Strollerderby : child welfare

Texas Parents in Legal Limbo For Months to See Boys

Amy Kuras — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:30:00 GMT

Imagine calling the paramedics after your four year old had a seizure – thereby setting a chain of events into motion that causes both your children to be taken from your home for two years.

That’s exactly what happened to Chris and Laura Dobbins of Midlothian, Texas. Two trials later – one civil, one criminal – they were found not guilty of child abuse. The civil jury’s verdict that they should not lose custody of their children, however, was never affirmed by the judge so they have been in legal limbo since December.

Now, the final hurdle of the criminal trial cleared, they are just waiting to hear when their sons, now ages 7 and 6, can be returned to them. The oldest boy is Laura Dobbins’ biological son, the younger, Chris’.

They’ve been in foster care since the younger boy suffered a seizure at home in 2007 and doctors found the boy had bleeding on the brain, a cut on his pancreas, and old fractures on his wrists. Defense attorneys said during the criminal trial that the boy suffers from a rare disease called Henoch-Schönlein purpura, or HSP, which causes blood vessels to become inflamed and could have caused the injuries to the child's brain and pancreas. They also claimed the fractures could have happened when the boy was with his biological mother, with whom Chris Dobbins had recently finished a long drawn out custody battle.

If the juries were right, I am happy for these parents and hopeful for the boys that they can put this awfulness behind them. And in a child protective system where so many monster parents are left unchecked…I really, really hope the juries were right.

Does New York City’s Foster System Inadequately Protect Children?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:00:00 GMT

A tragic case of child abuse has gotten the City of New York in hot water over its allegedly inadequate protections for foster children.

The suit centers around Judith Leekin, a 64-year-old who is now thankfully behind bars for exploiting the city’s foster system to get rich. After learning how much the city would pay her to adopt children with physical and mental disabilities, Leekin adopted 11 children under four different aliases, and then moved to Florida with them.

The approximately $800 to $1,300 per month per child that the city paid Leekin is hardly a windfall for any responsible parent caring for a child who is need of special education. But Leekin spent hardly a dime on the children, keeping them locked—and, in some cases, tied up—in her home, with no access to education, adequate food, or health care. By the time her evil scheme was discovered in 2007, Leekin had collected $1.68 million in government money.

Her former foster children (one of whom is pictured), are now in their teens and twenties and are in foster care and group homes in Florida.

The federal lawsuit contends that the city failed to adequately background check Leekin or to monitor the children under her care. But the Administration for Children’s Services argues that Leekin was masterful at defrauding numerous agencies and professionals, and points out that the city did everything in its power to prosecute Leekin and offer the foster children care and resources after the abuse came to light.

While there must be government accountability for this unthinkably terrible crime, I don’t think that a lawsuit is the answer. Taking money away from New York’s child welfare system, which is already facing severe budget cuts, is hardly the way to improve it. The best way to serve New York’s foster children would be public disclosure of how Leekin managed to get away with such severe child abuse, and a full accounting of the concrete measures the city has taken to prevent such a situation from ever happening again.

Photo: New York Times

When Spanking Is Outlawed, Only Outlaws (American and Somali) Will Spank!

Kate Tuttle — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:31:00 GMT

Last week I wrote about the death of an Indian schoolgirl due to corporal punishment, which got me reading about corporal punishment rules worldwide, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), an international treaty that has been signed by 193 of the world's countries -- that's every member of the United Nations save two. Guess who hasn't signed it yet? The United States -- along with that bastion of human rights, Somalia.

This week conservative parenting guru John Rosemond had an editorial in the Washington Times about how the US needs to stand strong against signing the UNCRC, because he feels it would erode the rights of parents. Because there's been an influx of new political pressure to sign the treaty now that Obama's in office (clearly Bush was never going to sign it), he urges readers to seek more information and then to "call or write to your senators and let them know how you would like them to vote should ratification come to the Senate floor. Given that ours is still a government of, for and by the people, let us pray that the people make themselves heard!"

