I'm inclined to argue that there are a great deal of situations where a child's right to a healthy and safe upbringing trumps the parents' rights. They say it takes a village to raise a child (or something like that) and in many other countries this is literally the case. Small communities often look out for the local children. Granted, this is institutionalized and writ large, but I think the state watching out for child welfare is a reasonable concern, so long there are ample checks and balances and this power isn't abused.

I couldn't read the article, so have no idea what the author's take on the issue is. Historically, the loss of parental rights have a lot less to do with protecting the children than with punishing/controlling people. I feel safe guessing that parental rights are much more likely to be taken from a woc who is in prison for a short time, than from white parents.

I have an entire book on children case studies. These children have been nearly tortured to death in each case by their parents. In fact, something like 70% of child abuse and child molestation occurs by a parent or close relative. Ergo, I have no problem with a country's right to remove a child from a home.

The only questions are what constitutes "abuse" and "unfit" and who decides.

I like to joke sometimes about the world needing to set a license to have children, but when it comes down to the wire, I don't think governments should be intervening like this except in cases involving a clear and present danger. The problem is that there are practically no checks or balances, and the standard for destroying a family is far too low. I have a very jaundiced view of child welfare personnel as a result. Destroying a family because of an accusation of "neglect" that never even sees a courtroom, much less a jury, strikes me as a horrible violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, though of course I am not a professional lawyer.

This penalty is significantly more severe than others that would require a fair trial, with all of the attending rights for the accused.

That said, from the article, I think the government would be able to make a pretty good case against the woman in question that she poses a clear and continuing danger, as she has been continuing to (presumably voluntarily) associate with violent people, behaving recklessly, and then lying to cover it up. Clearing up her drug habit is a good start, though apparently she's done that before without it lasting, but it's not sufficient on its own.

But an agency shouldn't get to make a permanent decision about whether or not she's allowed to raise kids without due process being afforded her.

The NYT article describes a very sad situation. While it makes me extremely uncomfortable that a social worker has so much power, it seems like she exercised it judiciously in this particular case.

I used to have a job arranging court-appointed attorneys for parents appealing social services' removal of their kids.

Let me tell you something. Marie in the article is NOT typical of these parents, and the writer painted such a relatively rosy picture of her that he misled his readers about the entire system. Most of the ones I dealt with never did any of the things social services asked of them. They didn't bother to enroll in drug treatment, or they enrolled and then dropped out, returning to the streets and the drugs. They never took the parenting classes. They just insisted, "these are my kids and the damn government got no right to take them."

And the author of the article talks about neglect as if it's not all that bad. Let me tell you what kind of neglect I read about in people's records -- kids who were not fed for days at a time, leading to all kinds of illnesses and malnutrition. A mother who was learning-disabled who could not understand that she needed to change her kids' diapers. The diapers weren't changed for days, which caused diaper rash and sores that eat right through the kids' skin. One mother refused to leave a boy friend who was abusing her and her 14-month-old child. Social services delayed removing the child -- I don't recall why, now -- and during that delay the boyfriend threw the child up against the wall and killed it. The baby had been crying too loud, he said, and wouldn't shut up.

All these parents insisted that they loved their kids and that it was best for the children to be with their parents. Even the mother whose boyfriend killed her child had told social services the same thing, just two days before the baby died.

I think this is a sad, sad case. I didn't read the whole story, but from the first two pages, it seems the mother really made some efforts to change to support her kids. I don't think that poverty alone should be a justification. Does the amount we pay foster parents equal more or less than the aide we give the poor parents? I don't know the answer, but I think it could make a compelling argument for who the child should stay with. It is obvious from the child in the end that he wanted to be with his mom. Doesn't that count for something? These kids did not suffer physical harm from their mother and after she got clean, she should have been able to support them. I couldn't imagine not being with my daughter or seeing her everyday and I can only imagine the heartbreak this woman feels.

Jacque,

The child may have wanted to be with his mother, but there are reasons why we don't let children make legal decisions. I agree that it's tragic to have a family broken apart like this, but it's even more tragic to see a child grow up without all the things he or she needs to become a healthy, successful adult. As for poverty alone as a justification, I agree with you, and that's why we have welfare programs, WIC checks, etc. to help poor families raise their children in a slightly better environment.

That article was so heartbreaking--Marie's situation, the children's situation, the obligations of the social workers.

