Why we shouldn't have "Child Protective Services."

[JohnStOnge]

Parents told baby needs surgery, take baby for second opinion. Child Protective Services shows up with police to take their baby away.

Children do not belong to the State. We should not have agencies constituting "Child Protective Services." Whatever the disadvantages of not having "Child Protective Services" may be, the net impact is negative. Parents should be the final authority over the well being of children. Period. Government needs to butt out. It won't happen, but the whole concept of government "Child Protective Services" should be eliminated.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrtQaxzjv0Y[/youtube]

[kalm]

Parents told baby needs surgery, take baby for second opinion. Child Protective Services shows up with police to take their baby away.

Children do not belong to the State. We should not have agencies constituting "Child Protective Services." Whatever the disadvantages of not having "Child Protective Services" may be, the net impact is negative. Parents should be the final authority over the well being of children. Period. Government needs to butt out. It won't happen, but the whole concept of government "Child Protective Services" should be eliminated.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrtQaxzjv0Y[/youtube]

Unless they are abusive right? I mean I know it's one of the Ten Commandments and all but what if your parents are homicidal raping assholes? Is the world still black and white?

[SuperHornet]

For me, the issue isn't so much whether or not we should have CPS. kalm's point is well taken. The issue is how much power CPS should have and what their burden of proof is. If they can take away kids merely for getting a second medical opinion, that's BS in my book.

[BlueHen86]

Parents told baby needs surgery, take baby for second opinion. Child Protective Services shows up with police to take their baby away.

Children do not belong to the State. We should not have agencies constituting "Child Protective Services." Whatever the disadvantages of not having "Child Protective Services" may be, the net impact is negative. Parents should be the final authority over the well being of children. Period. Government needs to butt out. It won't happen, but the whole concept of government "Child Protective Services" should be eliminated.

So, if the mother decides to have an abortion, the government should butt out of that as well right? After all, children don't belong to the state, whether they are in the womb or not.

[JohnStOnge]

So, if the mother decides to have an abortion, the government should butt out of that as well right? After all, children don't belong to the state, whether they are in the womb or not.

As I said in another thread before anybody made that argument, I noted it and said the need to firmly establish parents as the ultimate authority with respect to the well being of their children does make me, at times, consider accepting the evil of abortion in order to achieve may be the greater good of drawing an unambiguous line with respect to that issue.

However, as I also noted in the other thread, for now I draw the line based on intent. If the parent engages in a direct attack with the intent to cause harm then government has a role. But if not it should not. This is another case where the parents clearly had the well being of their child in mind and did what they thought was best for the child.

One could come up with scenarios in which sticking to a line based on intent is difficult as well. But that's where I am for now.

[JohnStOnge]

Unless they are abusive right? I mean I know it's one of the Ten Commandments and all but what if your parents are homicidal raping assholes? Is the world still black and white?

Who makes the call on what "abusive" is? There are people who would say raising your child as a Christian is abusive. And I think we all know that standards for what "abusive" is have changed over time.

I think the world is pretty black and white; though this is one of the more difficult areas. One just makes decisions with respect to what is most important. There are many decisions that result in both bad and good impacts. One makes the decision understanding that the bad things will happen based on the conclusion that it is better to accept that in order to achieve the good things.

When I say "black and white" I don't mean different people wouldn't strike the balance at different points. I'm just saying that one can establish a set of principles so that there is no doubt about what the decision in each case should be. Black and white once the framework of principles is established.

In this case the principle I want in place is: When both parents and government disagree on what's best for a child, the parents' position rules. In reality we know the parents will be wrong in many cases. But we adopt the principle in order to unambiguously maintain the principle that parents are the ultimate authority when it comes to decisions about the well being of children.

[BlueHen86]

So, if the mother decides to have an abortion, the government should butt out of that as well right? After all, children don't belong to the state, whether they are in the womb or not.

As I said in another thread before anybody made that argument, I noted it and said the need to firmly establish parents as the ultimate authority with respect to the well being of their children does make me, at times, consider accepting the evil of abortion in order to achieve may be the greater good of drawing an unambiguous line with respect to that issue.

However, as I also noted in the other thread, for now I draw the line based on intent. If the parent engages in a direct attack with the intent to cause harm then government has a role. But if not it should not. This is another case where the parents clearly had the well being of their child in mind and did what they thought was best for the child.

One could come up with scenarios in which sticking to a line based on intent is difficult as well. But that's where I am for now.

I like the way you say "for now". You make the rules and then change your argument to fit them after the fact, kind of like George Orwell's "Animal Farm".

