Parentrepthrowaway26 karma2014-05-27 19:10:26 UTC
Isn't that just saying poor people shouldn't be allowed to have children?
View HistoryShare Link
Parentrepthrowaway24 karma2014-05-27 17:15:47 UTC
Woah boy. Didn't know I would get tough questions like this.
I'm going to say yes. And I am not coming from a place where I think everyone should be able to have 30 kids and do what they want - I have seen first hand what that does to families.
My problem is the other side - slippery slope and enforcement. Who decides when people stop having children? What is the criteria? How do you make sure that happens? I think the world has seen where this heads when the government intervenes with these decisions, and it isn't pretty.
Parentrepthrowaway24 karma2014-05-27 16:00:36 UTC
All the time. The state has an obligation to try to offer services before they attempt to remove a child. That is one of my biggest arguments at the 72-hour pick up hearing - leave the kid in the house, let the parent comply with services, and keep an eye on the situation.
Probably the worst cases where there shouldn't be removal are with medical neglect cases. Kids have complicated medical needs, and social workers aren't always the best at identifying when there was issues. One kid of a client reportedly had scabies, but they were at the doctor two days before the removal and the doctor didn't note it. But the kid was removed anyway even though they had been getting on-going medical care for her.
Parentrepthrowaway22 karma2014-05-27 14:04:34 UTC
Hmmm.... tough to say. I think some of the worst have been people who live in houses with tons of people running around, doing drugs, and making drama are pretty situations to figure out are unsafe. One family was grandparents with adult children and other children. The adult children had kids. Everyone was doing meth together. Every kid in that house, regardless of parent, got removed.
Having 13 kids is rough, too. Pretty impossible to parent that many kids in a city and being in poverty.
But probably the worst was a delusional schitzophrenic. The kid was almost ten, couldn't do buttons or a zipper, and was convinced his mom was a terrorist. Like a real terrorist.
As for trials, you'd be surprised how few the issues are contested and trials happen. But I lost one and the decision was basically because my guy hadn't parented before. I thought "you can say that about any first time parent!!"
Parentrepthrowaway22 karma2014-05-27 15:50:44 UTC
You should be paranoid. It can happen and go downhill a lot easier than it does.
But most are pretty valid. The line is usually where children should be removed or not. A lot of the time, the argument is "keep these kids in the home, make a safety plan, have the parents engage in corrective services, and see what happens." The issue isn't that the allegations are bogus (most of the time) - it is that removal from the home is a much more drastic remedy then is necessary.
The problem is that most removals happen ex parte, or without a parent having a right to respond to until after the pick-up happens. And once a child is removed, it becomes much harder to put them back.
Copyright © 2014 BestofAMA.com, All rights reserved.
reddit has not approved or endorsed BestofAMA, reddit design elements are trademarks of reddit inc.