Recently, in the "Free Shoes!---Why I'm a Libertarian" posting by AdamAdamR, there was some discussion on children and whether the government, be it local, state, or federal, has the right or the obligation to interject if there is believed to be some form of neglect or abuse. One of the main examples given was bike helmets and whether parents should be forced to put them on their children by law while riding a bicycle, and whether there should be a fine or other form of punishment put on the parents.
This discussion got me thinking about a situation that is happening in my home community right now. There is a single mother with six children, ranging in age from three to fifteen, that she is either the mother of or the guardian of (two of them are her sisters, who is now in jail), all living in a one room apartment. In my and my friends opinions, these children are being seriously neglected or abused by the woman.
The woman is a known prescription drug addict and has been caught stealing drugs from her friend who was in an ATV accident. After getting caught, she agreed to go to narcotics anonymous for help, and quit going after only a few sessions. We believe she is back on drugs, as her behavior has gone back to how it was before she was caught. She has had one job since moving here that she only kept for 2 weeks, yet she somehow has money to buy cigarettes, and has over a pack-a-day habit.
So far I have said nothing that would constitute as abuse towards the kids, after all, there are a lot of functioning alcoholics out there that raise their children well enough. And I'm sure there are lots of situations where there are six or more kids living in one room apartments that turn out just fine. What we feel constitutes as abuse is that the kids will go a day or two between meals. They will wear the same clothes for a week at a time. They rarely bathe, and if they do, we are not sure there is soap in the house. (One of the children used her birthday money to buy dish soap so she could do some dishes.) The apartment stinks of urine and feces. The dog they had died after a lengthy illness from eating a rotting chicken carcass that was laying out on the counter amongst the piled up dishes. While I don't believe she is physically hitting the children, she does mentally harm them with insults and threats.
So, my question is obvious, at what point is intervention necessary in a case like this? Does this constitute abuse that should result in the woman losing her children? If so, what level of government should interject? Under what authority? I have more questions, but I am also hoping to start a discussion here so I'm sure they will come up in the process.
So, what should be done?
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 742 reads
****
Is there some basic amount of possessions I rightfully should get to keep even if i have recklessly produced hundreds of offspring and do not have enough to care for them?
Do i at least have a right to refuse to work?
It seems the more i possess, the more the state should confiscate and use to support my children, but is there some hard shell inside of all that, that I get to keep no matter what? Maybe a cot and a few books and maybe a vehicle? Or is it all fair game when I have made children and they need to eat?
I am not asking about what would happen in the real life practical world.
I am trying to figure out what would be the law in the world that had all the laws in the most justified and righteous way.
In a free world, if there were really abuse going on and you felt you MUST help, you'd just take the children and/or ask them to come with you and get them out of there. I have no doubt a group of free individuals, working together, could remove children from an abusive situation without the force of government and protect them in their own homes from their abusive parents.
The fact is that child abuse is in the eye of the beholder. Are children property? Do children have rights? It's all very hazy. Freedom is always the answer, but can a child really be considered "free"?
My personal belief is that children are free. That they have a right to leave if their parent is harming them, and that others have a right to help them. Should we force children to leave an abusive situation, if they're not willing to go? How can a child really understand what is right and wrong raised in an environment like that?
It's an extremely grey area. However, I think most people can easily tell the difference between real abuse/neglect and just "bad parents". When we are free, people who really care, will really take action, and not lazily rely on the government. If you can't do it without government, don't do it.
"""You've probably already heard this one, since it is all over the news: a preacher, Anthony Hopkins, murdered his wife after she caught him sexually abusing their children and stuffed her in a freezer — with the daughter's assistance. This happened four years ago and the children's mother has been kept in the freezer in this house ever since. The pastor of Hopkins church reports that "the children were so respectful, just so easygoing", and that they "loved their dad. They were very close to him." Right. Rape, murder, and incest are just ordinary events in the Abrahamic family tree.
What I find disturbing about the whole story is this. Anthony Hopkins spent all this time since as an itinerant preacher, traveling about and preaching the ‘Holy Word of Jesus Christ’. His daughter moved out of his house, finally, reported what he'd done to the police, the police went into his house and opened the freezer, and then they went off to the church where he was preaching that day. What did they do then?
Police allowed Hopkins to finish his sermon before arresting him."""
THis 14-year-old died of starvation just before the maggot-infested bed sores did her in. Remember, this kid was IN foster care - the government solution to "bad parents."
http://athousandcuts.org/2008/07/31/the-short-sad-life-of-danieal-kelly/
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
This story is all over the news here
Both sides will use it to bolster their claims - the pro-bureaucracy crowd will say we need more safeguards in place -- perhaps a new position of overseer, more regulation, etc.