I wonder why the final decision in Marie's case must be total termination of all parental rights. While Marie appeared in the article to continue to struggle with violence and drugs in her life, she also appeared determined to parent her kids. I know there are open adoptions out west, in Oregon and Wash. state. Isn't that a possibility here? Why can't Marie continue to have some involvement in her childrens' lives? Even if she cannot make the ultimate decisions in her childrens' lives--such as school, religion, etc--she could still participate in raising them and seeing them.

I don't know. The foster care system is such a mess in so many states. There seems that there are just too many opportunities for abuse of government authority and not enough chances to invest in an individual families' situation and be flexible to that situation.

Perhaps if we heard more about the success stories from foster care and children protection agencies, maybe I'd have more faith in the system.

My mother (a retired psychologist) fosters children from abusive homes. Recently, she had two kids, both who had minor FAS - one child had to be intstitutionalized because of his violent behavior, the other was finally adopted out-of-state. The parents, who's abuse, neglect and indifference contributed to much of the problems with these kids, couldn't have cared less. The saddest thing of all is that the mother already has five damaged children, and is having more each year. She's 22.

The horrible catch-22 about abuse is that even if a child is taken away from an abusive parent early, the damage is already done.

I think that a good use of tax money would be to fix dysfunctional Childrens' Services. I think it's fitting that children be taken out of abusive homes and parents' rights terminated if they can't get their acts together, but often OCS can't offer the kids much better. Where I live, foster parents have to deal with vindictive, inept social workers, and often, kids have to deal with psychotic, self-serving foster parents. We recently had a situation here where two foster parents were imprisoning their foster children (five of them) in cages and starving them, spending the money they received from the government on themselves.

It's sad all around. I think that this country does a disservice by rewarding people to have children. Why can't we reward people to NOT have children, or at least offer the tax breaks to those who choose not to populate? My state is the worst: we have the Permanent Fund Dividend, which pays every state resident an annual thousand dollars. The abuse and neglect in my state is the worst in the country, but you better believe the parents have all their kids lined up at the bank on PFD day.

I would like to see an educational campaign that promotes: "If you can't feed them, don't breed them!" And free birth control, of course.

When an old friend of mine committed suicide a little over a year ago, the police discovered a cache of drugs in the house and determined, one way or another, that outstanding debts to violent drug dealers led to his apparent suicide.

The kids were taken into protective custody and eventually split up. It wasn't the first time that my friend had lost custody of his children.

For months, the grandparents fought for custody, which they were finally awarded after nearly a year-but I wondered why keeping the children in the family, assuming there are family members who would be willing and able to care for them, wasn't a top priority. The grandparents weren't even allowed to know where the kids were, and I do understand that we must take important steps to protect children, but the case I'm referring to seemed extremely unreasonable. I've also seen some very unqualified foster parents--the kids I'm referring to were forced to do push-ups by their foster parents when they didn't call them "Mom" or "Dad."

I know that the people who work in family services have a stressful job where they must walk a fine line. However, my closest experience with them is through a friend, one of the more reponsible people I know (has a job and a house too). Due to a situation caused by her b/f (who immediately became an ex- and is now in jail b/c of it) they took away custody of her child, awarded it to the father of the child, who hadn't payed child support in over 6mths and hadn't visted in a couple months. She has taken the classes, done all they asked her to, but still only has visitation. She is expected to get it back soon, but she lost custody for longer than the ex will be in jail.
Ever since that, I wonder how well our local system actually works...

if you only read the first page, you get the impression this gal's a harmless pothead.

here's the rest:
eight months ago, she was hanging out with the drug addict boyfriend who'd beaten her before. suprise! he beat her again. a few months before that, she was speeding and crashed her car into a bus. her most recent offspring was what we used to call in the eighties a "crack baby." she has four others, one other who tested positive for pot at his birth, and she's pregnant again. her oldest says she punches him in the face.

punching a child in the face: dealbreaker. allowing a violent man to remain in a child's life: dealbreaker. taking drugs while pregnant: dealbreaker. twice: double-dealbreaker.

this woman has had a lot of second chances. staying clean and out of chaos for eight months is not nearly enough at this point. they shouldn't adopt out her children (unless the children want that) yet, but she shouldn't get them back for at least two years of constant drug testing. i'd lean toward five.

i say this as someone whose parents were investigated twice by cps, who is infinitely glad that the caseworkers saw that while, yeah, we lived in a messy trailer in the woods and yeah, dad was a lush, we were our mom's very life.

i'm not anxious to have people's kids taken away. but if a mother can't put her five-going-on-six kids ahead of her desire to get high and laid... well.

