Right or left why homeless ?

[darth tater]

Serious drug or alcohol abuse is almost always by it's very nature abusive to children. So is domestic violence' date=' even though children might not be the actual recipients of the violence.

 

I think there are few cases that we would not agree upon in terms of severing parental rights. We might part company as to whether or not the parents should be given an intial chance to get their acts together while their children are in state custody. I would not wince from permanently separating these children from their parents if they did not stay the course in treatment. However, all these children need to find [b']homes[/b], not institutions and not long term foster care. Already most adoptions of older children are given government financial support. If the state becomes proactive about terminating parental rights in these instances (now they decidedly are not) then it would cost more taxpayer's money, not less.

 

 

 

This depends upon what you mean. There are no perfect parents. I do not believe the use of an illegal substance automatically means poor parenting.

 

Let's take a look at a few substances:

 

Meth: You better believe that if the parents are running a meth lab, their kids should be out of that home. If the parent has tried meth but not become addicted, then not necessarily.

 

Pot: Gimme a break! Just because the government deems this an illegal substance does not mean its use automatically makes bad parents. Give me a parent who uses a little weed over a parent who drinks too much alcohol any day.

 

Alcohol: Alcoholic parents are some of the worst. Physical and sexual abuse often accompany the abuse of alcohol. Yes it's a legal substance, but children are not protected enough from alcoholic parents. Even some social drinkers impact their children when they are under the influence.

 

Tobacco: Perfectly legal, but second hand smoke kills. If I were a judge in a custody battle and I had two equally good parents to choose from, the nonsmoker would win with me.

 

Legal prescriptions: Ah yes, these can be serious drugs. SSRIs can actually worsen some depressions. Oxycontin is a great pain reliever and allows many who suffer from chronic pain to lead productive lives (sometimes as radio personalities), but has a high potential for abuse. Even medicines for asthma and ADHD can be abuse, to say nothing of the opiates that doctors and nurses all too frequently avail themselves of. Most of the people I now who had serious drug problems with pharmaceuticals were in the medical profession. Ever try to take a doctor's kid away from him?

 

 

 

So tell me, Tater, what is a normal life? It is that elusive thing that many of us, looking back upon our childhoods simply didn't have. Many of us overcome our childhoods.

 

I promise you, if you want to give every child in America a normal life, it is really going to cost us.

 

Nevertheless I admire your commitment to this particular value. Family values are an essential to a good American life.

 

 

Again, you have pretty well explained why the current method of administering welfare is an utter failure. Children are left in homes that are detrimental to their well being and that literally gaurantee that they will follow the same lifestyle that their parents have, so the idea that "it is for the children" is just a way of pulling at someone's heartstrings.

 

The fact of the matter is that if welfare worked, we would not have the generational welfare families that we have today. There are far too many families that have been on the rolls for 2,3 and even 4 generations.

 

This is a national disgrace and it should be stopped before any more kids go down the same tube that the nanny state has condemned their parents to.

 

By the way--a good life in America is to grow up learning how to take care of yourself and to do so and to take care of your children.

[Coral Rhedd]

Again' date=' you have pretty well explained why the current method of administering welfare is an utter failure. Children are left in homes that are detrimental to their well being and that literally gaurantee that they will follow the same lifestyle that their parents have, so the idea that "it is for the children" is just a way of pulling at someone's heartstrings.

[/quote']

 

Tater, would it interest you to know that I am far more likely that most CASAs to recommend the termination of parental rights. And I am rarely cheery about abused children going to relatives either because this usually only perpetuates the cycle. I am probably 99% more likely than most Child Protection workers to recommend termination.

 

The problem you are referring to is the Family Preservation model of child protection. Ask yourself why it exists and why it is such a popular part of government policy. The reason is to save money short term. Termination of parental rights costs money short term. I would probably save money long term is we could find enough families to adopt these children. But there are many good families who do not live in four bedroom ranchers. They and good values and love to give, but they would need financial assistance to adopt these children, many of whom come from treatment foster care. Many of these children will need long term care from the psychiatric community. This kind of expenditure is beyond what most working class families can afford.

 

So the question is where do you want to place the investment.

 

If you have children, I assume you will want to assist them in getting a college education. Why would you make this investment? Not only because you love your child of course, but because you recognize the advantage of a college education. Your hope a sound education will lead to future employment for your child in order to assure that you do not have a boomerang kid who ends up back in your home during your retirement years, unable to care for himself.

 

What you did not address in your reply to me is the sheer expense of giving these children the normal homes you envision for them. I, for one, think the expense is worth it. Do you?

 

Also, I am only in favor of taking children from their parents in instances of neglect when that neglect is tantamount to abuse, that is not due to ignorance or poverty. Ignorance and poverty have solutions.

