Should children be taken away from any parent (unmarried or married), whether natural or adoptive?

Richard Wexler in his testimony before the Senate. http://www.liftingtheveil.org/wex-test.htm

"A New Jersey study found that 25 percent of the foster children in Newark were in care not because they had been beaten or raped, but because their parents were homeless...When the child is taken away needlessly because the home is too messy, or there's not enough food, when she is dragged away from everyone loving and familiar and thrown in with strangers, how is that erring on the side of the child?

"And when false reports and trivial cases overwhelm the system, cascading down upon untrained, inexperienced caseworkers forcing them to steal time, money, and attention from the children who really do need to be taken from their parents, how is that erring on the side of the child? "

"...When florida caseworkers were polled about barriers to doing their jobs, 67 percent cited having to investigate obviously false reports and poverty cases. "

"...A Baltimore study found abuse in 28 percent of all foster homes. A second Baltimore study found rates of sexual abuse in foster care four times higher than the rate in the general population. Perhaps most significant was a survey of alumni of what was said to be an exemplary, model foster care program in the Pacific Northwest. In this lavishly-funded program caseloads were kept low and both workers and foster parents got special training. This was not ordinary foster care, this was Cadillac Foster Care. But in this program, 24 percent of the girls said they were victims of actual or attempted sexual abuse in the one home in which they had stayed the longest -- they were not even asked about the other homes. "

And, everyone should read the report in the New England Law Review by the NCCPR, the group that Wexler is an executive director of called, "Take the Child and Run: Tales From

the Age of ASFA by Richard Wexler∗

http://www.nccpr.org/reports/asfa.pdf

Addiction is a horrible thing and causes people to do strange things. My son was born positive for drugs and alcohol and yes he was taken at birth. Drugs during pregnancy can cause birth defects and in my son’s case some developmental delays. Also you can not properly take care of a child while high and addicts need to get high often and often spend the little money they do have to feed their habit and not even themselves. His birth mother agreed in the hospital to treatment and was given supervised visitation. She left the hospital never to be heard of again. She never even tried treatment and did not come to any visitation. Her rights were severed and we adopted him. Do you really think that someone who would not even try treatment should be allowed to bring home an infant that has special needs.

Also yes I do think that children need to be removed from alcoholics even in a two parent house hold. If the none drug or drinking spouse can not put their children first and leave then maybe having their children removed is enough incentive for them to do so.

Also there is a big difference between someone who drinks daily and drinks to and does get drunk then someone who drinks once or twice a month. The social drinker is who is not getting intoxicated is not putting their childs life at risk.

As for the occasional pot smoker yes I think they should not have kids also

I don’t do any illegal drugs or addicted to any drugs of any kind. I drink like twice a year and only one drink each time.

The only reason I have suggested immediate removal of children born addicted is that those children will be going through withdrawl themselves and are VERY hard to care for. The mom can still visit daily and bond while trying to dry out herself. There are many treatment centres that cater to families now so when ready they should go to the treatment centre together.

As for other addicts, INCLUDING alcoholism, I think that in every case best chances for success is not apprehension if at all possible, but to provide in house support. If that doesn't work and there are dangers then yes they need to be apprehended.

In Saskatchewan last year, a couple with addictions issues were looking after their children. While drinking, something happened and the kids went outside in the cold. (both under five years old) They were both dead by morning. This wasn't forseeable in the grand scheme of things, but if people knew about the alcohol addiction, then I think in house support should have existed, and mandatory treatment.

But in the end I get your point, who decides which issue is more severe, and who gets apprehended. I think the issue with the babies if they are born addicted is their immediate health risks and drugs they have to take etc. but this can be done while the mom gets the help she needs with daily visits etc.

Apprehend doesn't always mean cut off from parents, if done right (which very often it is not) it is a small amount of time to fix the immediate threat followed with in house supports.

Here is my black and white response.

If ALL parents were screened prior to having children...we would have fewer children in dire straits.