Shockingly enough, I totally agree. But first, read more about the UNCRC and figure out what you want to tell them when you call. If you are eager to preserve your right to spank your child, you may urge them to vote no, when and if it comes up. But first read it yourself; you may find that you like what it has to say. A sampling, and this is what I found when visiting the site Rosemond himself recommends, a site opposed to the UNCRC:

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.
Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

This is meant to be scary stuff! But to me -- and to the people of Canada, Mexico, England, Australia, all of Western Europe, all of Africa, all of South and Central America, etc. -- it sounds pretty reasonable. Clearly numbers 4, 5, and 7 are kind of red herring-ish (we have a busy enough court system as it is). But just as clearly Rosemond and his ilk find it scary to contemplate a nation in which children are free from physical punishment, free to choose their own religion, and free to learn about sex, science, and other religions -- not to mention one which supports children's welfare with more than just rhetoric.

Sounds like a country that truly would leave no child behind. What a huge step forward it would be if we could join the rest of the world in that goal.

The Guy's Kind Of A Jerk, But He's Got a Point

More by this author:

They Say: Bilingual Babies Learn Better

Why Are We So Shocked When Women Kill?

(Public) Breastfeeding Now Legal in Massachusetts

Another Hospital Baby Mix-Up, Now With Added Racism!

Do We All Have a Right to Procreate?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:48:00 GMT

Though we would rarely admit it, most of us, upon hearing about some abusive situation, have muttered about requiring a license to parent or "fixing" the offenders so at least no child will have to go through that again. But when push comes to shove would we really think either was a good idea?

Carter Dillard, writing in the Georgia Law Review, is not exactly recommending either (in fact, he speaks, rightly, of parental licensing schemes as "comical"). But he is, very seriously, arguing that there should be no fundamental right to procreate, that there is a duty on prospective parents to be "fit," and that courts should have the right to issue no-procreation orders in certain limited circumstances.

In the narrowest case that Dillard focuses on, it's hard to argue: If, due to egregious harm to previous children, a no-custody order has already been issued, such that any child born is immediately taken into state custody, wouldn't it be better for all to prevent such a pregnancy in the first place with a "no-procreate" order?

Trouble is, this seems to me almost as rife with problems as parental licensing. Much as Dillard wants to separate out the principle from how it would be implemented, I can't.

Dillard never manages to acknowledge that the state does a pretty awful job in most cases of determining "fitness" now, and often gets it wrong (in both directions). Some of that can't be avoided: We need to be able to take kids out of danger, even if we suck at it. But I heard in Dillard's writing a disturbing willingness to expand the definition of "fitness" tests to include finances (how much money is "enough"? does it matter how you spend it?), "pending neglect cases" (and if they were ruled to be unfounded, as many are?). It just seems like a clear slippery slope to pre-emptive sterilization of people who are different, poor, etc.

But even if we do set aside implementation for a moment, Dillard's argument that his "no-procreate" orders could be good for everyone by shifting resources from helping kids who have already been harmed to prevention rings a bit hollow.

For that to work, the no-procreate orders would actually have to substantially reduce the number of children born into abusive situations. But only a tiny fraction of the worst cases already have no-custody orders. And even then, how to ensure the order works? Foricble abortion? Sterilization? (Long sordid history of that already) Court-ordered Norplant (serious side effects for many people)? Criminalizing sex? Imprisoning people? Sending them to a convent?

The answer, of course, is you don't. You just say it, and if it's violated, it changes to a "no-custody" order and unspecified penalties are applied after the fact. Could that have a deterrant effect? Unlikely. At least for women, if carrying a pregnancy you know you're going to have to give up isn't a deterrant, it's hard to know what would work better. And most men in this situation are unable to pay the child support they already owe and any other penalties may suck for them, but it'll make it even less likely that they end up paying. Pregnancies are not always preventable, and in stressed families like this, are also rarely planned.

Would the orders make a point? Perhaps. But they're not going to make some huge difference in the number of kids who are born to "unfit" parents or who end up abused.

