# What is your definition of a neglectful parent?



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

A thread in another forum got me wondering something (and another poster as well). First a little background on me and my perspective. I am a social worker in East TN. I am the coordinator for a foster care program that works with teenage girls. Most of whom are pregnant or arleady parenting and all of whom are in the custody of the state. Most came into state's custody for dependent neglect- meaning that the state removed them from their parents home because of what they considered to be neglect. The definition of dependent neglect encompasses medical neglect and abuse (physical, sexual and emotional). My question is what in all of your opinions warrants the state stepping in and removing a child for the welfare of that child?


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

I know what my definition is, and I have been accused of child abuse many times here in L.A. where that woman is from...and I use the same pediatricians who have helped me many times when some nosy social worker, nurse, policeman, teacher, or doctor asked nosy questions they had no business asking my children or sneaking away with my children and asking them questions without my permission.

SWs are the worse. One told me it was O.K. for my DD to have a man of majority age in her bedroom at midnight with the door closed when she was fifteen. I was also told it was perfectly fine for my DD to be out on the streets after midnight on a school night, as there are no curfew laws.

When they come to the door to investigate unannounced, SWs expect to be let in no questions asked, with no search warrant, and many parents do just that; they say, "If you, the parent, have nothing to hide, you will let me, the SW, in.".

Yet when I got out my videocamera using the very same rationale, "If you, the SW, have nothing to hide, you will let me the parent, videotape you while you are in my home", I was told definitively to turn it off.

I have always stayed on top of what my children are and were doing, and I think the fact that I have had lots of trouble means I cannot be the only one.

Neglectful parents are parents who do not attend to the physical, emotional, and social needs of their children.


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

"Neglectful parents are parents who do not attend to the physical, emotional, and social needs of their children."
As this is the only thing pertaining to my question in the original post I will ask that you elaborate on it. ANd by the way, not all social workers are as bad as you portrayed them to be. What about the SW that goes into the home b/c of welts on a childs thighs from where a parent used a belt to punish them. That parent also feels they have done nothing wrong and that it is within their rights to punish their children as they see fit. I will only speak of the area in which I work but, now more and more services are put into the home to assist parents with parenting issues rather than removal of a child.


----------



## Shiloh (Apr 15, 2005)

I think a neglectful parent is one that puts themselves before their kids to the kids detriment when the outcome is obvious. One that just can't be bothered with attending to all of their children's basic needs.

Hmm stepping in? When the child would be not less neglected in a different situation (foster care) and where the neglect constitutes a significant risk.
How to you judge how a child internalises things? Things that might be traumatic for one child another might not find it so.

I think there are a lot of kids who come from 'nice' homes that are severely neglected - parents have 'no time' for them, drive through for their lunches, leave them alone or with less than legal daycare... (the amount of people I know of that don't even run a criminal check on their sitters is appaulling) Are constantly trying 'to get away from the kids'.....

I personally think 'neglect' is too nice of a word its all abuse either passive or aggressive. Not getting your child treatment for an injury is the same for me as injuring them.

But social workers often I think are so primed looking for 'red flags' that they stress the family out, create a hostile situation - which really is bad for the kids.... I am amazed in this day and age with all the things we know we can't find a better way.....


----------



## Shiloh (Apr 15, 2005)

Quote:

What about the SW that goes into the home b/c of welts on a childs thighs from where a parent used a belt to punish them.
See I don't see that a social work issue I see that as assault - and the social worker should call the police and they should investigate social workers aren't interrogators, they don't collect 'evidence' in the same way.

If you can't video tape the meeting? why?
Police video tape all meetings, for proof evidence of their findings.
I think social work should be held up to the same standards.
Prove there is abuse - don't go fishing first.

Social workers 'judgment calls' when often if the evidence isn't there concretely it is very damaging to the family - I say in clear cut cases with evidence then it should be investigated as a criminal matter first not a family matter. I personally in my dealings with CPS would have felt more secure if there was an officer present as this no videotape, no record of what you actually said or how you said it? Just a social worker's observations?


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

"Not getting your child treatment for an injury is the same for me as injuring them."

So does it then follow that not treating an illness is the same as giving them the illness? I know that many of us here do not always use western medicine to treat our children--some might see it as neglect. My son had chronic ear infections and his ped was pushing us to do tubes. I did not want to and started seeing a ND that practiced homeopathy--the ped wasn't thrilled but a different one might have reported it. Was I being neglectful?? Some might say yes.


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shiloh*
See I don't see that a social work issue I see that as assault - and the social worker should call the police and they should investigate social workers aren't interrogators, they don't collect 'evidence' in the same way.

If you can't video tape the meeting? why?
Police video tape all meetings, for proof evidence of their findings.
I think social work should be held up to the same standards.
Prove there is abuse - don't go fishing first.

