, which kind of makes your point. Idk, it's a weird thing to consider.
I don’t know if you caught my edit or not, but I was just defining having children as the biological purpose of life rather than the existential purpose. Philosophically the purpose of life is up to the individual.
It's an interesting way to think about it and I think I agree, not positive yet. It's so close to quiverfull that I was immediately saying no, but you may be right. But it makes it seem like life has an intention then, that evolution is an intention. All too early for me to be this philosophical, lol.
Way to misrepresent what they said completely. Please point to exactly where they said what you're claiming.
Go deeper into the forest.
Genocide of who? We are not talking about a race, religion, or anything. It would be viewed more of population control and if anything a take on selective breeding, or artificial selection. At worse it would be Eugenics by choice, or finding a superior mate to have children with. That already occurs with artificial insemination in the United States.
Genocide of whatever group of undesirables in the population are denied the right to have children. Involuntary sterilization or removal of children without chance at reunification fits the definition of destroying that particular group. It was attempted on native populations in this very country as recent as a 100 years ago.
If it happened then it can happen again. Heck it’s happening now to migrants
What if the group are severely mentally disabled that got kids together in the assisted living facility they live in? Should the staff working there assist them by caring for a child they're simply incapable of taking care of themselves? Generally they want to keep the kid too and don't opt for adoption at birth.
Staff in group homes shouldn’t have to parent those kids. I think that this is where the nuance of the family court system should step in. If the parents are shown unable to care for the child then the court removed them and places them with a foster parent with an improvement plan for the birth parents with an end goal of reunification.
I agree that in an edge cases like this that there is not a good outcome, but the other side of an edge case like that is the system involuntarily sterilizing or removing children of individuals that are fit to parent because of bias/abuse by the system.
You can show that someone is unfit to parent and take action via the court with facts but preemptively doing so or preventing it with involuntary sterilization are violations of human rights in my view.
Absolutely, I just wanted to challenge your black and white statement.
The world is a gray place.
I also 100% agree that involuntary sterilization has no place in a modern humane society, even if it leads to people who have no ability to care for kids having kids. Because no medical intervention is without risk and incontinence, ED or worse side effects are not worth to even risk. And because of that we will always need foster homes.
Courts consist of people and people aren't infallible, so we'll always need newspapers and journalists calling them out when shit goes wrong. Checks and balances are needed at every level of human society. And nothing will ever work perfectly.
Another good thing to keep in mind is that there very rarely are true bad guys out there. The foster parents love and care for that kid and fight to keep it, the bio-parent does as well and the lawyers, judges and jurors try to uphold the law and by extension the fabric of our society. Some have their set interpretation (which you and I might disagree with) of what the law means, sure, but that's mainly because the law was written by humans in human language which just isn't ever going to be perfect, if it was we wouldn't really even need the court system.
So you view it as genocide against illegal drug users.
You really truly think that it would stop with drug users? How naive can you be?
The fourteenth amendment wouldn't allow for anything more than ensuring people are fit to be patents. Now if you were wanting to have ten kids, it would be restrictive if you lack the financial background to afford it. For most situations you could have two kids with no worry. Waivers for three and four kids. Five or more would require an full review.
I don’t see it that way at all. I am 100% ok with children being sent to a foster home at birth if drugs are found in their system. Or removing kids from homes for any sort of reason that keeps the parents from being able to care for their kids. I’m not against the family court system or removing children from the home. The system is broken but it’s not useless. And parents usually have recourse to be reunited with their children if later found to be fit parents.
What I’m not OK with is the government saying who is and who isn’t allowed to reproduce and backing it up with forced sterilization or abortion because I don’t trust the government to use that power equally or responsibly. I’m also not ok with children being removed with no path to reunification with the parents. That kind of power along with an unscrupulous government is what leads to genocide.
forced sterilization or abortion
It would be huge fines / jail for both DNA donors and the child would be removed from the home. Contraceptives would be free to the public. The fourteenth amendment protects against the threat of force sterilization or abortion. I get you think it would be missed, but in reality it would make coupling more difficult with women choosing quality mates with higher education and well paying careers. It would change the culture for the better. The worst part about it is that you would be under a contract to raise the child. That doesn't mean marriage though, just that two DNA donors must agree to support that child until adulthood.
Lemme guess
It's all states with large indigenous populations still around.
I can sympathize with foster parents that have a hard time letting go, dear friend of mine who's been desperately trying to have kids of her own had to give a little baby that became her world back to the bio mom and it absolutely crushed her, but formulating an entire legal strategy around it just reeks of trying to get around court preference to return indigenous kids to their nation of origin if possible.
This is very common in regards to parents who use illegal drugs. If you give birth to a child and it has drugs in its system you will be deemed unfit. This includes alcohol or tobacco which can severely damage a child's development.
This article doesn't do much more than state the obvious, drug use in parents is a sure way to lose your kids.
The article says a lot more than the obvious, and really has very little to do with the topic of placing children in foster care. It’s not claiming infants shouldn’t be removed from unsafe homes or trusted to foster parents as long as those homes remain unsafe. It’s saying the foster system is being manipulated to the detriment of children, birth parents, and foster parents. The main family in this article is a shining example of when placing a child in foster care works perfectly, where the parents expediently turned things around and managed to bond with their child despite the tragic circumstances. The goal of foster care is to reunite families, and even in these ideal cases it’s easy to turn the system against its own goal.
The argument will always be which household is better for the child. Bio parents are regularly found not to be the safest fit.
No, because that's just an excuse to re-home children. The argument needs to be "is the bio-home safe for the child"? Not, which home is better. We must default to keeping the kids with the bio-home, even if another home is "better", it's not good enough.
But that isn't how it works in child welfare cases. They only care about which location is better for the child.
I was taken from my parents by CPS when I was a kid. The other commenter is correct, it's "is their home safe" not "is their home safer". The latter is waaaay to subjective when we're dealing with people's children.
That is exactly how child welfare cases work. Is the bio-home safe for the child is the base line litmus test for 'which location is better' because you absolutely-must-have equitable and fair standards that aren't subjective under the whims of individual welfare case workers who are themselves human beings with their own flaws that may sway them towards biases that are unrelated to a child's welfare.
'Which location is better' is an open ended subjective concept without a defined contextual standard. The biological home being safe is where that standard must begin and it is entirely reasonable for it to be weighed in favor of from the outset of such a consideration.
Yet that is the argument these lawyers are forcing a judge to make. Safe vs Safer.
This is wrong and misinformation.
This is wrong and misinformation.
No. There is always a better household. That is ridiculous. Say we are good parents providing a safe home with only cheap food, sometimes having to skip meals to feed the kids. There's a richer family who could do better. But if they get the kids, there's a better off family with a psychologist mom who can do a better job. Oh, wait - there's a household that can get them both cars when they are 16 and send them to a private school that gives them better opportunities.
Where does it end? And who decides?
There is always going to be a family who can financially provide more than the parents of any child. And often, having kids gets people motivated to make more money, go back to school, improve their lives. It would take all my fingers and some of my toes to count the families I know who had kids when they were poor and ended up getting better lives. Their kids see that struggle and learn it's possible to get ahead. Their kids are great people.
This is wrong and misinformation. May as well put this under everything you've posted.
We get it, you don't like it. It's still want the lawyers are doing.
Removed by mod
You clearly have no damn clue what you're talking about. Having worked as a CPS investigator, there is far more involved than "hurr drugs r bad". Please take your misinformation somewhere else.
This IS WHAT THE LAWYERS ARE DOING. That's what the article is about.
Removed by mod