Here's what might work better:

If you want to put resources into prevention—of unwise pregnancies and of abuse—do it. Don't wait for some neat legal principle to make you feel better about it. Fund health care, birth control, abortion, good sex ed, parenting education, respite services, and domestic violence response, etc. and improve access to them. There's plenty of info out there about how to do these things well.
If you want to ensure that babies born to parents with a history of serious enough abuse that they already have a no-custody order in place aren't bounced around from foster home to foster home and maybe-maybe-not back to birth parents sometime (which I agree is not a good plan), make no-custody orders include automatic termination of parental rights for any child conceived after they are issued and allow the kid a permanent adoptive home from day one. It's still subject to errors in judgment, but at least you know it'll have real results. (And, frankly, it might be more of a deterrant than some random legal penalty.) (Note: This suggestion works when both bio parents have the no-custody order. What is the proper response when it's only one of them who is subject to such? I don't know.)

Ick.

Photo by walknboston.

More by this author:

Potheads Lose Kids For Pure Stupidity

Amy Kuras — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:01:00 GMT

From the “wow, what a genius” files: A couple in Gridley, California have been arrested and their kids taken into protective custody after they were filmed by the neighbors sitting on their front porch doing bong hits.

While holding their one year old and while their seven -year old was playing nearby.

Now, we can get into a big old debate about the legalization of pot, but the fact is there are things you do in front of your kids and things you don’t. Consuming an illegal intoxicant while they are right there would be on that list. Whatever you get up tp after your kids go to bed,while they are awake, right there, and watching, their safety and well-being have to be your first priority.

I think parenting while chemically altered in any way is a bad idea in any case. Much as I am a fan of having wine for the grownups and grape juice for the kids at playdates, the fact is I can have one glass of wine and stop before I start to feel it. In my limited and long-ago experience with weed, the high is pretty powerful and not dose-dependent. And you can’t take care of your kids optimally if you’re riding a buzz, any kind of buzz.

That being said, if inappropriate weed-smoking is the worst thing that’s going on in that house, I hope these parents get referred to parenting classes and get some maturity and sense scared into them, then get their kids back. We’ve all shown bad judgment on occasion, and if we could lose our kids for plain stupidity that doesn’t do anyone any good.

More Parents Leaving Kids Alone to Save on Daycare

JeanneSager — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:36:00 GMT

When code enforcement officers started inspecting apartments in a small Washington-area town, they uncovered an alarming problem. There were kids in apartments all over town - kids too young to be alone, kids whose parents just couldn't afford daycare.

According to a Washington Post report over the weekend it's happening all over the country - parents are leaving their kids alone so they can save a little money on daycare.

It's not hard to understand. The costs of daycare are high, and many parents report they're working as much to pay their babysitting bills as they are the mortgage or rent and put food on the table. When it comes time to cut one, food and shelter win out over paying another adult to be there when you're not.

Not that I'm excusing the parents who left their five-year-old daughter to be found by code enforcement officials, cowering in the closet of her family's apartment in Riverdale Park, Maryland or the family who kept their ten- and twelve-year-old home from school to watch their younger siblings.

But I can see how they made their choices. And they're hardly the first generation to do so. A large percentage of our greatgrandparents' and grandparents' generations were pulled out of school by their parents to help out at home, the need to take care of younger brothers and sisters while Mom helped Dad in the fields or took in sewing or did whatever it took to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. Unfortunately, they never went back to school.

That many daycare workers are underpaid makes this an even more difficult mess to solve - better wages would mean a hike in daycare costs for parents who are barely making ends meet themselves. So how do you help parents?

One of the answers may be in shifting the opinion of who can stay home alone and for how long. In Maryland, child welfare workers say the basic rule calls for kids younger than thirteen to have a caregiver watching them. They say they're enforcing that on a case-by-case basis, however, because of the circumstances.

And that's how it should be. I don't know any five-year-old kids who should be left alone, but I do know some very capable eleven-year-olds. On the other hand, there are some fourteen-year-old kids I wouldn't trust for a minute in a house or apartment by themselves. That's something parents should know about their kids, and a choice they should have the power to make.

Image: The Washington Post

They Say: Heat Won't Really Escape Through Their Heads

Babble Talk: It Was an Accident

Your Mother-in-Law Really Is Bad For Your Health

Missing Boy Broke Into Store to Play With Toys

Teen Mom Must Visit Cemetery for Abandoning Baby

Too Dumb to Parent: Part 2

JeanneSager — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:33:00 GMT

It was supposed to add credence to the claims that the Canadian government shouldn't be taking a woman's children just because they've labeled her "too dumb to parent." But the follow-up story in the Vancouver Sun about a woman with five kids and the mental maturity of a "12 to 14 year old" did just the opposite for me.

