Should Extreme Hater Parents Lose Custody?

[chanel]

That's the issue Madeline. Here in NJ, "family preservation" is a common term used to justify keeping abused and neglected kids in their homes. It's a code word for "we have no place else to put them".

We need more orphanages. Maybe the Catholic Church or some other charitable organization should step up.

 

[Madeline]

Orphanages are wretched places, chanel. Not one kid sent there in a hundred will have a decent life. Foster homes are little better, and many/most are worse.

There's very little the government can do to raise a child. If the family fails, the kid is at extreme risk. Little kids should be available for adoption as soon as possible....I think there is too much emphasis on parental rights and not enough on the rights of the child to a secure, loving home.

Older kids and teens should live in group homes, be emanicpated with a support system, etc.

But yes, of all the things the government cannot do, it can never replace the family.

 

[chanel]

I don't know where you got your stats, but there have been many, many successful orphanages.

Just recently NJ decided that they'd only give crackhead moms one year to get their shit together and then the kids can be put up for adoption. That at least gives the kids a chance, rather than being shuffled back and forth between mom and foster homes. I was quite pleased when I heard that ruling.

 

[Madeline]

That is certainly better than the shuffle most kids go through all their young lives. Kudos to New Jersey.

 

[editec]

Family values...remember that empty headed, feel good phrase brought to us by the Republicans?

Just remember that Devil worshipping and child abuse are SOME families' values, too.

Some of us expect that our simply solutions will be applicable in every case.

It's a complex world, folks.

 

[AllieBaba]

I wonder if we should remove all the children from the parents who attended Rev. Wright's church?

I think his rantings are child abuse.

I also think it's child abuse to explain homosexuality to young children. Can we remove those kids, too?

And can we remove the kids from the loons who insist on raising them gender-non-specific? Those poor kids.

Neg rep for Madeline for being a fascist.

 

[AllieBaba]

About the name thing. My office mate and co-worker is a CW worker. He has a story where a family named one daughter "Phelony" and the other "Miranda".

He told them (now he was already involved with this family) that he considered that as child abuse and would act on it as such. They changed the girls' names. He maintained that there's no way kids with names so blatantly anti-social could succeed in life, and the parents were sabotaging their chances.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Should parents ever lose custody for extreme emotional abuse? What about the parents involved with the Westboro Baptist Church....should they be allowed to teach such hatred to their children? Can people ever be so far off the reservation, mentally or emotionally, that the government should remove their children?

"Extreme emotional abuse," yes. The other? Slippery slope. You picked a very reviled group, reviled for good reason. What about parents that adhere to other beliefs, that may one day be reviled, whether for good reasons or bad? Who decides what is good and bad?

I have to agree with Annie.

Abuse is abuse whether it is emotional or not, but you can't just start taking children away from their parents just because "you" do not approve of the beliefs of the parents.

Immie

What?! You mean it's not emotional abuse to disagree with Mad's worldview?!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Also, if we're going to talk about "extreme emotional abuse", how emotionally abusive is it to children to take them away from parents who love them and provide for their needs and the only home they know? Is that really a trauma we want to put kids through just because the parents' worldview isn't socially acceptable?

 

[George Costanza]

Should parents ever lose custody for extreme emotional abuse? What about the parents involved with the Westboro Baptist Church....should they be allowed to teach such hatred to their children? Can people ever be so far off the reservation, mentally or emotionally, that the government should remove their children?

Of course. "Child endangerment" can come in all forms of, well, endangerment.

 

[Kat]

Remember this story:

A 3-year-old boy named Adolf Hitler and his two Nazi-named younger sisters were removed from their New Jersey home last week and placed in state custody, police said.

Adolf Hitler Campbell and his sisters, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell, were taken from their Holland Township, N.J., home on Friday by the state's Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS), Sgt. John Harris of the Holland Township Police Department told FOXNews.com.

Young 'Adolf Hitler' and Two Sisters Removed From Home - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Naming your child Adolf Hitler does seem like it would be the tip of an iceberg of other bizarre things.

As far as the original question. I think you really have to tread carefully here. But having social services track the family, do home visits, etc, might not be a bad idea.

Phelps was physically and emotionally very abusive to his family.

Addicted To Hate - The Fred Phelps Story

Mark Phelps feels nauseated whenever he remembers that night. He was hit over 60 times and his brother, Nate, over 200 with a mattock handle. Nate went into shock. Mark didn't. A boy who became a compulsive counter to handle the stress, Mark counted every stroke. His and Nate's. While their father screamed obscenities and his brother screamed in pain. Every 20 strokes, their mother wiped their faces off in the tub. Nate passed out anyway. That was Christmas Day.

