Racist parents lose custody of children

[BridgeRunner]

...determine that you are being a "poor parent"...

Not quite.  There must be abuse or neglect.  Poor parenting, in the US, is not enough to justify the state taking jurisdiction over one's kids.  Abuse and neglect are actions or lack of actions that have nothing to do with parenting.  Abuse and neglect occurs when people either ignore their kids to a degree that endangers the kids or behave towards their kids in ways that are entirely about the parent.  Most commonly, that's with sex or violence.  In this case, it's (partially) about doing the same thing, but with words and symbols rather than with sex or violence (well, mostly.  Seems like there is no shortage of violence in the household.)

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i keep reading this and getting this twilight zone feeling as i agree with bw.  i suspect we may both be letting the reality of us having kids interfere with our ability to grasp the theoretical principles that are motivating others

[MicroBalrog]

i keep reading this and getting this twilight zone feeling as i agree with bw.  i suspect we may both be letting the reality of us having kids interfere with our ability to grasp the theoretical principles that are motivating others

But then, why do *I* agree with you?

[MechAg94]

Even if we accept, for the purposes of argument, that spanking your children should be legal, children retain a right, limited though it may be, to their own bodies. Inherent in that right is the right not to be used as a human billboard.

Fans of sports teams use their kids as human bill boards all the time.

[BridgeRunner]

Fans of sports teams use their kids as human bill boards all the time.

There is an arguable parental function there.  Family entertainment, teaching about sports, etc. 

The difference from the case at hand is that here there is no possible benefit whatsoever to the child--it exclusively serves the interests of the parent, while harming the child, or opening the child up to harm.

[MechAg94]

I guess I was just surprised the school officials didn't just send the kid home until the stuff was cleaned off.  Though I am curious about what they meant by the conditions at the home. 

I guess I was thinking that there are a lot of somewhat dysfunctional families and parents out there.  Short of physical abuse, I'm not sure where you draw the line. 

[BridgeRunner]

Short of physical abuse, I'm not sure where you draw the line. 

Well, I just got out of a seminar on child abuse/neglect with a family law judge who has been trying to find that line for the past ten years or so.

There is no clear line.  That is why there are so many procedural safeguards.  I don't think that there are necessarily enough of them, and I don't think that justice is served often enough. 

But the fact is that kids should be protected from abuse, and a person can be completely destroyed by abuse without anyone laying a hand on them.  If we're talking about puppies and kittens, then yeah, feed 'em enough, keep 'em warm, don't hit 'em too hard works ok.  Human children require more than that. 

The closest thing to a rule is that when a parent hurts a child or interferes with a child's person or even causes the child extreme emotional difficulty, was that something imposed by the parent in his or her capacity as parent, or exclusively for the parent's (emotional/sexual/physical/financial) gratification?  If it's exclusively for the good of the parent and it hurt the child, then it is somewhat likely to have been abusive.

[Sergeant Bob]

I guess I was thinking that there are a lot of somewhat dysfunctional families and parents out there.  Short of physical abuse, I'm not sure where you draw the line. 

There in lies the problem. Most people aren't sure so, the line gets usually drawn by the control freaks who value "safety and security" more than they do freedom. They like to justify it by saying it's for the children
 

[roo_ster]

There is an arguable parental function there.  Family entertainment, teaching about sports, etc. 

The difference from the case at hand is that here there is no possible benefit whatsoever to the child--it exclusively serves the interests of the parent, while harming the child, or opening the child up to harm.

One thing we have to remember is this is Canada, a country that prosecutes people for "human rights" violations for printing demographic data in magazines.  (Google Mark Steyn & Ezra Levant)

Expecting a sane, rational, and sensible approach is unrealistic.


Why do I get the feeling that if the parents had sent their kids to school with this sort of thing inked onto their skin, they'd not have lost custody?