The government has seized each one of Barbara Gamble's children shortly after she's given birth. Among their reasons? Gamble's intelligence quotient is somewhere between 63 and 71, officially "mildly mentally handi-capped." She told her story to Canadian press earlier this month because she's soon due to deliver her sixth child, and she worries the government will once again step in to snatch the child. I could certainly feel her pain at never being given a chance.

Nikki Ross did. She's 31 and mother to five. She's also got an IQ just below 70. She says she's doing just fine as a mom. I'm not convinced.

A single mom (she's divorced from the father of her four oldest kids), Ross doesn't have a job. Short of babysitting as a teenager, she never has. She lives off of government assistance and financial help from her mother. A volunteer agency lends help as well - paying a counselor who helps Nikki with everything from filing income taxes to devising activities for her non-school-aged kids. Her house is filled with sticker charts so she can keep on course with her day - and sometimes she's gotten off course. She's lost her children on and off, sometimes to the state and other times her mom has stepped in to take care of a grandchild. Her biggest accomplishment of late? Figuring out a bus route so she could take herself to the doctor. She has yet to master a calendar.

I'm not arguing the rights to life of the disabled. But what about the rights of their kids? When a mom will forever be 12 years old in her mind, how can she parent a defiant 16-year-old, help an 18-year-old go off to college? How can she handle a middle-of-the-night emergency with a sick toddler when she's only just figured out how to get herself to a doctor's visit at 31? Ross has her mother to help her, but 27-year-old Barbara Gamble doesn't have that sort of help. What she has is a boyfriend who racks up bills well beyond his salary and no job of her own. What she has is a mind psychologists call immature, distrusting, egocentric and lacking in insight. What she has is the mental maturity of a 12-year-old and a uterus that has housed baby after baby since she was 20 years old.

Most of us would consider parents supporting their 12-year-old getting pregnant to be bordering on child abuse. Allowing a 12-year-old to move out on their own after giving birth is unheard of. So, no, Nikki Ross' story didn't make me feel better about Barbara Gamble walking out of the hospital with the latest child she's given birth to in an attempt to convince the government she can be a parent. It made me wonder who would leave a child alone with a 12-year-old for the rest of his or her life.

Image: Vancouver Sun

Can a Mom be 'Too Dumb' to Parent?

Texas Judge Orders Woman to Stop Bearing Children

Can a Mom be 'Too Dumb' to Parent?

JeanneSager — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:40:00 GMT

Barbara Gamble’s IQ is in the double digits. Officially she’s mentally retarded. But does that make her “too dumb to parent?”

According to the Canadian government, yes, it does. The 27-year-old Vancouver mom has given birth five times, and she’s due any day to deliver a sixth. Her first five children were each seized by child welfare officials shortly after she gave birth, and she’s dreading this labor and delivery most because she fears they’ll be back.

It sounds like any mother’s worst nightmare, but to be fair, at least one of the children was reportedly suffering from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder when she was removed from Gamble’s care. That would mean Gamble drank throughout her pregnancy – to such an extent that her daughter was born with permanent defects.

But was it because she didn’t know any better? Her intelligence quotient is between 63 and 71. That’s classified as “mildly mentally handicapped,” and psychologists who’ve reviewed the case have said Gamble is emotionally immature, egocentric and depressive. They estimate she can learn basic parenting skills but would have difficulty adapting to the constant changes of parenting in every day life.

By looks at a newspaper alone, that would put her on par with half the parents in America. OK, maybe not half, but pretty darn close. There are no tests to pass to become a parent (unless you count hitting the stick just right with the pee), so there are no firm numbers on just how capable any of us are of being Mom and Dad.

I’m not a doctor or a psychologist, so I can’t pretend to know if Barbara Gamble truly has the skills to learn to care for her children. Providing her a chance, the same chance given to anyone who doesn't immediately set off a warning bell for being unable to care for their child, seems only fair.