The less gov't crowd will say that this is a shining example of the ineffectiveness of gov't services. It is similar to the discussion going on on Wall St. -- failing banks either means the regulations have failed so we should get rid of them -- or we need more regulation. We all know which side is winning there. Is the other side even getting any coverage or consideration?
This example seems to stretch the limits of what we think mothers are capable of. Aren't they biologically programmed to protect their children? Even if they are terrible people without principles, etc. doesn't this kick in at some point?
I'm sure there will be a reaction from some that the state needs to prevent people like this from breeding --- Forced sterilization, etc.
in exchange for some food. That is something she would probably quickly agree to if her belongings were found to actually , due to her actions, rightfully belong to some of the many needy children.
I just found this on Youtube. Apparently social services in Canada have removed two children from their parents because the father, a white supremacist, allowed the daughter to go to school with a swastika drawn on her arm. The father does indeed have disgusting views, which he appears to be passing on to his children, but the children were not abused or neglected, so how can the state had justify removing them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT_49adBl6g
When looking at the federal government's budget, it becomes apparent that if they stuck to this (including only spending on defense what is necessary for DEFENSE), then the $3 trillion budget could come in at under $200 billion, or about 7% of what it is now. This would constitute an immediate 20% increase in savings/capital in the economy. The results of such an increase would be earth shaking.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
Just to reign that whole line of inquiry in, here is what the U S Constitution says the federal government is allowed to do:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereo
The Tenth Amendment says:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Therefore, the federal government is prohibited from making any laws regarding Child Welfare (the preamble is just that - a preamble. Some flowery words to tell everyone why they are writing a Constitution. The power of law resides in Article I, Section 8 and is prohibited from going beyond that by the 10th Amendment.
Therefore, child welfare is something that only a state or local government would have any legal right to do. The authority then needs to be sought from state constitutions. The philosophical principle comes down to property rights - the free society looks on government as a necessary evil whose only purpose is to protect its citizens. Locke actually rolls a person's life into his "property," and is able to make the statement that government's only purpose is the protection of property. Going beyond its purpose violates the rights of its citizens because of the tax money needed to do so.
All of that being said, even the local government's right and responsibility here should end at protecting the child's life. I believe that would extend to protecting them from permanent harm (life and limb), such as could occur due to unhealthy living conditions that result in serious infections, etc. I think that removing the child from the home when death or permanent harm is imminent is a perfectly proper thing for a local government to do. They should make every effort to find a permanent situation for the child that does not require taxpayer money.
I do not think this extends beyond those parameters, such as "is the child getting an adequate education, etc. These are regrettable things for a child to have to go through, but they do not constitute a sanction on everyone else's property.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
This is certainly a hot topic, and one that is worthy of attention. All the hubbub in Texas over that community of allegedly abused girls is as little proof as we need to know that this is important.
A few people in this discussion mentioned how things "used to be done" - i.e., community members individually and collectively helping out. I have a strong aversion to idolizing the past, but putting aside that problem, I wonder about it as a solution.
It seems viable, since people would do it of their own volition. What about if local governments, like municipalities, set up their own social services board? Would that be taking it too far? It's a slippery slope argument, but I can see how institutionalizing it even on a small scale would encourage it to move up the ladder to state- and then federal-level organization.
I think Claire has hit on a point that is relevant - the government has a duty to preserve the life of its citizens, including children. Unfortunately, I am not smart enough to envision a way to prevent this duty from being exploited to create overbearing bureaucracy, such as social services is now.
Obviously it gets ridiculous sometimes - recently a Michiganer (a classical archaeologist no less!) gave his son, aged 6, a Mike's hard lemonade after asking for a lemonade at a drink stand at a Tigers game. He did not know it was alcoholic because he doesn't watch television and had never heard of it before. Social services abducted his child for a week or more. That sort of behavior can not be tolerated - the government, even in more serious circumstances, should not have that power.
-dommy
http://dinodinodino.wordpress.com
You are smart enough - your solution IS the solution. The first thing to do in preventing social services from becoming an overbearing bureacracy is to get the Feds out of it. Everything they touch (or start spending money on) becomes a disaster. If local governments had to make due with their own money, the scope of services would immediately be right-sized to something sensible. Plus, without the federal government imposing their one size fits all solution on the local government as a condition of getting the federal funding, each community could decide on its own which services to provide, when to intervene, when not to, etc. It doesn't guarantee that property rights are still not violated, but there is a lot less with local government on their own limited budget and with officials that live amongst the governed than there is with the feds, whose officials have completely lost touch with life in the real world.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
>>I can see how institutionalizing it even on a small scale would encourage it to move up the ladder to state- and then federal-level organization.
