7 ms·

Just a housekeeping note: it seems a lot of the arguments in this thread have entrenched into parents rights vs child’s rights. In my jurisdiction Children hav

Just a housekeeping note: it seems a lot of the arguments in this thread have entrenched into parents rights vs child’s rights. In my jurisdiction Children have rights and parents have responsibilities, and so it should be.

em-bee 2y ago
taking away children from their parents against the children's will is violating the children's rights.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Parents have rights. The children belong to them first, not the state. It is absurd to contemplate anything different, unless you think everyone is just a slave to the state and whoever is in power, or if you aren’t a parent and don’t understand the experience. Taking someone’s child away from them during the critical and beautiful first few years is frankly a form of torture, a cruel and unjust punishment that should only be undertaken if the parents themselves are being jailed. In any fair society, rights like parental rights are removed only when someone commits a sufficient crime beyond a reasonable doubt as a result of a legal process. One low skill CPS worker shouldn’t be able to decide that some parent should have their children removed.
qball 2y ago
>Just a housekeeping note: it seems a lot of the arguments in this thread have entrenched into parents rights vs child’s rights. No, it's "parent's rights" vs. "concern troll's" rights. Blessing arbitrary "bUt I tHoUgHt It WaS aBuSe" complaints with the guns of the State is, the overwhelming majority of the time, not in a child's (or society's) best interest. That includes "when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" reporting personnel who are so very eager to "save" some kid from evil (because it's everywhere, don't you know) that they end up assuming it's everywhere, which is how a kid walking half a block down the street or playing in their front yard becomes child abuse. After all, they're trained professionals, and when have trained professionals ever been wrong about assessing risks? Besides, those employed by the bureaucracy have sovereign immunity anyway, so there will be zero personal consequences if they get it wrong: privatize successes, socialize failures.
- yongjik 2y ago
  > Blessing arbitrary "bUt I tHoUgHt It WaS aBuSe" complaints with the guns of the State is, the overwhelming majority of the time, not in a child's (or society's) best interest. I can totally buy that it happens some of the time (and every time it's a tragedy), but the overwhelming majority of the time? I find it hard to believe. It's not like the US government has an unlimited CPS funding to meddle with every parents.

em-bee 2y ago

taking away children from their parents against the children's will is violating the children's rights.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Parents have rights. The children belong to them first, not the state. It is absurd to contemplate anything different, unless you think everyone is just a slave to the state and whoever is in power, or if you aren’t a parent and don’t understand the experience. Taking someone’s child away from them during the critical and beautiful first few years is frankly a form of torture, a cruel and unjust punishment that should only be undertaken if the parents themselves are being jailed. In any fair society, rights like parental rights are removed only when someone commits a sufficient crime beyond a reasonable doubt as a result of a legal process. One low skill CPS worker shouldn’t be able to decide that some parent should have their children removed.

qball 2y ago

>Just a housekeeping note: it seems a lot of the arguments in this thread have entrenched into parents rights vs child’s rights. No, it's "parent's rights" vs. "concern troll's" rights. Blessing arbitrary "bUt I tHoUgHt It WaS aBuSe" complaints with the guns of the State is, the overwhelming majority of the time, not in a child's (or society's) best interest. That includes "when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" reporting personnel who are so very eager to "save" some kid from evil (because it's everywhere, don't you know) that they end up assuming it's everywhere, which is how a kid walking half a block down the street or playing in their front yard becomes child abuse. After all, they're trained professionals, and when have trained professionals ever been wrong about assessing risks? Besides, those employed by the bureaucracy have sovereign immunity anyway, so there will be zero personal consequences if they get it wrong: privatize successes, socialize failures.

yongjik 2y ago
> Blessing arbitrary "bUt I tHoUgHt It WaS aBuSe" complaints with the guns of the State is, the overwhelming majority of the time, not in a child's (or society's) best interest. I can totally buy that it happens some of the time (and every time it's a tragedy), but the overwhelming majority of the time? I find it hard to believe. It's not like the US government has an unlimited CPS funding to meddle with every parents.