But if it's clear – the way a crack baby’s mom’s drug addiction clearly makes her unfit or the way a schizophrenic mom’s living on the street and forgetting to feed her son makes her unfit – I say take the kids . . . and run. Or is it better to leave the kids there until something does go wrong?

Source: Vancouver Sun

Image: Vancouver Sun, Ward Perrin

Court Seriously Clamps Down On Homeschooling in California

Kelly Mills — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:32:00 GMT

In a move that has stunned the homeschooling movement, a California appeals court ruled this week that parents must send children between the ages of six and eighteen to full-time public or private school, or have them taught at home by a tutor with a state credential. This means that about 166,000 homeschooled kids are now considered truants and their parents could be held liable. Our governor the Terminator immediately declared he's gonna fight this one.

The court decision actually came out of a child welfare case, involving a family that homeschools their eight children. When a family court examined a complaint of mistreatment of a seven- and nine-year-old at the hands of their father, Philip Long, the judge found the children were poorly educated, but said parents have a right to homeschool their children. However, the appeals court rejected this, and also excluded the private Christian school the Long's said supervised the kids' education because it was "was willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education."

Some say this case doesn't change the law, and others say it has big ramifications. I feel very torn: On the one hand, I believe children should have a right to a quality education, and parents who homeschool should be held to standards of accountability. However, there are serious flaws in the public school system in California, and private schools can get away with even more crap because of their status. I'd be interested to hear some opinions on this one, pro and con.

Photo: SF Chronicle/Michael Macor

Taiwanese Agency Quantifies the Amount of Love Kids Need

Patti — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:12:00 GMT

Finally, someone's done a study that produces news I can use. Taiwan's Child Welfare League Foundation has issued guidelines to provide children with the love and attention they need to thrive: kids need thirty minutes a day spent with their parents, at least three minutes of hugging and three of listening, and to be praised three times, and to be able to access a responsible adult within three minutes if necessary. I suspected I was overdoing it, and this confirms it.

No, seriously though. Taiwan's had some pretty serious problems with neglect and abuse of minors, and the CWLF aims to change that. They've laid out three core pursuits: survival, health, and safety, and the above "rules of three" are meant to inspire parents and caregivers to strive to achieve those pursuits. And other Taiwanese organizations and political parties are also mobilizing to turn the tides back in favor of their children. May it bring positive and lasting change for the country.

Now, set your timers for three minutes and go squeeze a kid, why don't you.

Parents of Child Who Died in Foster Care Want $20 Million

Stefania Pomponi Butler (CityMama) — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:04:00 GMT

The parents of a toddler who died in a California foster home after eating baking soda are set to sue Contra Costa County for $20 million. Deonna Green, 2, died last December while in foster care. The county coroner ruled her death an accidental poisoning and no charges were filed.

The girl's parents, Mikisa Boone and Marvin Green, claim that child welfare workers failed to monitor the situation in the home. Parents say that medical records show that their daughter was suffering from malnutrition and that their child lost five pounds in a one month period.

If that is true, it is startling. If child welfare workers knew something was amiss and failed to act accordingly, then yeah, sue for the $20 million, parents. I've said it before, I think child welfare agencies should be held accountable for all children in their care.

Strollerderby : child welfare

Texas Parents in Legal Limbo For Months to See Boys

Does New York City’s Foster System Inadequately Protect Children?

When Spanking Is Outlawed, Only Outlaws (American and Somali) Will Spank!

Do We All Have a Right to Procreate?

Potheads Lose Kids For Pure Stupidity

More Parents Leaving Kids Alone to Save on Daycare

When Your Kid's is the Puny Gift to the Teacher

They Say: Heat Won't Really Escape Through Their Heads

Babble Talk: It Was an Accident

Your Mother-in-Law Really Is Bad For Your Health

Missing Boy Broke Into Store to Play With Toys

Teen Mom Must Visit Cemetery for Abandoning Baby

Too Dumb to Parent: Part 2

Can a Mom be 'Too Dumb' to Parent?

Court Seriously Clamps Down On Homeschooling in California

Taiwanese Agency Quantifies the Amount of Love Kids Need

Parents of Child Who Died in Foster Care Want $20 Million