Social workers 'judgment calls' when often if the evidence isn't there concretely it is very damaging to the family - I say in clear cut cases with evidence then it should be investigated as a criminal matter first not a family matter. I personally in my dealings with CPS would have felt more secure if there was an officer present as this no videotape, no record of what you actually said or how you said it? Just a social worker's observations?

I am so surprised by this. If the police are called into a home for suspected abuse and they find that there is evidence to warrant further investigation it is at that point that social workers get involved--why-- well many police officers only have a high school education and us evil social workers actually have degrees like psychology, child development, child and family studies--many of us have our masters as well. I find it so hard to believe that you would rather have the friggin police in your home!


----------



## cookclanmama (Jun 23, 2005)

Neglect is one of those things that seems really simple to define, but actually isn't.

Obviously a child who isn't fed or clothed (as needed, nothing wrong w/nekkid kiddos) or is always by himself is a victim of neglect.

But what about if I run into the store-leaving my 12 year old niece-for 3 minutes to pick up meds for 3 sick & sleeping kids? Some people would see leaving them in the car as neglect.

Some people would see leaving a child "undisciplined" as a form of neglect.

I think that is one of the things that makes social work sooo difficult. To be able to look at situations both objectively & subjectively, & to try to do the right thing. A job whose difficulty is even more compounded by parents who are unwilling to cooperate so that they can do the best thing for everyone concerned.

I can see it from both sides-it's can certainly be frightening & frustrating for a parent who's done nothing wrong to have to work with SWs sometimes, but that's also true of the SW who is desperately trying to make sure things turn out right but is being hampered by the reluctant parent of the child they are really both trying to help.

Abuse cases I would imagine are easier to "prove", as there is usually some physical evidence, but neglect isn't so easy.


----------



## Girl In The Fire (Apr 6, 2005)

Quote:

I know that many of us here do not always use western medicine to treat our children--some might see it as neglect.
I think this is really a grey area. My grandmothers brother had diabetes his whole life. He married a christian scientist (he was not a christain scientist) I think he was in his mid 30's and one day he went into insulin shock. His wife was home but being a CS did not belive in doctors and thought that God would help him. God didnt help him and he died, if he had been brought to the hospital he would have lived. So is what she did wrong, neglectful, or criminal? Some might say no but I disagree.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

the definition personally for me would be different than what an institutional definition would be. sometimes my definition of 'neglect' could be seen as judgemental but not enough to take the child away by an institutional definition.

also i have heard numerous times as well as had it confirmed by CPS workers that many times they could see abuse and the child should be removed but they dont have any concrete evidence to prove it and so cannot remove the child.

since u r asking for an institutional definition i dont know enough to give u one. too many variables involved.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamamillet*
I find it so hard to believe that you would rather have the friggin police in your home!

I think we have more faith that the police will be held to the law so far as no searches without warrants etc. It's not that I'd RATHER the police, but you can be darn sure that if you show up on my doorstep without a warrant you will be politely told that you will see nothing until there is one.

-Angela


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

I am not interested in the institutional definition, I am already aware of that. I just wanted your opinions.
As far as needing a warrant I never had a warrant when I was working out in peoples homes. And I even did drug tests. Let me give an example with some real stuff thrown in. Mom has an addiction to pain pills and keeps showing up at hospitals for drugs. A couple of times she has her 3 yo with her. The dr calls for a SW and she comes and talks with mom. The SW file a report with cps which isn't investigated b/c there was not enough eveidence. Now three months later this same mom's 8 yo keeps missing school. Mom eventually ends up in front of a judge for truancy. He is made aware of previous CPS report and orders that in home services begin. That is where I would come in. I would call and explain who I was and why I was contacting her. I would set up an appt. I would work with mom on a plan to keep her 8 yo going to school. I would help her find appropriate childcare for her 3 yo so she can get a job. Possibley get her into treatment if she has a drug problem--subjective I do not think so when she kepps testing positive for opiates but can't provide me with a prescription. This might be just the wake up call this mom needs. Nobody likes someone interferring with their lives. BUT, if no one did then this 8 yo might show up from school one day to find his mom has overdosed and his 3 yo sister by herself.


----------



## nitareality (Oct 23, 2004)

I think these conversations are so tough in a forum where so many of us make parenting decisions decidedly against the mainstream. My personal definition of neglect differs greatly from the minimal DCFS standards. I think that in general children are over scheduled, over taught and over tasked, mostly with extra-curriculars, and not gaining enough useful experience functioning within their families and being a kid within them-I consider that neglectful of their childhood. I think that in general parents do not spend enough time parenting their own children, and to me that's neglectful. I feel for you as a social worker, my husband used to be a case manager for DCFS. We are now foster/adoptive parents. We have been through allegations







:, but those allegations were not initiated by the social workers who began(and oh so quickly and mercifully ended) our cases and any irritation we had was not with them. As mandated reporters have initiated allegations, according to the state definitions of abuse/neglect







.


