4 ms·

I don't mind the idea of the state protecting children. What I mind is it happening without essential protections such as a right to jury trial, a presumption

by Dove 9y ago

I don't mind the idea of the state protecting children. What I mind is it happening without essential protections such as a right to jury trial, a presumption of innocence, and illegal behavior being limited to what is defined by actual laws written by elected representatives. What we have here is the terror of the police state. Anonymous tips, petty bureaucrats making life changing rulings on a whim with no clear laws to establish legal behavior. I would love to see the whole thing challenged as unconstitutional and abolished and folded into the much more functional justice system.

DanBC 9y ago
In the OPs situation he can just politely tell the child protection team that he's heard their advice, but that he disagrees, and that he's not going to change his behaviour. The social workers then put all the information together and take it to their lawyers, who'll either say it's not strong enough to go to court, or ask him if he really does want to ignore the advice because they think they have a good case. At that point I assume they go to court, and then the state has to persuade the judge that he's an unfit parent and that removing the children is the only option - that nothing else will do. He doesn't have to prove he's a good parent; the onus is on the state to make their case. The court has to respect his parenting choices, unless those choices are harmful or neglectful or put the children at risk of significant harm. The court also has to take into account the views of the children, and it's likely these children will be happy about the travel arrangements, and will be persuasive to a judge. This (quite old) report includes information on Canadian parents allowing children to engage in risky activity (11 year olds taking cannabis, for example) and Canada ranks 17th, which is pretty poor. http://cwrp.ca/publications/401 http://cwrp.ca/publications/401
- Confiks 9y ago
  Saying that he could "just" do this in my opinion really simplifies it too much. You must be terribly sure of your case to open yourself up to such a risk. Also, in many countries, child protection services can preemtively declare you an unfit parent and place your children in foster care, pending a decision from a judge, which may well take months.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    > Also, in many countries, child protection services can preemtively declare you an unfit parent and place your children in foster care, pending a decision from a judge Which countries allow this? It doesn't happen in England.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
      I can't speak for England, but in Australia... Good luck if you're male and working, and the other parent is female and on social welfare. The mother can simply claim you're violent, or otherwise unfit to be a parent, and hey-presto you're fucked. She gets legal aid, the guy has to spend 5+ years and $35,000+ of his own money getting nowhere because the Family Court of Australia is extremely reluctant to force the female parent to comply.
      - DanBC 9y ago
        Your comment is irrelevant to the claim made, which was > in many countries, child protection services can preemtively declare you an unfit parent and place your children in foster care, pending a decision from a judge, For a child to be placed in foster care in Australia either the parent has to agree or a judge makes a decision. It's not possible for a child to be placed in foster care without either of those.
      - danieltillett 9y ago
        Yes it is pretty bad. I have always wondered how many real cases of partner abuse have been caused by tilting the system so far in one direction.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  > but that he disagrees, and that he's not going to change his behaviour. I don't think that's how it works, in this day and age. As Adrian mentions in the article: Being a divorced, single dad who has his kids 50% of the time, I have little recourse to challenge the Ministry’s decision. Disobeying it even in the slightest (i.e. allowing a trip to the corner store by my 9.75 year old), could result in the Ministry stripping me of equal custody of my children, a remarkably draconian outcome I would never risk. This is very similar to how it would work in Australia. The cards are especially stacked against you if you're unfortunate enough to be the bearer of a Y chromosome during a separation involving children.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    > could result in the Ministry stripping me of equal custody of my children, It's not true though. The ministry can't strip him of equal custody rights, they can only go to court. A judge is the only person who can strip his rights away. THe claim is: > Disobeying it even in the slightest (i.e. allowing a trip to the corner store by my 9.75 year old), could result in the Ministry stripping me of equal custody of my children And that claim is just bullshit. Show me any case in Canada where this has happened.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
      I can't speak for Canada, but in Australia... In Australia men don't have a 50% custody right. The mother can just cease participating in the shared parenting plan. She could say "he lets them roam the streets unsupervised". Then it goes back to court, the courts tell the mother "you have to participate", and then she "forgets" or her "car breaks down" or she "doesn't have enough money for petrol". This can also, though rarely, work with the genders reversed. The result is the same: The Government strips you of custody because someone claimed you stepped out of line. I don't meant to sound like I have an axe to grind, but I do, so that's how it comes across.
      - DanBC 9y ago
        But you're talking about a totally different situation. OP isn't talking about a mother frustrating the will of the court (and I agree that's a problem); OP is talking about an agent of the state removing children from a parent. If anything your argument just supports my point: she's violating her child's convention right to a family life with its father, but the courts can't do much about it. If this "the state can just take your children" argument held any water the state, after the court cases, would see the mother breaking the court order and take the child off her. They don't, because it's very hard to do.
- aidenn0 9y ago
  I don't know how it works in Canada, but in California, CWS has the right to remove your children to foster care if they deem the child is at risk of harm, and then the courts get involved. Considering that forcibly removing children from their parents is a highly traumatic situation, I can understand how someone might not want to do what you suggest. Also, at no point is a jury involved in the disposition of the children; it's a single judge and a 3+ party trial (parent(s), child, state, &c.).