Jami - Don't forget, she was caught twice lying to social services about her life since her "recovery" (the car crash and her most recent beating by her boyfriend).

One of my many flaws is that I just can't read long articles on-screen, so if this question is answered in the article, I apologize. But I'm curious, is CPS in communication with the cops? Did the abusive boyfriend get arrested?

EG:

"In December, her face bruised, Marie told Johnson that she had been mugged and pistol-whipped in the Bronx, but Johnson later found out from the Bronx district attorney’s office that Marie’s boyfriend, Diomedes’s father — who had recently served several months in prison for kicking a police officer during an arrest on other charges, which were eventually dropped — had been picked up for beating Marie on the street. This same man was also the father of the unborn child Marie was now carrying." - New York Times

Great. A capital fellow and perfect father material. Bah.

Thanks for the info, noname.

I really agree with Jami on this one. At first, as I was reading, I very much had a feeling of sympathy for the family and their situation. But after reading *all* of it, I really couldn't rationalize the child staying with the parent.

People deserve a second chance, how many did Marie get?
That's not to say that the fate of a family should be completely based on the past of a person. People can change - but the life of a child is too precious to be gambled with, and by the sounds of it, they've been through enough.

EG - No problem. Considering all the people I seem to piss off here, it feels good to be of assistance when I can.

In theory, all of the issues investigated here apply. It's a pretty safe assumption that in the US there are far more abusive or neglectful parents who keep their children than fit parents who lose them.

But in practice, Kaethe is right: the child protection services have an annoying tendency to target underprivileged parents. Any national guidelines meant to eliminate arbitrariness and prejudice will just be used by moralists to target parents who abuse their children by being gay, using marijuana, or not taking them to church.

Alon... wasn't Marie smoking marijuana *during* the pregnancies?

That could lead to a lot of issues like low birth weight in babies, and withdrawl symptoms...(excessive crying, tremors...etc.). Also I read somewhere (I wish I had the link...) that smoking pot as little as once a month during the pregnacy can lead to inadequate weight gain of the mother leading to problems in the delivery...

Marijuana has also been shown to adversely affect the fetal endocrine system and placental function.

Also, I've seen first had the effects of marijuana on kids whos parents use it. They were basically brushed off to the basement and ignored while the mom and her boyfriend sat upstairs smoking up... so I really don't think you should be lumping marijuana in with secularism and homosexuality because it can easily be linked with immaturity.

Also, I've seen first had the effects of marijuana on kids whos parents use it. They were basically brushed off to the basement and ignored while the mom and her boyfriend sat upstairs smoking up...

That's neglect, which is something completely different. I realize it happens more frequently than, say, homosexual parents sexually abusing their children, but marijuana use alone shouldn't be grounds for loss of custody.

Oh jeez, you'd think my mommy had been doing lines of coke off my dad's boner while she was pregnant! Kian, my apologies if you're pulling my leg with the above comment; if so, you have a wonderfully astute sense of humor.

I think the article does a good job of humanizing everyone involved. The mother clearly does love her children, and her children clearly need extra care and a lot of love.

However, her ongoing relationship with a violent man, Diomedes's father, is also clearly cause for her concern, especially since he appears to be paying her rent. To me, that says that he isn't going anywhere, and that's not a safe environment for children, especially children with a history of behavioural issues like depression and suicidal tendencies.

I would LOVE to believe that Marie can turn things around for her children, but I don't know if that's going to happen. Should what happened with her oldest son be allowed to happen with the younger four?

Alon, fair enough. But this wasn't the only family I've seen having problems because the parents use of marijuana.

If a parent is using it, I personally think they should be keeping it to a minimum (small enough amounts that it doesn't interfere with their parenting) and their children shouldn't know until they're older.

I guess this falls more under being responsible than just flat out smoking pot, but, as I said, I have seen pot have a negative effect on more than just the one family I mentioned before.

Jane...uh, no. I wasn't joking. My point is that the use of pot mixed in with irresponsible parents has some negative effects. I have nothing against the use of pot, just when it is used to the extent that it interferes with parenting *then* it becomes a problem.