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

I want to throw out aother example...
A mom starts giving her 6 wk old juice in her bottle. By 6 months old she also gives her Sprite in her bottle. At 10 months old the baby's favorite food is french fries from McDonalds. Fast forward...at 4 years old the girl has been diagnosed with childhood diabetes and asthma. The girl continues to have fast food for at least one meal a day and drinks sodas on a daily basis. Does the state have and responsibilty to step in? Is it any of their business??


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Not attending to your child's core emotional and physical needs, whether a result of ignorance or nonchalance or malintent.

ETA, I certainly do make decisions that counter mainstream thinking but those decisions do NOT fall into my definition, above, since I AM attending to my child's needs. e.g., by not treating a fever I am helping my dd be even healthier, so in a way, I would say a mother who overloaded her dd on Tylenol whenever the thermometer rose above 99 is the one who is actually not attending to the child's physical needs, in the long run.

Mamamillet, yes the state should step in. Not because of the past but because the mother is disgrarding medical advice re: the child's diet (which would surely have been given if she had been diagnosed with diabetes) which is directly threatening the physical well being of her daughter.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

www.nesl.edu/lawrev/vol36/1/Fenton.pdf+History+of+foster+care+America&hl=en]Foster Care[/URL]

I understand the pp statement regarding the police. That if an assault has taken place, then the police should be there to protect and serve.

I really question the whole SW and foster care system in this country. The above link offers a little history on the foster care system's history and what it has become today.


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

mitb
the link is not working--very curious to read what you have found!


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

I keep trying to fix it and it's just not working.







:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...+America&hl=en

see if this one works...or maybe I'll just have to find something else...


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

I don't know why the links are not working.
I wanted to know what the history of foster care in America is about. It seems that after slavery was abolished, then the foster care system was used as a way to further disintegrate the family unit of freed slaves.
And, today, it is obviously flawed as we have read many news reports of children being killed by adults who are supposed to be loving and caring for these children. And drugs and alcohol are not always a factor in some cases.

Why is it against the law for an adult to hit another adult, but the same does not apply for an adult who hits a child?


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamamillet*
My question is what in all of your opinions warrants the state stepping in and removing a child for the welfare of that child?

When that child's life is in danger. The child has been a victim of severe beatings, and/or sexual abuse, and/or left unattended under the guidelines of the law.
Plenty of children have grown up just fine when their parents have been alcohlics/drug addicts. I think in those cases, treatment or other measures should be in place to help the parent(s), not just take the children.
I read a recent article about ...Mississippi, I think, or maybe Alabama...I'll have to see if I can find it again. But they talked about how they completely changed their system and now let the kids stay with the parents while actively monitoring the parents. I know some ppl say that is invasion of privacy, but if I was a drug addict, I would want someone to intervene for my children. The parents in that state system have to take urine tests and call their worker/support person everyday and they are also visited weekly to make sure everyone is doing okay.
It is almost an artificial family support system, in that it is government workers and no longer aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents.
I think if you do not have access to family support, thenm it is okay to pay others to act as that support, especially when it not only benfits the children, but also helps the parents. They are also required to attend parenting classes and gentle discipline classes.


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

"For example, when existing families are unnecessarily torn apart, usually state costs are greater than that for the services necessary to assist those families." This is so true and one of the more frustrating parts of the system. The article was really good and posed some great ?? in the discussion part. The foster care sysytem varies from state to state and is constantly evolving. I am as interested in how to improve the system as many of you are. The 16 yo the had her child taken at 2 days old is really relevant to what I do. All of the girls that are in our (my agency) foster homes are placed with their babies so that they can bond, and learn parenting skills.
"Why is it against the law for an adult to hit another adult, but the same does not apply for an adult who hits a child?"
It is illegal for children in state's custody to be punished physically, this includes a smack on the hand of a 2 yo. Now I am not saying that it does not happen but it is illegal. It is also illegal, in the state of TN, to use anything other than your hand on any part other than the buttocks to spank. Furthermore, if said spankings leave a bruise than it is considered abuse. Now I am totally against spankings of all kinds just giving you the legal mumbojumbo. I will say that in the training that I do many potential foster parents really have a hard time with this saying that it is in the bible---"spare the rod, spoil the child." Makes me want to


