Should children be allowed to be parented by dangerous people?

Should children be allowed to be parented by dangerous people?

  • Total voters
    4
M

Mr. Hamtastic

whackawhackado!
Registered Senior Member
Convicts?
Mentally Ill?
People who use recreational drugs?

Should children be allowed near these people, much less be parented by them?
 
Last edited:
It shows a tendency to do dangerous things, probably encouraging the impressionable child to also do dangerous things.
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
It shows a tendency to do dangerous things, probably encouraging the impressionable child to also do dangerous things.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Plenty of people like their adventure sports, but would not let their children do that until they were old enough for it.
 
define dangerous. the only reason a child should ever be removed from its parents is abuse. children need their parents.
 
If the parent can't even take care of themselves then the children should be allowed to visit of course, but maybe should be raised by someone else until their parents get their lives in order. But unless the child is actually being abused then they should remain with their parents unless of course they have a good reason to not be. All parents could potentially abuse their children. I think most kids are happier with their own parents than they are in foster care.
 
What about if one parent is competent, and the other is not? It's not often that both parents are incompetent, though it does happen.
 
I voted "yes" because the only way I'd let the government deny procreation to the "dangerous people" is if they elect me sole and absolute arbiter for life of who's dangerous.
 
Mr Ham, this is not really a yes no question

If you had asked should DYFS MONITOR parents which are at risk of abuse because of drugs and achole or what not then i wouldnt hesitate to say yes but removing a child is the LAST resort option for the department which is as it should be.
 
thats not what i ment though

Im not talking about the parents only having supervised vistation but rather the family being visted by DYFS say once a week or once a month to check that everything is going alright

Actually for some families DYFS intervention can help ALOT because then they have access to resorces that are unavalable to the general public like publicly employed babysitters to give the parents a break, access to more finatial resorces, access to purpose built public housing if needed ect.

As i said its the aposlute LAST option for DYFS to put the kids under someone elses care
 
What country are YOU talkin about? We don't have that fancyshmancy stuff in the US. It's real simple. If they decide to find a reason to remove your kids from you, they will.
 
Australia
and its the department of youth and family services (i live in SA:p)
In Victoria and NSW its the Department of child services (DOCS)
i cant even rember what its called in the other states

I think the yanks call it CPS (child protective services) or social services?
 
Yep. CPS will come and get the children for whatever reason they decide to give you. So will social services, although social services will come and ask to search your house without a warrant, and if you decline, you have given them probable cause. Woohoo!
 
No, but by "dangerous" I take it you mean people with a criminal record, severe mental illness or instability, aggression, etc.
 
im actually a manditory reporter for suspected child abuse, so i do know a little about the system. When you report a case you give the reasons why you suspect child abuse or neglect, who you suspect and an urgency rating (imidiate, with in a day, with in a week and i think there is one more). Other people will also report it (for instance in my case i would report it because of what i have either seen in the home or in treating the child and then the nurses and doctors might suspect because of a more thougher clincial assesment and also put in there complaints) and then the case workers will start an investigation.

Now in neglect cases this may well be that the solution is more finatial surport or a break away from the kids, or a house cleaner or pre prepared meals from an organisation like meals on wheels or a different house from the housing trust or symple for the house to be modifide

None of these would involve removal of the children because thats not in the childs best interests. Its the surport that is nessary not punishment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top