4 ms·

I'm sworn in as a California court appointed special advocate for children. https://www.californiacasa.org/state-priorities https://www.californiacasa.org/stat

I'm sworn in as a California court appointed special advocate for children. https://www.californiacasa.org/state-priorities https://www.californiacasa.org/state-priorities The primary goal is to keep children with their parents/parent wherever possible while speaking for the child in the court system to allow their voice to be herd. No matter how awful the family relationship they still have a family which is ultimately more grounding and stable than anything else. I'm also a British citizen and I find this Guardian article disturbing because it doesn't appear the authorities are putting the child's needs first.

newaccount74 4y ago
> The primary goal is to keep children with their parents/parent wherever possible It doesn't sound like children that are taken away in these cases end in the foster system, they are just taken to the other parent (who may be abusive).
- olivermarks 4y ago
  CASA website is a bit misleading. We primarily look after the needs and well being of kids who are living with parent/s but are in danger of going into care (or are in and out of care). So pick up kid from home take for a day out every week (consistency v important) talk, look for injuries, concerns etc.
  - cvccvroomvroom 4y ago
    What about situations where one parent is a psychopath, sociopath, and/or narcissist who "seems" like the more stable one? Also, if both parents seem to possess severe, codependent drama-attracting personality disorders, wouldn't the risks of foster care end up being lesser than horrible parents? Finally, family court is rigged in non-rural California against the fathers in numerous ways. Community property division is one way, even if both parents make similar amounts. Statistically, mothers initiate divorce and alienate the kids from their dad by demonizing him. It's the most common pattern in divorce proceedings with children, but not the only pattern as there are infinitely many, no angel and no devil, only pain and travesty in one sort or another that isn't limited to being inflicted or suffered by only one party.
yieldcrv 4y ago
> they still have a family which is ultimately more grounding and stable than anything else. is it possible to improve "anything else"? that seems like the main problem
Dracophoenix 4y ago
> No matter how awful the family relationship they still have a family which is ultimately more grounding and stable than anything else. When one reads stories like the New Yorker article on Mackenzie Fierceton (née Morrison) [1] or various accounts of physical abuse rendered in /r/asianparents, one is very skeptical of your assessment. Is a gilded cage an acceptable tradeoff for mistreatment and contempt? What's the point of keeping children in the company of people that think of them as little more than chattel? That can't be good for a child's self-esteem or development. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/04/04/mackenzie-fierceton-rhodes-scholarship-university-of-pennsylvania https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/04/04/mackenzie-fier...
- pmyteh 4y ago
  The practice in England and Wales is summed up by the following (now rather famous) passage from Mr Justice Hedley in a 2007 case[0]: > Basically it is the tradition of the United Kingdom, recognised in law, that children are best brought up within natural families. Lord Templeman, in Re: KD (a minor ward) (termination of access) [1988] 1 AC 806, at page 812 said this: > > "The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child's moral and physical health are not in danger. Public authorities cannot improve on nature." > There are those who may regard that last sentence as controversial but undoubtedly it represents the present state of the law in determining the starting point. It follows inexorably from that, that society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, whilst others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the State to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done. (Emphasis mine). I'm not sure I like it, but I understand why this is where we are. Of course, we haven't outlawed beating children in England yet, unlike Wales and Scotland, so there are still obvious improvements to be made... [0]: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2006/2.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2006/2.html
benj111 4y ago
> it doesn't appear the authorities are putting the child's needs first. No they don't. At best they're extremely risk averse to the point of taking a child away just to be safe, but it isn't what's in the child's best interests

newaccount74 4y ago

> The primary goal is to keep children with their parents/parent wherever possible It doesn't sound like children that are taken away in these cases end in the foster system, they are just taken to the other parent (who may be abusive).

olivermarks 4y ago
CASA website is a bit misleading. We primarily look after the needs and well being of kids who are living with parent/s but are in danger of going into care (or are in and out of care). So pick up kid from home take for a day out every week (consistency v important) talk, look for injuries, concerns etc.
- cvccvroomvroom 4y ago
  What about situations where one parent is a psychopath, sociopath, and/or narcissist who "seems" like the more stable one? Also, if both parents seem to possess severe, codependent drama-attracting personality disorders, wouldn't the risks of foster care end up being lesser than horrible parents? Finally, family court is rigged in non-rural California against the fathers in numerous ways. Community property division is one way, even if both parents make similar amounts. Statistically, mothers initiate divorce and alienate the kids from their dad by demonizing him. It's the most common pattern in divorce proceedings with children, but not the only pattern as there are infinitely many, no angel and no devil, only pain and travesty in one sort or another that isn't limited to being inflicted or suffered by only one party.

yieldcrv 4y ago

> they still have a family which is ultimately more grounding and stable than anything else. is it possible to improve "anything else"? that seems like the main problem

Dracophoenix 4y ago

> No matter how awful the family relationship they still have a family which is ultimately more grounding and stable than anything else. When one reads stories like the New Yorker article on Mackenzie Fierceton (née Morrison) [1] or various accounts of physical abuse rendered in /r/asianparents, one is very skeptical of your assessment. Is a gilded cage an acceptable tradeoff for mistreatment and contempt? What's the point of keeping children in the company of people that think of them as little more than chattel? That can't be good for a child's self-esteem or development. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/04/04/mackenzie-fierceton-rhodes-scholarship-university-of-pennsylvania https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/04/04/mackenzie-fier...

pmyteh 4y ago
The practice in England and Wales is summed up by the following (now rather famous) passage from Mr Justice Hedley in a 2007 case[0]: > Basically it is the tradition of the United Kingdom, recognised in law, that children are best brought up within natural families. Lord Templeman, in Re: KD (a minor ward) (termination of access) [1988] 1 AC 806, at page 812 said this: > > "The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child's moral and physical health are not in danger. Public authorities cannot improve on nature." > There are those who may regard that last sentence as controversial but undoubtedly it represents the present state of the law in determining the starting point. It follows inexorably from that, that society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, whilst others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the State to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done. (Emphasis mine). I'm not sure I like it, but I understand why this is where we are. Of course, we haven't outlawed beating children in England yet, unlike Wales and Scotland, so there are still obvious improvements to be made... [0]: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2006/2.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2006/2.html

benj111 4y ago

> it doesn't appear the authorities are putting the child's needs first. No they don't. At best they're extremely risk averse to the point of taking a child away just to be safe, but it isn't what's in the child's best interests