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

"Plenty of children have grown up just fine when their parents have been alcohlics/drug addicts. I think in those cases, treatment or other measures should be in place to help the parent(s), not just take the children.
I read a recent article about ...Mississippi, I think, or maybe Alabama...I'll have to see if I can find it again. *But they talked about how they completely changed their system and now let the kids stay with the parents while actively monitoring the parents. I know some ppl say that is invasion of privacy, but if I was a drug addict, I would want someone to intervene for my children. The parents in that state system have to take urine tests and call their worker/support person everyday and they are also visited weekly to make sure everyone is doing okay.*It is almost an artificial family support system, in that it is government workers and no longer aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents.
I think if you do not have access to family support, thenm it is okay to pay others to act as that support, especially when it not only benfits the children, but also helps the parents. They are also required to attend parenting classes and gentle discipline classes" Bold added by me!
I totally agree and this is what I did for 2 years before becoming the foster care coordinator. This is the direction that the system, at least in some states, is going. Now I have the opportunity to mold young moms. I can proudly say that I convinced two moms not to circ and have also been the breastfeeding cheerleader from hell!


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

Ok I am still interested in hearing opinions on when is OK for the state to step in and get involved, and or remove children from the home. For those of you that have had involvement from SW do you know what the referrals were about? What state do you live in?


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

MN- breastfeeding my newborn in 2002, educational neglect because my 6yo was at the hospital with me and the Principal used the No Child Left Behind Act in order to file, going against medical advice because I refused antibiotics for my newborn-more than once 2002 and 2005.

mamamillet-is that what you are asking for?


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

Yes!
I am just trying to understand where you guys are coming from b/c my experiences are with families that *really* needed outside involvement. It is my opinion, and I do not have official stats to back this up, that the number of great mamas being questioned on their parenting is very small compared to the number of families that are brought into the system on a dialy basis. I am, however, not in any way trying to minimalize the horrific experience of having an outsider question my parenting choices when I KNOW beyond any doubt that I am making the right choices for me and my family. I am hopeful that nothing became of any of the unfounded reports made against you-mitb


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamamillet*
Yes!
I am just trying to understand where you guys are coming from b/c my experiences are with families that *really* needed outside involvement. It is my opinion, and I do not have official stats to back this up, that the number of great mamas being questioned on their parenting is very small compared to the number of families that are brought into the system on a dialy basis. I am, however, not in any way trying to minimalize the horrific experience of having an outsider question my parenting choices when I KNOW beyond any doubt that I am making the right choices for me and my family. I am hopeful that nothing became of any of the unfounded reports made against you-mitb

I went to trial and the charges were dismissed. They still have an effect on my ability to get a job, so we have been living in poverty for quite some time and see no way out...I do not get hired for jobs where I might come in contact with children or vulnerable adults.
The lawyers I have spoken to said no one has ever been successful in getting that kind of stuff off their background checks.


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

MamaInTheBoonies- I am sincerely sorry for your experiences.

Do you think that the state ever has right to step in for medical neglect? Do parents have the right to go against medical opinion and make their own choices? Obviously millions of moms do when they make the choice to not breastfeed. Why should someone choosing to avoid antibiotics be criminalized more than the mom that goes against the most natural thing in the world?


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

No, the state has no business in parenting. I don't know why they think they should.
If people really cared about children and protecting children, then parenting classes would be free and part of becoming a parent. The class would cover the legal issues, ie-it is illegal and punishable to hit, punch, strike, or physically intimidate children or other human beings. Also, it would cover how to protect your child from sexual abuse/predation and what the necessary steps are for seeking help.

Parents would be empowered to be the parents they want to be. The class would involve asking them what they wanted for their child(ren) and what is the healthiest, safest way to reach those goals.

The class would also have ongoing participation if the parents wanted/needed it. It could help parents create an actual support system that works for them.

I am sure there is more, but that is off the top of my head, right now.


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

I need some clarification please. What do you think are parenting choices? Is it a choice to formula feed but not a choice to spank? Keep in mind that spanking on the bottom is legal. Both can cause harm and both can end up with happy, healthy children/adults. Also, it has been my experience that more people are open to breastfeeding but are still going to occasionally spank.
I think that a parenting class before becoming a parent is a wonderful idea but I am willing to bet that we might disagree with what was actually taught. As far as free parenting classes, I know of several in my area and they also offer childcare!


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamamillet*
I need some clarification please. What do you think are parenting choices?

A parenting choice is anything that has an effect on your child(ren). Whether that be what you feed them, clothe them in or not, what education thay recieve or not, what type of medical care they get or not get.

Are there social workers in other countires or is this mainly an American thing? I am having trouble finding the answers on my own.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:

I think that a parenting class before becoming a parent is a wonderful idea but I am willing to bet that we might disagree with what was actually taught.
I am not saying there should be a type of 'universal' parenting class. Many ppl come from different backgrounds, cultures, languages, etc. But all classes would have the fundamentals of the law and what it entails in regards to what is abuse of a child or children.
I just hear too many times from the 'parents' that they either didn't know they were wrong or that they lacked the support to be the parent(s) they wanted to be.
I do not believe people have children for the sole purpose of abusing them and/or killing them, kwim?