I think if we take it out of the hands of government and dismantle those beurocracies then individuals will step in. Family members and friends and neighbors who have seen the children grow up will be more likely than strangers to take good care of them. In most cases it would amount to people just helping out unofficially, and the parent retaining custody. In more extreme cases, where the child has to be taken away, any transfer of custody or care would have to be done legally. You can't just have people taking away each other's children, however well intentioned they might be. But yes, I think there are more than enough caring people in every community to easily replace government agencies.
to her children always
unless she tries to kill them or deliberately harm them
still I don't know if even that means that the rest of society is suddenly obligated to raise these children until they're adults
Any behavior that you subsidize you will get more of
In the natural world there is competition --- capitalism is based on this concept
This applies to the human struggle for shelter, food, survival, etc.
There's currently an overpopulation problem --- I don't know if we need to confiscate people's income to support a better standard of living for the multiple children of irresponsible drug addicts
Their standard of living is already on par or better just by being alive in America at this present moment than many other children throughout the world and throughout history
If the children grow up to be like their parents our children will inherit more problems ----- let em live or die!!!! Chances are they'll come out allright. :)
PS - when did smoking cigarettes become a factor to consider in confiscating children??
And, if you call the the cops on the mother who's beating her, and they just give her back to the mother she gets beat up worse, and eventually dead.
I'd gladly have gays adopt over this charade.
because I thought it was relevant to the fact that she spends money on them instead of on food and clothing for the children. She takes care of her wants before taking care of the children's needs.
I don't have anything against smoking or smokers.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams
It seems to me like this mother dreads having her childen taken away. I don't think doing so would constitue a reward for her bad behavior. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Just like we all chip in to pay for police and courts, and prisons where the inmates live at our expense, in order to protect our rights and to defend our liberty, so I think it is legitimate for society to pay to protect the lives of children, but because this also involves supporting them for some time, it should only be done under the extreme circumstance where they are at risk of dying or suffering permanent damage.
I think that if the mother has clearly abused those children beyond repair and is endangering their lives, she has thereby forfeited her parental rights. If a caring friend or neighbor petitions a court to grant them custody, the court needs to consider what will be in the best interest of those children. I don't see the need for big beurocracies to get involved. Children would be much better off if such matters were taken care of by caring individuals rather than faceless governmental agencies.
under the threat of imprisonment ourselves -- ironic that we pay to hire the judges and build the prisons and then those same judges threaten to put us in the prisons that we paid to construct ---
I agree that if you eliminate gov't bureacracy then caring neighbors will step in. I've witnessed horses adopt stranded foals, whose mothers died giving birth, in a large herd --- (long story) of course it happened spontaneously -- there was no horse gov't to intervene (at least no bureacracy) Humans may act similarly.
Still, forcing someone to pay to raise a stranger's child is unethical I think. Of course if everyone wants to do so voluntarily through charitable organizations or the like - then I see no problem with it. I would consider voluntary giving "chipping in" but forced taxation is more like a mugging.
I don't know if you can really reach a decent conclusion about the women's psychological profile from a third hand anecdote .... I know that when there is a safety net, and people are aware of that safety net, their behavior differs from when there is no safety net. Maybe the gang of fathers feels pretty confident that someone will step in to care for their offspring if things get rough. If you take away that assurance you may find the fathers more responsive.
Three months and you already know her life story!
That is truly a sad story though. It sounds like your wife already made the decision to involve the government.
I don't know what I would do -- maybe try to offer the kids a meal or some clothes?
Have you tried talking to the mother? Sounds like she has problems but you have to consider her circumstances-- on her own with 6 kids. That is a tough burden to carry. Maybe she needs neighbors that support her and don't cast harsh judgments on her.
650 people small enough for ya? Really though, that's not the reason we are so close to the situation. We have lived there for over 5 years and barely know anyone in town. We generally keep to ourselves. We are close friends with the "friend" in the story, that's all.
And like I said, we have tried helping her and talking to her. But you can't help someone who doesn't help herself. I'm sure it is very hard on her having six kids and being on her own, but that is not the issue anymore. It isn't like she is trying and is just falling behind and needs help, she has completely given up.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams
It seems to be a given that either this sorry excuse for a parent keeps them or they get fostered out. What about the fathers rights? If she is getting money from them (child support or whatever) maybe instead of paying her to buy smokes they could just take the kids themselves and not pay $? Do the fathers even know what is going on or are they deadbeats as well?
