Comment by stef25
2 years ago
> was asked to live the room while he was questioned
Is that even legal ?
Anyone trying to get between my kids and I is going to have a very bad day.
2 years ago
> was asked to live the room while he was questioned
Is that even legal ?
Anyone trying to get between my kids and I is going to have a very bad day.
Your plan when suspected of abuse is to become belligerent? That should convince them their concerns are unfounded.
It might be a bad idea persoannly to become angry in such a situation if the local social service is authoritarian.
But as an altruistic move for the greater good it is good.
>But as an altruistic move for the greater good it is good.
That's only the case if overall children taken away from their parents end up with better outcomes than in societies where children aren't taken away from their parents, have you seen any data showing this is the case? Children in foster care tend to have horrifically bad outcomes, statistically speaking.
Children in foster care start off in a much worse situation than average. Or at least that is the normal case, there are exceptions like the article.
Many parents of 'mentally disabled' kids put the kids in foster care because the parents need a break from the constant care of a kid who isn't normal. Many other kids end up in foster care because they have been abused. Both of those will make the kids much worse than normal and thus much harder to care for.
Kids that are close to normal but end up in foster care often end up adopted fairly quick - there are plenty of families who want a kid but not their own (I personally know several people with genetics they don't want to pass on - there are other good reasons to not want someone else's kids) - but they will try to select a kid who is going to be easy to raise thus kids who will end up normal don't spend much time in foster care.
I meant that protesting the bad process, increasing risk of having your child taken away, is good for everyone else except you and your child. I.e. altruistic.
Sorry, you think in a case where the doctor suspects abuse, they should have to ask the kid while the potential abuser stands there next to her?
Underage kids can't consult to really anything legally on their own. You cannot have a system where in certain cases they're treated as adults. I get what you're saying but I cannot believe that any good parent thinks this is ok.
This country has weird culture that's started happening in the last decade where the parents take a back seat and the government/institutions are taking their place. Suddenly, you're hearing schools, doctor's, etc. telling kids they should come to them and not trust their parents. It's terrifying as a parent. Parents should never have to give up their rights in the name of "safety".
>Parents should never have to give up their rights in the name of "safety".
You can be forgiven with this opinion if you have not met or spent time around the types of parents whose children genuinely need to be taken away: neglectful, abusive, and extremely harmful to their kids.
2 replies →
If they don't have a good reason to suspect abuse, yes. If the medical system assumes an adversarial position with parents, then reasonable people might rightfully avoid taking their kids to the doctor.
Police for example is not allowed to talk to a minor without a parent / guardian being present, I don't see how a medical professional would have that right. If there's a serious suspicion they should just get the courts involved and get a legal mandate.
Not saying I wouldn't be cooperative. If I doc wants to ask a few friendly questions that's fine without me being present, I don't consider that "getting between" me and my kids.
I am thinking it's even mandated from the medical personnel