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

I am in agreement with most of what you have said. I do however think that the government should step in on some parenting "choices". Circumcision is considered a parenting choice, it is my opinion that it should be illegal and not a choice at all. Second, I wish the gov't would stop enabling parents to formula feed!! It is my opinion that WIC should stop providing formula unless medically necessary. And thirdly right now the gov't protects some choices more than others. Example--co-sleeping. I have always encouraged my foster kids that desired to sleep with their babies to do so, informing them of safety measures to so do. One of my teenage moms peds jumped all over her for this. Citing that co-sleeping was connected to SIDS. He did not say anything however about her choice to formula feed although that is linked to SIDS as well. He actually called me up to discuss this and was so shocked that even after hearing his speech I was still for it. I had informed at the beginning of the conversation that I had already told the family to follow his "medical" advice. He was so put out that he called the director of my agency to complain. It is now our policy that all babies must sleep in cribs---UGH!!!!
Had I not given in to some degree I have no doubt he would have reported me and possibly the teenage mom.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamamillet*
I am in agreement with most of what you have said. I do however think that the government should step in on some parenting "choices". Circumcision is considered a parenting choice, it is my opinion that it should be illegal and not a choice at all. Second, I wish the gov't would stop enabling parents to formula feed!! It is my opinion that WIC should stop providing formula unless medically necessary. And thirdly right now the gov't protects some choices more than others. Example--co-sleeping. I have always encouraged my foster kids that desired to sleep with their babies to do so, informing them of safety measures to so do. One of my teenage moms peds jumped all over her for this. Citing that co-sleeping was connected to SIDS. He did not say anything however about her choice to formula feed although that is linked to SIDS as well. He actually called me up to discuss this and was so shocked that even after hearing his speech I was still for it. I had informed at the beginning of the conversation that I had already told the family to follow his "medical" advice. He was so put out that he called the director of my agency to complain. It is now our policy that all babies must sleep in cribs---UGH!!!!
Had I not given in to some degree I have no doubt he would have reported me and possibly the teenage mom.

These can all be battled through education and helping parents make informed decisions. Why does the government need to step in?
I still say they have no business in parenting. Some cultures do circ not only boys, but also girls. Who is to say that their cultural or religious beliefs are wrong?
Now if they are informed and educated about such things, would they still choose to circ? Would there be support for them if they choose not to circ, therefore stepping outside their religious/cultural boundaries?

In my culture, we traditionally smoke a pipe filled with tobacco, do I stop because I am placing my children around second-hand smoke and therefore endangering their lives?


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

"These can all be battled through education and helping parents make informed decisions. Why does the government need to step in?"
I think that you are given people too much credit. I know that sounds horrible but think about how many people voted for bush. Americans on the whole do not alwayys make good choices. Does that mean that the gov'e needs to start making more and more choices for us. No.
"I do not believe people have children for the sole purpose of abusing them and/or killing them, kwim?" I totally agree with this but even when educated about positive discipline and natural consequences the majority of americans are still going to spank. Why...because it has become part of their culture.
I was raised in that culture, my mom spanked all of us and she did not always use her hand. Spanking was part of the culture I was raised in but I choose not to continue that part of my culture b/c I educated myself on the negative impact of spanking. It is not for me to decide what parts of others cultures they continue to embrace but I am sure glad that the gov't made it illegal to spank a kid with a wodden spoon or a belt!!!!!!!


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamamillet*
I think that you are given people too much credit.

In the quote below, you say yourself that you were able to discontinue spanking through educating yourself and making an informed decision.

Quote:

I totally agree with this but *even when educated about positive discipline and natural consequences the majority of americans are still going to spank.* Why...because it has become part of their culture.
I was raised in that culture, my mom spanked all of us and she did not always use her hand. Spanking was part of the culture I was raised in but I choose not to continue that part of my culture b/c I educated myself on the negative impact of spanking. It is not for me to decide what parts of others cultures they continue to embrace but I am sure glad that the gov't made it illegal to spank a kid with a wodden spoon or a belt!!!!!!!
The bolded part I do not believe, because the majority of Americans have not been educated nor informed about spanking.