by Dove 9y ago

DanBC 9y ago

In the OPs situation he can just politely tell the child protection team that he's heard their advice, but that he disagrees, and that he's not going to change his behaviour. The social workers then put all the information together and take it to their lawyers, who'll either say it's not strong enough to go to court, or ask him if he really does want to ignore the advice because they think they have a good case. At that point I assume they go to court, and then the state has to persuade the judge that he's an unfit parent and that removing the children is the only option - that nothing else will do. He doesn't have to prove he's a good parent; the onus is on the state to make their case. The court has to respect his parenting choices, unless those choices are harmful or neglectful or put the children at risk of significant harm. The court also has to take into account the views of the children, and it's likely these children will be happy about the travel arrangements, and will be persuasive to a judge. This (quite old) report includes information on Canadian parents allowing children to engage in risky activity (11 year olds taking cannabis, for example) and Canada ranks 17th, which is pretty poor. http://cwrp.ca/publications/401 http://cwrp.ca/publications/401

Confiks 9y ago
Saying that he could "just" do this in my opinion really simplifies it too much. You must be terribly sure of your case to open yourself up to such a risk. Also, in many countries, child protection services can preemtively declare you an unfit parent and place your children in foster care, pending a decision from a judge, which may well take months.
- DanBC 9y ago
  > Also, in many countries, child protection services can preemtively declare you an unfit parent and place your children in foster care, pending a decision from a judge Which countries allow this? It doesn't happen in England.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    I can't speak for England, but in Australia... Good luck if you're male and working, and the other parent is female and on social welfare. The mother can simply claim you're violent, or otherwise unfit to be a parent, and hey-presto you're fucked. She gets legal aid, the guy has to spend 5+ years and $35,000+ of his own money getting nowhere because the Family Court of Australia is extremely reluctant to force the female parent to comply.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      Your comment is irrelevant to the claim made, which was > in many countries, child protection services can preemtively declare you an unfit parent and place your children in foster care, pending a decision from a judge, For a child to be placed in foster care in Australia either the parent has to agree or a judge makes a decision. It's not possible for a child to be placed in foster care without either of those.
    - danieltillett 9y ago
      Yes it is pretty bad. I have always wondered how many real cases of partner abuse have been caused by tilting the system so far in one direction.
TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
> but that he disagrees, and that he's not going to change his behaviour. I don't think that's how it works, in this day and age. As Adrian mentions in the article: Being a divorced, single dad who has his kids 50% of the time, I have little recourse to challenge the Ministry’s decision. Disobeying it even in the slightest (i.e. allowing a trip to the corner store by my 9.75 year old), could result in the Ministry stripping me of equal custody of my children, a remarkably draconian outcome I would never risk. This is very similar to how it would work in Australia. The cards are especially stacked against you if you're unfortunate enough to be the bearer of a Y chromosome during a separation involving children.
- DanBC 9y ago
  > could result in the Ministry stripping me of equal custody of my children, It's not true though. The ministry can't strip him of equal custody rights, they can only go to court. A judge is the only person who can strip his rights away. THe claim is: > Disobeying it even in the slightest (i.e. allowing a trip to the corner store by my 9.75 year old), could result in the Ministry stripping me of equal custody of my children And that claim is just bullshit. Show me any case in Canada where this has happened.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    I can't speak for Canada, but in Australia... In Australia men don't have a 50% custody right. The mother can just cease participating in the shared parenting plan. She could say "he lets them roam the streets unsupervised". Then it goes back to court, the courts tell the mother "you have to participate", and then she "forgets" or her "car breaks down" or she "doesn't have enough money for petrol". This can also, though rarely, work with the genders reversed. The result is the same: The Government strips you of custody because someone claimed you stepped out of line. I don't meant to sound like I have an axe to grind, but I do, so that's how it comes across.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      But you're talking about a totally different situation. OP isn't talking about a mother frustrating the will of the court (and I agree that's a problem); OP is talking about an agent of the state removing children from a parent. If anything your argument just supports my point: she's violating her child's convention right to a family life with its father, but the courts can't do much about it. If this "the state can just take your children" argument held any water the state, after the court cases, would see the mother breaking the court order and take the child off her. They don't, because it's very hard to do.
aidenn0 9y ago
I don't know how it works in Canada, but in California, CWS has the right to remove your children to foster care if they deem the child is at risk of harm, and then the courts get involved. Considering that forcibly removing children from their parents is a highly traumatic situation, I can understand how someone might not want to do what you suggest. Also, at no point is a jury involved in the disposition of the children; it's a single judge and a 3+ party trial (parent(s), child, state, &c.).