Alon, when homosexual parents are discriminated against in child custody cases, it's not because they're accused of sexually abusing their children. In the judge's eye, it's about morality and lifestyle choices, of supposedly setting a bad example. Straight parents, in fact sexually abuse their children, not gay parents. The kids may turn out gay later because of it, because of trauma or whatever, but the home life is straight and often strict.

Anyway, the subject matter of this article is way too comprehensive for any of us to tackle. Drug abuse, Domestic Violence, The DCF, Social Services, Parenting classes, Lack of Family Planning/Birth Control, Poverty, Foster Care, Adoption.

My feelings on the subject of children being taken away from parents is pretty much, taken away to where? Foster Care is a nightmare, that's where kids get neglected and sexually abused and often end up on the streets for a complete life of abuse. Siblings are separated, when they often are the only stability in each other's lives. It's not a good thing. But, if a home is dangerous enough then it should be considered. And then, I think family members should be allowed to take the children in.

Of course giving the kids over the the grandparents doesn't always work. Because these are the people who raised the dysfunctional parent to begin with. They can abuse the grandchild themselves, or, more often, allow the abusive parent to visit and take the child for unsupervised visits.

And imagine a women who is living in a domestic violence situation. Imagine the husband telling her that if she calls the cops then social services will come get her kids. Or give them over to her abusive father.

None of this is too good. I think the only solution is being pro-active and using education, programs, and other support mechanisms to try to heal some of these problems and prevent the snowballing of future ones.

Alon, when homosexual parents are discriminated against in child custody cases, it's not because they're accused of sexually abusing their children. In the judge's eye, it's about morality and lifestyle choices, of supposedly setting a bad example.

I know, and I agree with everything you say in your comment. I'm sorry for not having made myself clear: what I meant is that marijuana use alone shouldn't be grounds for loss of custody (even though it is, if I'm not mistaken), just like homosexuality alone shouldn't be grounds for loss of custody (even though it is).

And imagine a women who is living in a domestic violence situation. Imagine the husband telling her that if she calls the cops then social services will come get her kids. Or give them over to her abusive father.

This already happens in another form: divorce lawsuits. Buttressed by a social network of men's rights activists, abusive husbands often seek custody and usually get it, by using a variety of legal tricks, claiming their children suffer from parental alienation, or pushing for joint custody.

Thanks for clarifying that Alon, and I do agree with the marijuana statement. I don't like marijuana, and the whole drug/drug ritual has left a bad taste in my mouth from what friends I've known who've been addicted to it. But, it's not grounds alone, no, any more than a heavy drinker is. (And cigarette smoking is bad too, my lungs are scarred from growing up with chain smokers).

Taking a child away should be a very, very careful decision. It seems like the social workers are doing their job as best they can.

Another thing, it seems to me that the very worst parents are probably the best at hiding the abuse from the police & social workers. So a crack or heroin addicted mother is a lot easier to spot than an abusive father/husband who inflicts verbal/physical/emotional/sexual abuse on the children. Those children are trapped.

I remember reading this horrible story one time of years worth of abuse that took place by the mother on her 3 daughters, - the kind of, chained to the kitchen table while you clean the floor with your one unbroken arm kind of deal. No one even knew.

I think one of the biggest points that hasn't come up int eh postings, is that Marie is a product of the child welfare system, and probably was never taught how to deal with her life in the positive manner (not that many people are). I work for a social service agency that works with homeless and runaway teens, many of whom have been in and out of the child welfare system. Many have stunted development from being abused at home by their birth parents, grandparents, uncles/aunts, family friends etc... and then are pushed into a system where they are likely to be abused by their foster families (although there are exceptions) at worst or at best treated like another paycheck. They don't often have suitcases, just plastic trash bags that hold all the belongings they have in the world as they are shuffled around from placement to placement because they have behavior issues or mental health issues or whatever. Often they have attachment disorder which makes it harder for them to bond with anyone, and are stuck in the mentality of whatever age they suffered their mos tserious trauma. I wager to guess that Marie has the mentality of a 12 or 13 year old and honestly doesn't have the mental facilities to make decisions like I am pregnant, I shouldn't use cocaine, or my boyfriend beats me I should get away. The sad part is that she now has children to take care of, and though I wish she had learned those lessons earlier, she didn't. So she is trying to learn all the things in 18 months, and follow the rules that are placed before her, and that more than likely is very hard for her to do. I think the article was very shallow, and didn't even brush the surface as to what is really going on in these live.