Though he believes he should be the next governor of Kansas, Pastor Phelps has never believed in Christmas. A mattock is a pick-hoe using a wooden handle heavier than a bat. Fred swung it with both hands like a ballplayer and with all his might. "The first blow stunned your whole body," says Mark. "By the third blow, your backside was so tender, even the lightest strike was agonizing, but he'd still hit you like he wanted to put it over the fence. By 20, though, you'd have grown numb with pain. That was when my father would quit and start on my brother. Later, when the feeling had returned and it hurt worse than before, he'd do it again. "After 40 strokes, I was weak and nauseous and very pale. My body hurt terribly. Then it was Nate's turn. He got 40 each time. "I staggered to the bathtub where my mom was wetting a towel to swab my face. Behind me, I could hear the mattock and my brother was choking and moaning. He was crying and he wouldn't stop." The voice in the phone halts. After an awkward moment, clearing of throats, it continues: "Then I heard my father shouting my name. My mom was right there, but she wouldn't help me. It hurt so badly during the third beating that I kept wanting to drop so he would hit me in the head. I was hoping I'd be knocked out, or killed...anything to end the pain. "After that...it was waiting that was terrible. You didn't know if, when he was done with Nate, he'd hurt you again. I was shaking in a cold panic. Twenty-five years since it happened, and the same sick feeling in my stomach comes back now..." Did he? Come back to you?

"No. He just kept beating Nate. It went on and on and on. I remember the sharp sound of the blows and how finally my brother stopped screaming... "It was very quiet. All I could think of was would he do that to me now. I could see my brother lying there in shock, and I knew in a moment it would be my turn. "I can't describe the basic animal fear you have in your gut at a time like that. Where someone has complete power over you. And they're hurting you. And there is no escape. No way out. If your mom couldn't help you...I can't explain it to anyone except perhaps a survivor from a POW camp." Last year, Nate Phelps, sixth of Pastor Phelps' 13 children, accused his father of child abuse in the national media. The information was presented as a footnote to the larger story of Fred Phelps' anti-gay campaign. But the deep currents that lie beneath the apparent apple-cheeks of the Phelps' clan were stirring. A series of interviews with Nate resulted in an eyewitness account of life growing up in the Phelps camp. These reports contained allegations of persistent and poisonous child abuse, wife-beating, drug addiction, kidnapping, terrorism, wholesale tax fraud, and business fraud. In addition, Nate described the cult-like disassembly of young adult identities into shadow-souls, using physical and emotional coercion- coercion which may have been a leading factor in the suicide of an emotionally troubled teenage girl.

I can't begin to express how irate this makes me. And I so resent he and his followers using the word Christian. He is anything but.

 

[FA_Q2]

Orphanages are wretched places, chanel. Not one kid sent there in a hundred will have a decent life. Foster homes are little better, and many/most are worse.

There's very little the government can do to raise a child. If the family fails, the kid is at extreme risk. Little kids should be available for adoption as soon as possible....I think there is too much emphasis on parental rights and not enough on the rights of the child to a secure, loving home.

Older kids and teens should live in group homes, be emanicpated with a support system, etc.

But yes, of all the things the government cannot do, it can never replace the family.

That is a true statement. There is FAR too much emphasis on the parental rights of a failed parent. There are problems when you hear about people that have adopted children that are taken away because the 'parent' changed their mind after a year. The state should resist taking children out of their homes and only do so when it is truly needed but at that same time those children should rarely go back.

 

[FA_Q2]

About the name thing. My office mate and co-worker is a CW worker. He has a story where a family named one daughter "Phelony" and the other "Miranda".

He told them (now he was already involved with this family) that he considered that as child abuse and would act on it as such. They changed the girls' names. He maintained that there's no way kids with names so blatantly anti-social could succeed in life, and the parents were sabotaging their chances.

I fail to see how those names are bad or even on par with Adolf. The people are strange to be sure and I would never name my child something like that but that does not mean those are terrible names. There was a family of three boys that my wife used to watch named rain, river and snow and I would consider those to be worse than the names you mentioned (mainly because they were boys to boot).

 

[Middleman]

About the name thing. My office mate and co-worker is a CW worker. He has a story where a family named one daughter "Phelony" and the other "Miranda".

He told them (now he was already involved with this family) that he considered that as child abuse and would act on it as such. They changed the girls' names. He maintained that there's no way kids with names so blatantly anti-social could succeed in life, and the parents were sabotaging their chances.

Miranda is a regular name, last time I checked.

 

[DiveCon]

About the name thing. My office mate and co-worker is a CW worker. He has a story where a family named one daughter "Phelony" and the other "Miranda".

He told them (now he was already involved with this family) that he considered that as child abuse and would act on it as such. They changed the girls' names. He maintained that there's no way kids with names so blatantly anti-social could succeed in life, and the parents were sabotaging their chances.