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

I should have worded it as more of an opinion. I do feel, imo, that even when educated most people are still going to spank. This opinion is based on my professional work with families. Many many many people that I have had both in their homes and in my parenting classes and my trainings were not even able to get past the fact that it says in the bible "spare the rod, spoil the child" Now that is not the exact quote from the bible--I looked it up as this kept coming up for me--but somebody's interpretation of what was said in the bible. They honestly believed that they would not be good christians if they spoiled their children by not hitting them. I ahve also come across many non-religous people that also spank despite being educated on the matter. I do however believe that some will and so I will talk to anyone and everyone that will listen to me about why spanking is not a good choice.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamamillet*
I should have worded it as more of an opinion. I do feel, imo, that even when educated most people are still going to spank. This opinion is based on my professional work with families. Many many many people that I have had both in their homes and in my parenting classes and my trainings were not even able to get past the fact that it says in the bible "spare the rod, spoil the child" Now that is not the exact quote from the bible--I looked it up as this kept coming up for me--but somebody's interpretation of what was said in the bible. They honestly believed that they would not be good christians if they spoiled their children by not hitting them. I ahve also come across many non-religous people that also spank despite being educated on the matter. I do however believe that some will and so I will talk to anyone and everyone that will listen to me about why spanking is not a good choice.

How does that relate to the government and it's stepping into parenting?
Are you saying the government should only take children away when they are spanked?
I am confused.


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

I am so sorry you are confused hopefully this will clear it up!

"I do however think that the government should step in on some parenting "choices". Circumcision is considered a parenting choice, it is my opinion that it should be illegal and not a choice at all. Second, I wish the gov't would stop enabling parents to formula feed!! It is my opinion that WIC should stop providing formula unless medically necessary."
As far as I remember this is the only time I said anything about when the gov't should step in, and I did not say step in and take the children away.

"It is not for me to decide what parts of others cultures they continue to embrace but *I am sure glad that the gov't made it illegal to spank a kid with a wodden spoon or a belt!!!!!!!"* --this the only thing I can remember saying about the gov't and its connection to spanking.

"How does that relate to the government and it's stepping into parenting?"
It doesn't it was a response to your last statement in your previous post!

Quote:
I totally agree with this but even when educated about positive discipline and natural consequences the majority of americans are still going to spank. Why...because it has become part of their culture.
I was raised in that culture, my mom spanked all of us and she did not always use her hand. Spanking was part of the culture I was raised in but I choose not to continue that part of my culture b/c I educated myself on the negative impact of spanking. It is not for me to decide what parts of others cultures they continue to embrace but I am sure glad that the gov't made it illegal to spank a kid with a wodden spoon or a belt!!!!!!!

The bolded part I do not believe, because the majority of Americans have not been educated nor informed about spanking.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

In terms of spanking, you cannot stop at just educating someone who was raised to spank. You also need to provide support, tools, and resources to help them not spank and find alternative means of discipline. It doesn't work to just say 'spanking is harmful'. You need to provide parents with further education and information.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Same with not circ'ing or exclusively breastfeeding. The mainstream does not know how to care for a non-circ'd male, nor do they have the information for caring for exclusively breastfed babies.


----------



## mamamillet (May 21, 2004)

"In terms of spanking, you cannot stop at just educating someone who was raised to spank. You also need to provide support, tools, and resources to help them not spank and find alternative means of discipline. It doesn't work to just say 'spanking is harmful'. You need to provide parents with further education and information."
Again, I completely agree with you and I do provide support, other discipline methods and resources like mom's groups in the area!


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamamillet*
"In terms of spanking, you cannot stop at just educating someone who was raised to spank. You also need to provide support, tools, and resources to help them not spank and find alternative means of discipline. It doesn't work to just say 'spanking is harmful'. You need to provide parents with further education and information."
Again, I completely agree with you and I do provide support, other discipline methods and resources like mom's groups in the area!

I wasn't questioning what you personally did. I was merely pointing out that the government has no business putting their nose in parenting. It is unfortunate that someone, somewhere decided that we parents are too dumb to learn how to be good parents. I think it has nothing to do with intelligence and a lot more to do with actual support and resources available to parents.
It is sad that people in this country think it is okay that government take the place of family and community support, kwim?

Just the other day I was having a conversation about the elderly. i asked the man, who was about 50 yo, how much money he sends his parents. He said he never sent them money. I asked him how often he goes and helps them with their house. He said he did once, when they were ill and asked him to do so.

It is mind-boggling to me. As soon as I was working, I paid off all my mother's college loans, credit cards, etc and helped her buy her very own house. I still go there once a week and mow the lawn, rake, clean, cook her a good meal.
My dad lives on a farm in WI. I also visit him and help clean, mow, rake, etc. It is the little things that help with the bigger picture.

I also volunteer my time with teen moms who do not have access to resources because of the government and laws regarding minors. I do not just talk on the phone, but actually meet with them face-to-face and answer any and all questions. I also provide them with resources that are available, like the internet, public library, teach them how to use the public transportation system, make sure they get everything they will need to properly care for their baby and also keep away CPS, even if that means getting them a crib, bottles, and formula just for looks.

