4 ms·

Stop the French bashing. Anywhere in the world it's the right thing to protect the child until you're 100% sure the parents have nothing to do with it. Imagine

Stop the French bashing. Anywhere in the world it's the right thing to protect the child until you're 100% sure the parents have nothing to do with it. Imagine the outrage if they let the baby in the family since the parents look so innocent and 6 month later the baby is dead.

DanBC 10y ago
Child abuse is very common, and those children do need to be protected. But removing a child from its parents is a matter of last resort, and must only happen when there is reasonable evidence of a risk of harm. > Imagine the outrage if they let the baby in the family since the parents look so innocent and 6 month later the baby is dead. This happens all the time, and no-one particularly cares. Homicide is a leading cause of death for children under 5 in the US (after accidents and congenital defects) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leadingcauses.html http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leadingcauses.html Where's the outrage? If society actually cared they'd properly fund and train child protective social services, and provide meaningful useful training around child safeguarding to anyone who works with children. The routine rape and killing and abuse and neglect of children (one in four children experience abuse or neglect during their lifetime[1]) is something that society claims to care about, but does nothing to fix. [1] http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/overview/key_data.html http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/overview/key_data.html
- brador 10y ago
  And that's exactly what the government is doing here. Removing the baby from the parents to prevent possible future harm until additional checks are made. That takes time, and is stressful. But it looks like the best solution we have right now to a very difficult problem. There is no other viable solution.

DanBC 10y ago

Child abuse is very common, and those children do need to be protected. But removing a child from its parents is a matter of last resort, and must only happen when there is reasonable evidence of a risk of harm. > Imagine the outrage if they let the baby in the family since the parents look so innocent and 6 month later the baby is dead. This happens all the time, and no-one particularly cares. Homicide is a leading cause of death for children under 5 in the US (after accidents and congenital defects) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leadingcauses.html http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leadingcauses.html Where's the outrage? If society actually cared they'd properly fund and train child protective social services, and provide meaningful useful training around child safeguarding to anyone who works with children. The routine rape and killing and abuse and neglect of children (one in four children experience abuse or neglect during their lifetime[1]) is something that society claims to care about, but does nothing to fix. [1] http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/overview/key_data.html http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/overview/key_data.html

brador 10y ago
And that's exactly what the government is doing here. Removing the baby from the parents to prevent possible future harm until additional checks are made. That takes time, and is stressful. But it looks like the best solution we have right now to a very difficult problem. There is no other viable solution.