Miranda is a regular name, last time I checked.

yeah, i thought so too
unless she was Miranda Rights

 

[DiveCon]

Miranda | Name Meaning & Origin | Girl Name Miranda | Baby Names World

 

[Middleman]

My Dad had a golfing buddy who was an obstetrician. He had a young client from the Black community who, in the tradition of that demographic, wanted to name her daughter a name starting with 'La', as in LaTonya, LaTrisha, LaToya, you get my drift. The name she chose was 'LaTrine'. lol. The good doctor gently explained that Latrine meant a toilet. She compromised and named the girl 'LaTrina'. True story.

 

[Father Time]

but to some that is abusive...and to them i say.....dont get between me and my child...cause i wont tolerate it.

Oh lord not another internet tough guy act.

 

[Father Time]

Should parents ever lose custody for extreme emotional abuse? What about the parents involved with the Westboro Baptist Church....should they be allowed to teach such hatred to their children? Can people ever be so far off the reservation, mentally or emotionally, that the government should remove their children?

another tough question, madeline....

part of me says ....."people like this should NOT be allowed to raise children"

and another part says "well...I guess that's the price of freedom in America"

if I have to pick;

I would prefer that people like this NOT be allowed to raise children

the damage they cause goes far beyond the children....

in 20 years their damaged children will be adults....causing problems in society...and raising the NEXT generation of hatefilled children

I guess I did not ask the Op question well. Lemme put it this way.

Could parents ever be so extreme in their hate as to warrant removal of the kids? (Assuming their conduct was otherwise law abiding, etc.)

I gotta tell ya...I have watched that segment on the WBC families. The parents featured had an older child who questioned the church once she reached 18, and not only did they put her out, cut her off, etc. They also taught the little ones to hate her.

Ok so they remove her from the custody of her parents, what exactly changes? They threw her out and the government can't exactly get them to stop teaching the kids to hate her.

 

[frazzledgear]

Should parents ever lose custody for extreme emotional abuse? What about the parents involved with the Westboro Baptist Church....should they be allowed to teach such hatred to their children? Can people ever be so far off the reservation, mentally or emotionally, that the government should remove their children?

Should parents lose custody because they teach their political and religious beliefs to their children and allow their children to see them exercise their Constitutional rights? Are you kidding? I think the Westboro family you mention is despicable. They may have fulfilled the legal requirements to register as a church but in reality the "church" members are all family members. But the only thing they are guilty of is loudly expressing their obnoxious OPINIONS and doing so where other people can hear it. Where are the constitutional grounds for anyone to claim that holding and EXPRESSING the "wrong" opinions about ANY issue is an offense government must punish by stealing their children in reprisal -all for having what someone else has decided is a "wrong" opinion. A judgment that is itself just an OPINION too! Another opinion no one else is obligated to adopt either! Just EXACTLY who gets to decide they have the greater right to replace the opinions of others with their own opinions instead and have the right to declare some opinions to be so "bad" as to constitute child abuse by exposing your child to those opinions and no longer constitutionally protected speech! And who will make that determination the next time? Parents have the Constitutional right to raise their children in accordance with their own political AND religious beliefs and use those religious beliefs as the foundation of the moral code and guide to run their household. They also have the Constitutional right to publicly express their opinions free from the fear of government reprisal and punishment because that is guaranteed under our Constitution. Sorry, but there is NO way to pretend that the state sanctioned stealing of someone's child on the grounds they exposed to their child to opinions that are "wrong" in the opinion of someone claiming to have greater authority to decide what opinions people can and cannot hold or risk having the state come in and destroy your family is anything BUT government punishment for having the "wrong" opinions instead of the state approved opinions.

Is it their OPINION you think deserves having the state steal their children -or the manner in which they express that opinion that makes them deserving of having government take their children? Because you can't have it both ways here. They have the constitutional right to have ANY opinion they want on any issue and are never obligated to agree with you or anyone else about it. And the courts have repeatedly upheld their constitutional right to publicly express their opinions the way they do - which means government has zero grounds to kidnap their kids on the premise that having some opinions is just too dangerous for kids to be exposed to. But the real irony here is that labeling the opinions of someone else as "hateful" is just an OPINION in itself! And you do realize that other people would find your own opinion that these people's opinions are "hateful" to be "hateful" as well! Where is it written that YOUR opinion about what is hateful counts for more than that of anyone else who may disagree with you and thinks it is your opinion that is hateful? No matter how many people may even share your own opinion, it NEVER EVER gives government the authority to decide some opinions are better for people to have than others and therefore those holding certain opinions will be punished with the destruction of their family! Being exposed to all sorts of opinions on a wide range of topics and from people from all walks of life that may all be different from your own is NORMAL LIFE in this country. Not child endangerment - so deal with it.