If they are in an abusive relationship, I help them get connected with a battered women's shelter and/or counseling that will help them become empowered and strong mothers for their baby.


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
I don't know why the links are not working.
I wanted to know what the history of foster care in America is about. It seems that after slavery was abolished, then the foster care system was used as a way to further disintegrate the family unit of freed slaves.

The link you provided said nothing of the kind, so where did you get this conclusion from? The foster care system wasn't put into place in the U.S. until 100 years after slavery was abolished (although there were children's homes earlier for voluntary placements, child abuse wasn't recognized as a legal and social problem in the U.S. until the 1960s), so I don't see how this could be true.


----------



## bec (Dec 13, 2002)

I think my problem with social workers and CPS, as opposed to the police is the set of rules that they follow. The police have to have a very specific set of circumstances before they can step in and make an arrest. There are very clear rules they have to follow before they are legally allowed to enter a residence and search through private property. CPS has a much looser set of rules that are often left up to the social worker's judgement. Some SW (as you seem to be) are reasonable and sensitive to another culture or non-mainstream practices. Some, however, are very rigid in what they believe to be "best for the child." They do not have the formula the police have to fall back on to help them make the decision of whether a family needs more intervention, help, or the kids to be removed.

I could sit here all day and come up with examples where the kids should absolutely be removed from the parents' care. This doesn't mean that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. I don't trust CPS' collective judgement regarding what constitutes child neglect. That's the bottom line. In an extreme case, they might do better than others, but in the grey area cases, I don't think they do so well, especially when it is simply up to a social worker's judgement call.

Bec


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5*
The link you provided said nothing of the kind, so where did you get this conclusion from? The foster care system wasn't put into place in the U.S. until 100 years after slavery was abolished (although there were children's homes earlier for voluntary placements, child abuse wasn't recognized as a legal and social problem in the U.S. until the 1960s), so I don't see how this could be true.

slavery abolished
2005-1865=140 yrs ago.

History of Foster Care in the US

Quote:

Three states led the movement. Massachusetts, prior to 1865, began paying board to families who took care of children too young to be indentured. Pennsylvania passed the first licensing law in 1885 which made it a misdemeanor to care for two or more unrelated children without a license.


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

To answer the original question- I believe neglect exists where a parent can provide a higher quality of life than is currently available to their child- more nutrition, more clothing, more love and attention and emotional interacting- but on a conscious or subconscious level chooses not to identify and respond appropriately to their child's needs.
Mamamillet, can I ask how you feel about the UN declaration on the rights of the child? Do you believe that family units should be preserved, except where there is clear and present danger to indicate that that would be inappropriate? How do you justify the (alleged- I'm not American) difficulties that so many families who have been wrongly accused of neglect and abuse face in being reunited with their children?


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Adoption History

Quote:

poor Black and Hispanic families...they are induced to place their children in foster care as a form of "help". The children are placed in agencies whose financial support depends on maintaining as many children as possible in foster care.

Quote:

Because of pervasive racial and class bias, foster care, established as a system to help families, functions as a system to destroy families.


----------



## katsam (Mar 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bec*
I think my problem with social workers and CPS, as opposed to the police is the set of rules that they follow. The police have to have a very specific set of circumstances before they can step in and make an arrest. There are very clear rules they have to follow before they are legally allowed to enter a residence and search through private property. CPS has a much looser set of rules that are often left up to the social worker's judgement. Some SW (as you seem to be) are reasonable and sensitive to another culture or non-mainstream practices. Some, however, are very rigid in what they believe to be "best for the child." They do not have the formula the police have to fall back on to help them make the decision of whether a family needs more intervention, help, or the kids to be removed.

I could sit here all day and come up with examples where the kids should absolutely be removed from the parents' care. This doesn't mean that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. I don't trust CPS' collective judgement regarding what constitutes child neglect. That's the bottom line. In an extreme case, they might do better than others, but in the grey area cases, I don't think they do so well, especially when it is simply up to a social worker's judgement call.

Bec

Just an FYI, social workers, or child welfare specialists (because many people who work at child welfare are not social workers), may recommend that a child be removed from the home, but do not get the final call. Where I live a discrict attorney has to approve the removal, and then there is a hearing, usually the next day where a judge makes the final decision. When I was an undergraduate I did a practicum at child welfare, and went out to investigate many cases with other child welfare specialists. I will say that I never saw a child removed from a home that did not appear to be at serious risk. Maybe the child welfare system is better than average in my area, I don't konw. I will say that child welfare does not want to remove children. It is tons of paperwork, time, and money. It is much better to help the families find the resources and support that they may need, and when I was a student at CPS, that is what I often saw.
As for the original question of neglect, it is a slippery slope. As a social worker I was educated to look at a family as a system. If there is suspected negelct in a home such as utilities, food, inadequate shelter, maybe something like mom being gone all the time, I would look and see if the family is connected to the resources they many need. Do they have access to child care, do they know where to get utility assistance, and so on. I may hook them up with a case manager if they qualified for one through a private agency. If the problem is still not solved I would look at it again and ask questions to see what I may have missed, like are they to far away from a grocery store, do the bus routes not go by there house, etc. If it is something major like no heat in the winter, or no food in the house, and the parents have made no attempt to fix the problem, then that is when I would start considering it neglect. Emotional and medical negect are harder to define, and I won't go into it know because I think my ds wants me off the oomputer!


