Child Protective Services...DHS...

[SwooshOU]

How does a libertarian viewpoint address child abuse or neglect?

Where is the line between privacy and intervention?

What does Ron Paul have to say about DHS and Child Protective Services?

 

[saku39]

This is something I've been trying to find out about myself.

I am bothered because I think that a governmental children's agency could be used wrongly as it could be used for good.

For example, I read of one case in the UK where their kid's agency took a kid from a single mother. The single mother had done nothing wrong, there were no reports filed against her, she hadn't committed a crime, they didn't even interview her. But they took her child because prior to her pregnancy she had been treated for mental illness. I am afraid of an agency becoming over-reaching like that.

Again, I dislike almost all government intervention, but a case of child abuse is serious.

Anybody have arguments for or against? I would like to hear them.

 

[Wilkero]

Privacy is definitely an issue, but I'm not sure there is any way to create a bright-line rule that will effectively address all of the potential issues. Another problem is that children are minors and are not completely vested with all of the same rights as adults, but we do not consider them to be "property" (or chattel) belonging to their parents. As a result, I think that we have a hard time figuring out the correct balance because we do not have a perfect way of classifying exactly where parental rights begin and end.

 

[angelatc]

I'm perfectly fine with letting the parents raise the children. Let the extendedfamilies deal with their various dysfunctions. Children should not and do not belong to the State.

 

[BigTimeMoe]

I believe this is already handled at the State level, right? If so, I would not expect a change in that policy.

 

[axiomata]

Child Protective Services are run at a state level, though there is some federal funding.

 

[Kregener]

Do any of you OWN a copy of the Constitution?

Aside from there being no basis in the rule of law for CPS, it is one of the most corrupt of all government "agencies", federal AND state.

It needs to go.

 

[ladyliberty]

Do any of you OWN a copy of the Constitution?

Aside from there being no basis in the rule of law for CPS, it is one of the most corrupt of all government "agencies", federal AND state.

It needs to go.

AMEN!

No more paying women to reproduce, no more abortions - birth rates out to drop among women who do not want or need the responsibility of raising a child. Hopefully adoptions will become less legalistic too. Children who need new homes will find them instead of being shuffled around in a foster care system!

 

[SwooshOU]

I'm kind of torn on this issue.

On the one hand, I don't doubt that there are many, many CPS cases that are simply uncalled for. However, there probably are some legitimate cases where the family isn't going to say anything to authorities and abuse will continue. What about those?

I'm not arguing for or against CPS (even though I'm more apt to argue against it). But, what would a libertarian response be to child abuse or neglect? I've looked for comments on this by Ron Paul to no avail. Thanks for any input!

 

[erikm]

They may do some good, but that seems outweighed by the bad. I've read about far too many cases where the CPS attitude seems to have been 'prejudge; seize the kids and run; never admit mistakes; drag legal proceedings out as far as inhumanly possible' for me to be in favor of them. They also seem too willing to make (or be used for) fishing expeditions, ignoring constitutional and/or civil rights.

In the past, federal law such as CAPTA seems to have encouraged this by providing funding to states on a per-child-removed basis. I don't know the law's current status.

Cheers,
ErikM

 

[angelatc]

I think the whole topic is a result of decades of effective fear mongering.

 

[nickcoons]

Here is an excellent article I found several years ago that talks about child abuse, written by a libertarian from, of all places, Quebec:

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000513-9.htm

Just as the article starts to get good, you click on the Next Page link to find out it's in French (which I don't speak, but my wife does). But on the first page, you may find answers to your questions.

 

[Lyn]

As a pediatric nurse I saw a lot of what DCF does and I have to say I think its more harm than good. There are truly horrible situations which do need to be remedied but the present system sucks. True abuse is a crime so maybe it should be handled like any other crime via law enforcement not some agency with the ability to suspend an accused persons rights. My big beef with the agency is that they wield such power over your life yet they don't have to afford you the same rights that you would have if accused of any other offense. DCF workers are so afraid of making a bad call and giving anyone the benefit of a doubt that they tend to remove first and ask questions later. And some of the places they put your kids in while they "sort things out" are much worse than you can imagine.
You really have no rights as a parent in these situations as it is guilty until proven innocent. By the time you spend all your money paying for lawyers to prove you did nothing wrong, you lose your house and then they have a real reason to take the kids cause you can't provide them shelter.
God forbid you have someone pissed at you all they need to do is call the anonymous hotline and make some groundless accusation and you are really screwed. People do this all the time to get back at their ex's.
The whole system is a disaster and needs to be downsized or done away with and parental rights need to be given greater weight. The majority of cases end up being judged unfounded anyway. Also, these agencies have so much power that all the kids know to cry, "I'll call DCF!" whenever their parents try to discipline them. This is an agency out of control.

 

[Jason525]

.............

 

[Icymudpuppy]

I remember reading a short story in a compilation of "Year's best science fiction" in which men rented themselves to industrial genetic engineers for certain products, and women carried those products in Utero and sold them back to the designer for market. In order for a couple to have an actual baby, instead of industrial products, they had to get a governmental permit (the strictest license requirements of any) and have never sold themselves to an industrial firm. I can't remember the name of the short story or the author, unfortunately.