The first amendment was specifically intended to protect people from those who would want to do EXACTLY this kind of thing -using the force of government to punish people by whatever bastardized means others could think of for having and expressing unpopular views. The notion that these people are engaged in abusing their children by having and exposing their children to opinions that are different from your own or from my own about what is and is not moral behavior and insisting that is "bad" is just your OPINION and your personal value judgment. If you think people with opinions you have decided are "bad" deserve to have their kids kidnapped by the government, it must mean you think people have no right to form any opinion that significantly differs from your own - and for some weird reason believe your OPINION about the value of your own opinion places an obligation on everyone else to agree with it - and forgo their own judgment entirely. Or risk the government ordered destruction of their family. Wow -not exactly a freedom respecting opinion there, is it? Oh and of COURSE people like you would always reserve YOUR own right to disagree with the opinions of others, right? Only those who disagree with YOU and refuse to share your own opinions should risk having their children kidnapped by government. I can't believe the founders didn't come up with this one, can you?

Using the force of government to punish people and destroy their lives for the "crime" of having the "wrong" opinions (which is just the opinion of someone else), would mean the only thing that matters is who the power elite are at any given time because those in power would determine what is and is not "child abusive opinions" and YOU would have no right to form any opinion but one they tell you is permissible to have. How about if the power elite would next decide it is not child abuse for someone to take their child to a demonstration in favor of illegal immigration because the ruling elite want to curry political favor among that specific group -but decide it IS child abuse to take your child to a Tea Party or to expose them to any of those ideas and opinions -because the Tea Party is all about limiting the size and power of government which the power elite finds threatening to their rule. There IS no line once you allow GOVERNMENT to EVER decide one opinion is worthy of protection over another -which is why government is specifically banned from doing so under our Constitution. Allowing government to kidnap the children of those who disagree with them on the grounds that failure to share your own opinions amounts to "child abuse" is nothing but a power grab by those who would use the force of government to silence their political opponents, silence critics, stifle free speech, instill the fear of even speaking out in their opponents and doing so by using one of the worst and CRUELEST state reprisals imaginable of threatening the state ordered destruction of someone's family. All for the "crime" of having and daring to express the "wrong" opinions.

WHO decides what the "proper" political and religious opinions are supposed to be before you can be "allowed" to let your child see and participate in the exercise of your free speech rights? The founders believed they answered this one already -it is NEVER government who decides this but the INDIVIDUAL himself. Teaching your child about YOUR political views is YOUR right even if others do not agree with your views. So it is the right of parents to teach their child about their religion and religious views AND have their child see them and be with them as they exercise their constitutional rights. Free from ANY fear government may threaten to kidnap their child for allowing their child see their parents holding any opinion but the ones government has said are the "correct" ones. The founders totally rejected the notion that some speech is so dangerous that people must be protected from hearing it all - so I question the motives of those who want to pretend more than 200 years later children must be protected from hearing some political speech and opinions NOW and that some opinions are just so dangerous it requires the state to threaten people with the kidnap of their child unless they never express any opinion but the state approved ones. How DID we manage before all these years.

If you teach your child political and religious views that are different from my own it places ME under no obligation to get in line with YOUR political and religious views or face the threat of having my child kidnapped by government to be "properly" indoctrinated by strangers and deprived of his own family and loved ones. Even if you conveniently add the label of "hateful" to my opinions, it gives your own opinion no greater weight than my own and changes nothing. I am still not obligated to abandon my own opinions for YOURS or face punishment. Likewise you have no obligation to get in line with mine either and you still aren't even if I label your opinion as "hateful". Deciding the OPINION of one person is superior to that of another person is just one more OPINION and a value judgment that can only be made by the individual. Not government which is specifically forbidden from doing so by our Constitution.

Using the force and power of government to try and FORCE people to hold certain opinions or risk punishment by the state for expressing any but the state chosen ones by ANY means -but especially by the use of the most emotionally vicious, cruel and damaging threat possible that government claims the "right" to kidnap their child to be indoctrinated into the state chosen opinions instead -is no American value.

That is ENTIRELY a Marxist value and belief from beginning to end. And evidenced by the fact the only regimes to use this weapon in the attempt to exert total control of their own citizens in modern history were nearly all communist and resulted in the infliction of misery on an unimaginable scale for MILLIONS and did so in just a matter of decades. I have NO problem tolerating the existence of people raising their own children who happen to hold different religious and political views than my own and do not believe their differences from me is deserving of any state ordered destruction of their families or government reprisal and punishment. But I absolutely DEMAND the exact same right in return.