 

The fact of the matter is that if welfare worked, we would not have the generational welfare families that we have today. There are far too many families that have been on the rolls for 2,3 and even 4 generations.

I agree. But what do you propose to take its place?

 

This is a national disgrace and it should be stopped before any more kids go down the same tube that the nanny state has condemned their parents to.

 

In my opinions most failures of the welfare state are do to piecemeal solutions to problems, not to the "nanny" state. There are solutions to this as well. Have you ever heard the term, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Compassionate conservatism should be accompanied by a compassionate and thriving economy. When lately, have we had that?

 

By the way--a good life in America is to grow up learning how to take care of yourself and to do so and to take care of your children.

 

I couldn't agree more. But I am sure you have heard of the Great Depression. What would life have been like for people then if we had taken every child away from parents who could only afford a most substandard life for them? And who would have taken these children. National economic emergencies may call for more compassion that conservatives seem willing to

extend.

 

I only hope the economy is on the upswing because the level of unemployment in this town is unconscionable.

[Coral Rhedd]

Coral' date=' nobody wants to see a person such as you have discribed here lose her children because she has been diagnosed with MS and has a low paying job.

 

That is not what I mean by a "chronic condition." What I meant is a person who is not a fit parent and who continues to be unfot for parenthood in spite of all the money that can be poured on his/her problems.

 

We are on the same page here. Chronic conditions should not chronically impact children once their basic financial needs are covered. Being too ill to work is, however, often a reality. I include both mental and physical illness in this category.

 

If the person can be a "good enough" parent with help then they should get that help.

 

There are plenty of narcissists and sociopaths parenting children who are economically successful but unfit parents. Some mental illnesses are economically adaptive and others are not.

 

In other words, financial go getters do not necessarily = good parents. Too often they are emotionally neglectful parents.

 

I wish everyone who wants to be a parent would take a deep breath and consider the cost of parenting both in terms of money and in time. Some people give more thought to buying pets than they do to bearing children.

[darth tater]

Tater' date=' would it interest you to know that I am far more likely that most CASAs to recommend the termination of parental rights. And I am rarely cheery about abused children going to relatives either because this usually only perpetuates the cycle. I am probably 99% more likely than most Child Protection workers to recommend termination.

 

The problem you are referring to is the Family Preservation model of child protection. Ask yourself why it exists and why it is such a popular part of government policy. The reason is to save money short term. Termination of parental rights [b']costs[/b] money short term. I would probably save money long term is we could find enough families to adopt these children. But there are many good families who do not live in four bedroom ranchers. They and good values and love to give, but they would need financial assistance to adopt these children, many of whom come from treatment foster care. Many of these children will need long term care from the psychiatric community. This kind of expenditure is beyond what most working class families can afford.

 

So the question is where do you want to place the investment.

 

If you have children, I assume you will want to assist them in getting a college education. Why would you make this investment? Not only because you love your child of course, but because you recognize the advantage of a college education. Your hope a sound education will lead to future employment for your child in order to assure that you do not have a boomerang kid who ends up back in your home during your retirement years, unable to care for himself.

 

What you did not address in your reply to me is the sheer expense of giving these children the normal homes you envision for them. I, for one, think the expense is worth it. Do you?

 

Also, I am only in favor of taking children from their parents in instances of neglect when that neglect is tantamount to abuse, that is not due to ignorance or poverty. Ignorance and poverty have solutions.

 

 

I agree. But what do you propose to take its place?

 

 

 

In my opinions most failures of the welfare state are do to piecemeal solutions to problems, not to the "nanny" state. There are solutions to this as well. Have you ever heard the term, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Compassionate conservatism should be accompanied by a compassionate and thriving economy. When lately, have we had that?

 

 

 

I couldn't agree more. But I am sure you have heard of the Great Depression. What would life have been like for people then if we had taken every child away from parents who could only afford a most substandard life for them? And who would have taken these children. National economic emergencies may call for more compassion that conservatives seem willing to

extend.

 

I only hope the economy is on the upswing because the level of unemployment in this town is unconscionable.

 

 

Well then it seems that we don't have much to argue about--do we?

[darth tater]

We are on the same page here. .

 

Good.

[husmusen]

Coral:

Yesterday a friend of mine visited me and brought news that she has been officially diagnosed with MS. She is naturally devastated. I am devastated for her as well. I held her while she sobbed for at least 5 minutes.

 

Sad to hear it, as one who'se been to the edge of that particular cliff.

 

Look out for the little boy, I've seen similar situations to this and in ten

to twenty years time he will probably be the primary caregiver in that

family.

 

Coral:

Could this be because, despite some statements to the contrary, people really like to work, like to be productive, and like to make a contribution to their communities?

 

I think were on the same page here as well, helping people is part of what makes life meaningful.