I think one of the biggest points that hasn't come up int eh postings, is that Marie is a product of the child welfare system, and probably was never taught how to deal with her life in the positive manner (not that many people are). I work for a social service agency that works with homeless and runaway teens, many of whom have been in and out of the child welfare system. Many have stunted development from being abused at home by their birth parents, grandparents, uncles/aunts, family friends etc... and then are pushed into a system where they are likely to be abused by their foster families (although there are exceptions) at worst or at best treated like another paycheck. They don't often have suitcases, just plastic trash bags that hold all the belongings they have in the world as they are shuffled around from placement to placement because they have behavior issues or mental health issues or whatever. Often they have attachment disorder which makes it harder for them to bond with anyone, and are stuck in the mentality of whatever age they suffered their mos tserious trauma. I wager to guess that Marie has the mentality of a 12 or 13 year old and honestly doesn't have the mental facilities to make decisions like I am pregnant, I shouldn't use cocaine, or my boyfriend beats me I should get away. The sad part is that she now has children to take care of, and though I wish she had learned those lessons earlier, she didn't. So she is trying to learn all the things in 18 months, and follow the rules that are placed before her, and that more than likely is very hard for her to do. I think the article was very shallow, and didn't even brush the surface as to what is really going on in these live.

This is a hearbreaking situation and I am glad I am not the one making the decision. I think the biggest concern is the children's safety and well-being, but I don't think taking the kids from the home is always the best option. In any case, Marie's kids already have scars and will need lots of love and someone to care for them. I don't think in this case that Marie is able to be that person.
Pheather, A lot of the problems that you point out that make Marie a "bad" parent are there for her kids, too. Let's hope that something is done to teach them how to be a parent since her sons are future fathers.
And also, mothers that are in dv situations are already scared their kids will be taken. Their abusers will threaten to sue for custody and/or threaten to call social services. It's another form of abuse and means of control over the women. It's also used as an abuse of the kids, too. The parent will tell the kids if they don't behave the parent will get in trouble and the kid will have to go live with someone else. Imagine putting that on an already terrified, abused kid?!

"This already happens in another form: divorce lawsuits. Buttressed by a social network of men's rights activists, abusive husbands often seek custody and usually get it, by using a variety of legal tricks, claiming their children suffer from parental alienation, or pushing for joint custody."

I don't know - I think it all comes down to knowledge and access. I've seen both genders get screwed in the divorce process.

My best friend had an abusive husband. When she finally pulled herself together and left, he hired a lawyer and accused her of neglect. Struggling as a newly single mom, she didn't have any money, couldn't imagine anyone believing him, represented herself and lost big time - she only has supervised visits. She's still in shock, but is regrouping and researching what resources she can pull on to appeal.

Another friend had his wife leave. When he filed for divorce, she responded with a flurry of paperwork, requesting sole physical and legal custody with no visitation. She had access to a paralegal service and basic legal advice through a program for low income women (which I whole-heartedly support). He had to wade through alone, and almost lost a couple of times - not because he was a bad parent but because he hadn't filled out the required paperwork correctly. He sure would have been glad to find one of those men's activist groups - the only thing he did find was a program to assist deadbeat dads in gaining visitation (in exchange for paying their child support). Since he was a responsible parent, and was paying his child support, they couldn't help him. He ended up with joint physical and legal, but only 30% (instead of a 50/50 split).

IMHO, it just seems that it is more of "Access and/or education = keeping your kids", not "Being a good parent = keeping your kids". And it's true in divorce cases as well as CPS cases.

"Pheather, A lot of the problems that you point out that make Marie a "bad" parent are there for her kids, too."

I guess that was the point I was trying to get at within my rambles, sorry about posting twice. I think that the dv issues you are bringing up exist, and that the sytem victimizes more than it helps in both dv and abuse issues. The core of the issue is that our government and society doesn't want to do the hard work to resolve these issues, and generations of kids get affected because of that. I have a coworker who is working with grandchildren of people she started out working with when she began doing social work (and those grandchildren are teenage children themselves). What scares me is the current cultural climate which is moving toward the conservative paradigm (not that we haven't been there a while, but we ar not moving back).