If a child is neglected, abused, hungry or suffering in ANY home...intervention is warranted. A reasonable amount of time to rectify the circumstances is warranted but much shorter than the years that do go by in so many cases.

No family is perfect. Families that are or appear to be functional, rarely have their children apprehended (single, married, rich, poor etc...). Any typical family has its ups and downs and share of hardships. Part of being in a family is dealing with these as a family. It's when the children's lives are being torn apart or endangered that intervention is appropriate. A line must be drawn somewhere.

Homelessness to me is a reason to intervene. However, I would rather see my tax dollars go to helping the FAMILY than removing the child in such cases.

It's about the kids. If a parent cannot provide the basic necessities of life, independent of addictions and abuse, so, just by virtue of economic hardship, shouldn't the child be helped? I think so. Again, I think the entire family unit should be supported there. Those kids need their moms and dads and as long as they can have shelter and food, that's where they need to be.

P.S. I don't always agree with you Gypsy but I did not see the immediate tie in to poverty slipped in anywhere. Your question was clear to me. We just differ on where the line should be drawn, I think.

Trouble is, people look at either one extreme or another, without remembering that there're varying degrees of pretty much everything you (generic) care to mention - addiction's exactly the same.

I see no-one's mentioned caffeine addiction yet - don't tell me kids aren't born with that 'cause I won't believe it. As for drugs in the body in general - it's all down to what type of drug, and at what level. Is there any difference between a kid being born after his mom's necked a few bottles at random times across the pregnancy (heck, maybe even getting bladdered just before going into labour) and one whose mom has had a single glass of wine each and every day during pregnancy? They're both massively different to a hardcore alcoholic being pregnant.

All circumstances have to be individually assessed, and yes, sometimes it'll be too much where not so much was needed, and other times it won't be enough when more was needed, but the hope is that in the majority of cases, the balance is right and people are helped in the way that's best for ALL involved.

I think every child should be protected from parents who abuse substances, or their children- no matter if they are bio parents, adoptive parents, or foster parents. Every parent should have the chance to get it together for the sake of their children and for themselves. If they cannot, then the kids should go to a relative who can raise them before foster care or adoption is talked about.

There seems to be many "double standards" when it comes to removing children from homes. I think we have to be sensible, though. I find it hard to believe that there is a parent on this site who has not at one time had a few too many drinks. We're not talking social drinking. We're talking about substance abuse that causes a person to lose their job, beat their children, etc etc etc. We're talking about substance abuse that gets in the way of normal functioning.

I was raised by a mentally unstable adoptive mother, and my adoptive father was an alcoholic. All three of us kids (2 adopted, one bio) should have been removed while they got it together. Sadly, times were different when I was growing up, and we had to deal with it. Our dad's been sober for 15 1/2 yrs now & we're all proud of him, but the emotional scars are still there. Its sad.

Addiction does not exist in a vacuum. I grew up in a family laden with addiction. It is not a character flaw that can allow someone to effectively parent. I'm sorry, Gypsy. But truly, it's insidious, and it breeds violence, amongst other things. My father is not a violent man, but when he got to the bottom of a bottle, he sure as hell was. And my mother was really no better.

Obviously, social drinking does not fall into the category of addiction, so I believe you are drawing a comparison between apples and cucumbers.

I absolutely agree that alcohol is just as damaging. My parents are both alcoholics and I am still dealing with the ramifications of that, as an adult. Do I think that children should be removed from the homes of alcoholics, natural or adoptive? Yes. I do. Until the alcoholic is sober and can resume (or begin) parenting, that child needs to be safe. And if a spouse is going to keep a child in an addictive home, then there needs to be some intervention, even if it is just providing the option of financing a move away from the addict rather than apprehension.