And yes, 650 is small to me. Of course, I have 3.5 million in the city around me and few million more in the metro area.
I would think that as soon as the kids health and physical safety is in jeopardy, them being not of legal age to just move out or leave on their own - that govt intervention may be necessary. Its not obviously my first choice, but if its between that and malnutrition/neglect - - -so be it. at least the kids will be able to eat daily.
We have a lot of homeless people here. I dont give to them except rarely if a kid is also with the homeless adult. If i gave a dollar to every homeless person I see - - i wouldnt have money to eat and all of them would only have a dollar (which dont buy much in chicago). Life sucks sometimes. But the kids shouldnt be hurting because their parent is a loser. Taking the kids away, even if temporarily, might motivate her to get her **** together. If that dont work, nothing would. And the kids would likely be better off.
Sad story.
to kidnap the children and put them in a group home --- er, I mean call child services
I don't know what else --- let em live or die I guess
>>let em live or die I guess
Letting the children die is not an option. Defending the life of its citizens is a legitimate and necessary function of the state.
So you're opinion is that no matter what, the state does not have the right to take the children. Is there any situation you can think of where intervention would be warranted? I was not presenting this case strictly to get advise, I was also trying to strike up a conversation about parents rights, childrens rights, and what role a government should have, if any, when any rights are being violated.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams
>>I was also trying to strike up a conversation about parents rights, childrens rights, and what role a government should have, if any, when any rights are being violated.
Children may not have the full spectrum of rights that adults enjoy, but they most definitely have the right to live and not to be harmed. No one, not even a parent, may infringe upon these rights. According to our constitution, the government has not just the right but the duty to defend the lives of these children. If the actions of the mother will cause these children to suffer serious ham or to die, the state has to intervene.
Suppose a kid is starving through no fault of her own. Further suppose, that she is willing to be sterilized if that is the only way for her to get some food. So it seems there is very little excuse for the rest of the people not to let her have any of the available food.
But what if all the food happens to be in the possession of people. Does the kid automatically , simply by virtue of being alive, get to own some of that food?
It seems that even if those people worked to produce that food, there are some situations where the kid does automatically get to own some of it, even if those producers do not want her to have that food. In other words the right to live takes precedence over the property interests of the food owners--it stops being their rightful property. These situations will usually occur when the food possesors are not near starvation themselves.
Now if some of the food owners were very careful to take measures to keep the other people from irresponsibly reproducing, while other food owners were instead encouraging the poor to have reckless sex, wouldn't it also make sense, when confiscating the food to take a larger percentage from those people who were encouraging the reckless reproduction than from those who were taking law abiding measures to minimize it?
....
you two have some sick imaginations!
At least I am not in favor of letting the kids die. My examples of parental abuse on this forum don't come from my own imagination, sadly. They are things I have heard about that people actually did to their children.
If you are taking about the kid on the bicycle example in your forum, I admit I was stretching there, trying to think of an example of a parent allowing a child to do something that is clearly dangerous. I also admitted the whole bicycle helmet hypothetical is a bad example or parental abuse or neglect, and I dropped it a while ago.
>>what part of the constitution are you referring to?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I think this establishes that the purpose of our government is to ensure the defense, liberty and welfare (the original meaning of the word-- health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being) of American citizens.
I interpret this to mean that if anyone is threatening the life of a US citizen, the state most certainly does have the right to intervene.
to saying that the constitution requires that taxpayers adopt these children (essentially) is quite a leap
The concept of protection that I'm comfortable granting to the gov't includes outside forces (i.e. secure the borders, provide for the national defense)
What about suicide? There are laws on the books that prohibit this - as ironic as it sounds.
I think you've made some nice arguments and we arrive at similar conclusions -- i.e. less gov't will allow for a solution to develop organically
But in all fairness what couldn't you interpret from that paragraph as it includes the words: justice, tranquility, defense, general welfare, liberty, more-perfect......
Does our Constitution require that we provide Medicaid to citizens as this also falls under the seemingly infinite category of "general welfare"?
Perhaps it is not specifically prohibited but I don't think that it requires the gov't to do so.....
I don't see how it would ever be necessary to force anyone to pay for the care of orphaned or abused children. There is more than enough voluntary good will in our society (especially if the government isn't confiscating our money).
Our Constitution most definitely does not require that we provide Medicaid to citizens. It doesn't even allow it, in my opinion, since our government is supposed to guarantee our liberty, and having to pay the taxes required for Medicaid and other entitlement programs essentially reduces us to slavery for much of the year.