Also, who makes the determination of "intent"? The government?

[houndawg]

Parents told baby needs surgery, take baby for second opinion. Child Protective Services shows up with police to take their baby away.

Children do not belong to the State. We should not have agencies constituting "Child Protective Services." Whatever the disadvantages of not having "Child Protective Services" may be, the net impact is negative. Parents should be the final authority over the well being of children. Period. Government needs to butt out. It won't happen, but the whole concept of government "Child Protective Services" should be eliminated.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrtQaxzjv0Y[/youtube]

Really? How do you know this?

[kalm]

Unless they are abusive right? I mean I know it's one of the Ten Commandments and all but what if your parents are homicidal raping assholes? Is the world still black and white?

Who makes the call on what "abusive" is? There are people who would say raising your child as a Christian is abusive. And I think we all know that standards for what "abusive" is have changed over time.

I think the world is pretty black and white; though this is one of the more difficult areas. One just makes decisions with respect to what is most important. There are many decisions that result in both bad and good impacts. One makes the decision understanding that the bad things will happen based on the conclusion that it is better to accept that in order to achieve the good things.

When I say "black and white" I don't mean different people wouldn't strike the balance at different points. I'm just saying that one can establish a set of principles so that there is no doubt about what the decision in each case should be. Black and white once the framework of principles is established.

In this case the principle I want in place is: When both parents and government disagree on what's best for a child, the parents' position rules. In reality we know the parents will be wrong in many cases. But we adopt the principle in order to unambiguously maintain the principle that parents are the ultimate authority when it comes to decisions about the well being of children.

Who determines the world is black and white?

[BlueHen86]

Who makes the call on what "abusive" is? There are people who would say raising your child as a Christian is abusive. And I think we all know that standards for what "abusive" is have changed over time.

I think the world is pretty black and white; though this is one of the more difficult areas. One just makes decisions with respect to what is most important. There are many decisions that result in both bad and good impacts. One makes the decision understanding that the bad things will happen based on the conclusion that it is better to accept that in order to achieve the good things.

When I say "black and white" I don't mean different people wouldn't strike the balance at different points. I'm just saying that one can establish a set of principles so that there is no doubt about what the decision in each case should be. Black and white once the framework of principles is established.

In this case the principle I want in place is: When both parents and government disagree on what's best for a child, the parents' position rules. In reality we know the parents will be wrong in many cases. But we adopt the principle in order to unambiguously maintain the principle that parents are the ultimate authority when it comes to decisions about the well being of children.

Who determines the world is black and white?

Even under JSO's "plan", the government still has to get involved. All he is doing is moving threshold at which that would happen. He also wants the government to judge based on intent.

The family that prayed for their sick child to get better meant well, but their child died just the same. JSO would be okay with this though, because it wasn't the parent's intent to kill their kid.

[JohnStOnge]

Even under JSO's "plan", the government still has to get involved. All he is doing is moving threshold at which that would happen. He also wants the government to judge based on intent.

The family that prayed for their sick child to get better meant well, but their child died just the same. JSO would be okay with this though, because it wasn't the parent's intent to kill their kid.

Yes, but as I said: There is a real argument for abandoning opposition to abortion in order to be consistent in taking the position that government is to completely butt out until the child reaches the age of majority. There is an argument for accepting an awful lot of evil in order to escape the greater evil of government having ultimate authority with respect to the well being of children.

[BlueHen86]

Even under JSO's "plan", the government still has to get involved. All he is doing is moving threshold at which that would happen. He also wants the government to judge based on intent.

The family that prayed for their sick child to get better meant well, but their child died just the same. JSO would be okay with this though, because it wasn't the parent's intent to kill their kid.

Yes, but as I said: There is a real argument for abandoning opposition to abortion in order to be consistent in taking the position that government is to completely butt out until the child reaches the age of majority. There is an argument for accepting an awful lot of evil in order to escape the greater evil of government having ultimate authority with respect to the well being of children.

I think you were born about 10,000 years too late.

There are a lot of idiots and bad people in the world. Some of those idiots and bad people become parents. There has to be some minimum standard of care to be given to children, and the government is the only entity able to legislate and enforce the minimum requirements.

The government already tells us, to some extent, how to raise our kids. The are compulsory education standards that must be met. Even if you decide to home school, you have to meet certain standards. We would be much worse off today if those standards did not exist.

I have raised two boys and have never had any interaction with child protective services, as far as I know, none of my friends have either. I don't think child protective services randomly audits parents, I think you have to do something to get on their radar. Child protective services may get carried away in performing their job, but I think the greater evil would be to do away with it.