I was a very small child when I began to parent my parents. My parents' addictions LEAD TO poverty. Not because my parents needed more money from the government (they both had good jobs), but because addiction screwed up their priorities. Had someone given them more money, they still would not have spent it on meeting our family's needs. They were addicts and their addictions trumped everything else. Needing to buy booze trumped the need to pay the gas bill, so we had no heat for 6 months (need I remind you that I'm in Canada?). I was profoundly neglected for YEARS. I was abused, repeatedly, right under their noses, because they were so mentally absent. They had no protective instinct for their kids. We went without food, and as other children of alcoholics can tell you, I lived in "hiding" for my entire childhood. Which meant, I didn't HAVE a childhood. But here's the thing...No one knew I was in hell. My parents were "functional" alcoholics. Meaning, they went to work and had a house (you can't tell from the street that it's damn cold!). No one was the wiser.

Poverty may draw attention to the issue, but I don't believe poverty to be the primary reason for the existence of addictions.

In my opinion, addiction is addiction is addiction. My brother was a drug addict--hardcore--who always had a new truck, nice clothes, and plenty of nice stuff. Why? Because you can do one of two things as an addict. You can a) spend your money on your addiction and live in poverty, or some varying degree of it, or b) find a way to make plenty of money to support your habit. And when you're an addict, you usually don't take a respectable job at the post office. So, my gentle-hearted, funny, charming and smart brother started dealing. And was eventually incarcerated, which is why he eventually got clean. Had he not been arrested, I truly believe he would have died. It was bad.

But, he wasn't poor.

So, I don't really care about marital status. I don't care about economic status. I care about the behaviors that addiction breeds, and how it affects vulnerable people, children in particular.

I do have compassion for the addicts (too much so...I spent years taking care of all of them), but children have even less choice, and I believe their right to an addiction-free existence comes first. If a parent (I don't care what kind) can get a handle on their addiction, fantastic. But, children should not be caregivers to adults, and that's all they can truly be to an addict, in most cases.

<sigh>

Gypsy, I understand what you are trying to say but there are some who just do not want to open their minds. They enjoy their narrow minded, black and white worlds and whilst they feel they "know" for whatever reason that their opinion is the only opinion, they only know THEIR experience and because they refuse to be open minded, can only speak for themselves. (Not talking about the person who asked the other question... just some of the answerers here and there)

Their voices could be heard so much better if they were not so stubborn in insisting they and only they know what they are talking about.

Obviously, if an adoptive parent is addicted to a substance and is therefore abusive (which many are behind closed doors, wrapped up away from society... rich people have just as many issues with substance abuse as poorer people only they cover it up more) they should lose the child they have adopted. I also think removal of a child depends on what is classed as substance abuse. I know people who class using any drug or drinking any alcohol as substance abuse which would mean most parents in the world would be at risk of losing their child but there is a difference between use and ABuse which is where the problems come into it.

As I said in the other question, it is easy to sit here on a board and cast judgement against nameless and faceless people. Removing a child is not an action to be tossed out there lightly. There would need to be extenuating circumstances to proceed with such a dire action.

Children should only be removed when they are being abused and this includes being left alone when parents are out partying. Being poor is not abuse. Everyone deserves a 2nd chance.

I think that addictions such as that, if the child is at risk, are grounds for removal but only until the parents have been given the time to address their addictions. If they can successfully address these issues and the child would be deemed no longer to be at risk then they should go back. If they are unable to address these addictions and it is felt the child would be at risk then there will come a time for parental rights to be terminated.

I think too many kids are taken away from their parents too fast. If the kids are being hurt or neglected, someone should be there to help. If the kids aren't being hurt or neglected, the parents should be helped with the kids there. Children, in my opinion, should only ever be taken away as a last resort, and only when in significant danger - but I know first hand that is not the case with the social workers (I am not at all addicted to drugs or alcohol - don't even touch them - and never abused my kids, but still lost them because my Christian values - modesty, avoiding violence and inappropriate scenes and such in movies, and not wanting my kids told their wasn't a God - were too high according to the social workers. They were 4, 6, and 10.)