 

[Voluntary Man]

What's abuse?

Is being locked in your room abuse?

Is being fed substandard food abuse?

Is being beaten with a stick abuse?

Is being forcibly medicated abuse?

Is being subjected to electrical shock abuse?

Is being poisoned abuse?

Is being forcibly stripped abuse?

Is a cavity search abuse?

Is a spanking abuse?

Is smacking the hand of a 2 yo reaching out for a hot stove or sharp knife abuse?


In most cases, what happens to children removed from their homes by CPS is 1,000 times worse than anything that ever happened to them at home.

The fate awaiting the undisciplined young adult, at the hands on the state, is far worse than any punishment the most "abusive" parent could have contrived.

 

[acptulsa]

In most cases, what happens to children removed from their homes by CPS is 1,000 times worse than anything that ever happened to them at home.

Of course, 'in most cases' only implies 51% of the time, and while I'm sure the number is higher than that, in the remaining situations the stuff that can happen to the child is worse than what you get at the hands of the government, and that's saying one hell of a lot.

Someone once said that the purpose of civilization is to protect preagnant women and children; everything else is just window dressing. And there's something to that. Children are a special case. They can't meet adult responsibilities, and can't defend themselves either physically or through a medium like the court system. If we accept no responsibility for them as a society, we're hardly worthy of the label 'civilized'.

That said, one thing is certain. The federal government is too big, too far from the ground and too stupid to be entrusted with any aspect whatsoever of this issue.

 

[Voluntary Man]

Of course, 'in most cases' only implies 51% of the time, and while I'm sure the number is higher than that, in the remaining situations the stuff that can happen to the child is worse than what you get at the hands of the government, and that's saying one hell of a lot.

Someone once said that the purpose of civilization is to protect preagnant women and children; everything else is just window dressing. And there's something to that. Children are a special case. They can't meet adult responsibilities, and can't defend themselves either physically or through a medium like the court system. If we accept no responsibility for them as a society, we're hardly worthy of the label 'civilized'.

That said, one thing is certain. The federal government is too big, too far from the ground and too stupid to be entrusted with any aspect whatsoever of this issue.

Saying that a clumsy, stupid, beast (most generous description of the state I could come up with) should be prevented from intervening in the parent-child relationship is not the same as suggesting that nothing should be done when people are brutalized, tortured, or raped.

The most disturbing aspect of our modern society is that people have come to believe that nothing worthwhile can be accomplished without government.

You want to support a popular uprising in a foreign country? YOU go join the fight!

You want to feed the homeless? YOU go feed the homeless!

You believe your neighbor is genuinely, unquestionably ABUSING his children? YOU go confront him, stage an intervention, and DO something about it -- YOURSELF! But, don't sick a pedophile riddled, gun wielding, tax funded bureaucracy on the rest of us -- an organization that defines "abuse" as allowing your children to ride bicycles without helmets, or not allowing them to eat school cafeteria fish sticks!

 

[playboymommy]

You believe your neighbor is genuinely, unquestionably ABUSING his children? YOU go confront him, stage an intervention, and DO something about it -- YOURSELF! But, don't sick a pedophile riddled, gun wielding, tax funded bureaucracy on the rest of us -- an organization that defines "abuse" as allowing your children to ride bicycles without helmets, or not allowing them to eat school cafeteria fish sticks!

This. I support Ron Paul for many reasons. Many of the reasons stem from the church I was raised in. It was based on VOLUNTARY charity, good will to others. My parents were officers (ministers) for this church and would open our home to children when their parents couldn't/wouldn't take care of them. They would confront the parent or the parent would come to them.

The worst aspect, imo, of a state CYF system supported through federal funding, besides the fact of stealing money in order to pay for it, is that if states don't meet their federally mandated quota, they lose their funding. You know what this means.

I've seen families torn apart because of CYF. One family of 7 children, they took the kids away stemming from not following up with an infant's doctor's visit. The children were placed in foster care, and abused. Even after the parents did everything the court ordered them to do, the courts terminated their rights and placed the children up for adoption. My mom appeared on the parent's behalf in court several times and said the action by the CYF workers was just sickening. Lying to the judge and he would not permit the parents to speak in their defense. This was a black family and as Ron Paul speaks about the discrimination in the court system against minorities, this is a perfect example.

 

[bolil]

Saying that a clumsy, stupid, beast (most generous deception of the state I could come up with) should be prevented from intervening in the parent-child relationship is not the same as suggesting that nothing should be done when people are brutalized, tortured, or raped.

The most disturbing aspect of our modern society is that people have come to believe that nothing worthwhile can be accomplished without government.

You want to support a popular uprising in a foreign country? YOU go join the fight!

You want to feed the homeless? YOU go feed the homeless!

You believe your neighbor is genuinely, unquestionably ABUSING his children? YOU go confront him, stage an intervention, and DO something about it -- YOURSELF! But, don't sick a pedophile riddled, gun wielding, tax funded bureaucracy on the rest of us -- an organization that defines "abuse" as allowing your children to ride bicycles without helmets, or not allowing them to eat school cafeteria fish sticks!

This and this and this again. All that needs saying. I wish I could give more rep for it.