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamamillet*
I want to throw out aother example...
A mom starts giving her 6 wk old juice in her bottle. By 6 months old she also gives her Sprite in her bottle. At 10 months old the baby's favorite food is french fries from McDonalds. Fast forward...at 4 years old the girl has been diagnosed with childhood diabetes and asthma. The girl continues to have fast food for at least one meal a day and drinks sodas on a daily basis. Does the state have and responsibilty to step in? Is it any of their business??

no.


----------



## wombat (Nov 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bec*
I think my problem with social workers and CPS, as opposed to the police is the set of rules that they follow. The police have to have a very specific set of circumstances before they can step in and make an arrest. There are very clear rules they have to follow before they are legally allowed to enter a residence and search through private property. CPS has a much looser set of rules that are often left up to the social worker's judgement. Bec

Actually this is the whole reason why SWs in most countries are mandated to deal with child abuse cases rather than the police. Bit like how domestic violence was never taken seriously by the police. In the past the police missed too many cases, too many children died. So governments started training SWs to do the job. The police don't have the education and training to deal with a lot of the abuse situations plus they're restricted to dealing with CRIMINAL acts. You'd be amazed what you can do to a child that isn't a CRIMINAL act as defined by criminal laws. And I agree, a lot of SWs don't have the legal training that police have when it comes to gathering evidence for court. But SWs and police have different goals about the outcome. Police are looking to press criminal charges, SWs are looking to protect the wellbeing of the child.

Eg. an 8 yo intellectually disabled girl describes quite clearly to SW and policewoman performing oral sex on her stepfather. (Where I worked if a criminal act was reported, I was required to have police present, otherwise I'd interview on my own). Policewoman tells me she believes the sexual abuse but can't press criminal charges because due to the 8 yo's disability she won't be able to give credible evidence in court (cross examination would destroy her testimony) and there is no physical evidence. As a SW, I can invoke my 'looser' set of rules to get this stepfather out of the girl's house and away from her because he killed the family puppy by dashing its brains out on the concrete in front of the children (luckily more than the intellectually disabed girl witnessed this), and I could get a protective order through a Children's Court on these children because of this. Of course, stepfather probably goes on to abuse another family... but both police and SWs are limited by the laws.

BTW where I used to work about 70% of initial notifications were not proceeded with (ie no abuse found, no evidence, malicious report etc). Some of these didn't even require contacting the family (ie where it was an obvious malicious call). About 30% were found to warrant further CPS investigation or involvement. Of that 30% only a fraction had children removed from the home. Most of that 30% would have had their case closed within about 6 weeks because they were plugged into community services.


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wombat*
Actually this is the whole reason why SWs in most countries are mandated to deal with child abuse cases rather than the police. Bit like how domestic violence was never taken seriously by the police. In the past the police missed too many cases, too many children died. So governments started training SWs to do the job. The police don't have the education and training to deal with a lot of the abuse situations plus they're restricted to dealing with CRIMINAL acts. You'd be amazed what you can do to a child that isn't a CRIMINAL act as defined by criminal laws. And I agree, a lot of SWs don't have the legal training that police have when it comes to gathering evidence for court. But SWs and police have different goals about the outcome. Police are looking to press criminal charges, SWs are looking to protect the wellbeing of the child.

Yes. Unfortunately, sometimes they get it badly, tragically wrong. I grew up 30 miles from Cleveland (the UK one) during the 1980s, and had friends removed from their homes because the social workers stopped using common sense. Thank god, we now have a degree of legal protection for our children, but hundreds of children were wrongly torn from their families as a first, not last, resort.
http://www.childrenuk.co.uk/choct200...d%20abuse.html


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flapjack*
Yes. Unfortunately, sometimes they get it badly, tragically wrong. I grew up 30 miles from Cleveland (the UK one) during the 1980s, and had friends removed from their homes because the social workers stopped using common sense. Thank god, we now have a degree of legal protection for our children, but hundreds of children were wrongly torn from their families as a first, not last, resort.
http://www.childrenuk.co.uk/choct200...d%20abuse.html

I just read that article and I'm almost shaking. That is horrible.


----------