I wonder if this, "It is battery to send your kid to school as a billboard" idea gets much traction outside the courtrooms of judges who interned at the Children's Defense Fund at Hillary's right hand?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

every once in a while you see a judge with sense.  i saw a judge sit through a very ugly child custody case one time . (motivated by money  the white trash sperm donor found out that his sons grandpa was rich and sick  wanted to ride the gravy train.) after all the land sharking was done he asked to see the kid.  he sat the boy down and asked him who fed him? who dressed him?  who got him ready for school? did home work with him?  the kids answers were all the same. the best question was when he said "son do me a favor go sit in your daddys lap while i think things over." kid did and it was pretty obvious what the final decision was gonna be. kid was about 9 or 10 and judge awarded him to a man who was his stepdad. a single step dad at that having already won custody sole of 3 of his own and this step son from his wife. their mother. interestingly enough the mothers dad paid the legal fees for his son in law to get those kids away from his own daughter.  4 real fine young adults doing well today . i wish i saw it work that well always

[Chuck Dye]

Fans of sports teams use their kids as human bill boards all the time.

I am guessing that Canada, or Manitoba, has not outlawed barracking for one's favorite team as it apparently has outlawed what was written on kiddo.  Many jurisdictions confiscate the tools of the crime.  Given the, ah, "depth" of the article, I freely admit to offering a SWAG.  

From the final paragraphs

"As the case garnered growing media attention that focused on the allegations of racism, the government took pains to stress other concerns. The father rarely worked and the home was filthy. Neither parent was emotionally equipped to provide a proper home, and the children were so neglected the girl frequently missed school because her parents wouldn’t wake up in the morning.

Rivoalen said those issues were a key factor in her decision."  (Italics mine)

it is unclear whether the human billboard incident was the final straw of many. 

Is it just me, or is this a terrifying development for ideological/religious minorities in Canada? 

Probably not.  It is clearly cause for an enjoyable round of recreational histrionics by the usual suspects, though.  (Terrifying?  PUHLEESE!  No wonder the final paragraphs were omitted from the OP.)  Nothing in this thread rises above providing the curious a direction to look.

[BridgeRunner]

It is clearly cause for an enjoyable round of recreational histrionics by the usual suspects, though.  (Terrifying?  PUHLEESE!  No wonder the final paragraphs were omitted from the OP.)  Nothing in this thread rises above providing the curious a direction to look.

Nice and succinct.  I gotta stop using so many words.

[Jamisjockey]

Yes, obviously the judge must follow the law. I simply pointed out that I was discussing actual human rights, not the Canadian interpretation of the concept. As you must know, rights are an ideal that laws should aspire to, not something that laws create or define.   

Well, I guess if you're going to twist my words into anything you want them to say, there's not much point in continuing. Of course, I could respond in kind, and call you a Nazi and such, but such smear tactics bore me. 

Have a nice day.

Let's put it this way:
A cop has authority over you.  He makes you lie there while he draws nazi symbols on your skin with a marker.  Does it matter if you believe in those symbols or not?  The parent has no right to force the child to wear these symbols on thier skin. 

Further, dial back the ad hom, nobody called you a nazi.

[Perd Hapley]

What an absurd comparison.

Further, dial back the ad hom, nobody called you a nazi.

   Feel free to point out any ad hom in my post.  I'm not the one using implications of racism and misogyny in place of an actual argument. 

[Jamisjockey]

What an absurd comparison.

   Feel free to point out any ad hom in my post.  I'm not the one using implications of racism and misogyny in place of an actual argument. 

Well, I guess if you're going to twist my words into anything you want them to say, there's not much point in continuing. Of course, I could respond in kind, and call you a Nazi and such, but such smear tactics bore me. 

I'm not sure what you read into BW's post but nowhere did I see her make an attack on you. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Fisty may be a lot of things, but he ain't racist or sexist.  Implying that he has a problem with rights for blacks or women seems pretty lowdown.

[BridgeRunner]

Well, now I'm bored. 

If whatsisname is going to claim that children do not have basic human rights simply because "[they] don't," then it seems reasonable to point out that others have stated that blacks and women do not have basic human rights simply because they don't. 

The argument implicit in that statement is only effective at all if whatsisname rejects the idea that blacks and women, indeed classes of people at all, do not have basic human rights simply because "they don't."

That's logic, that's what that is. 
It's also virtually identical to the argument put forth by people who are anti-abortion, a group of people that I believe includes whatsisname.

Also, who said anything about nazis, other than whatsisname?  Is no one aware of anyone other than nazis who have denied human rights to people simply by their inclusion in a marginalized group? 

Of course, if you're going to read attacks in anything I say, there isn't a whole lot I can do about it, other than get bored, I guess.  It's getting old.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Voting, driving, deciding what to eat for dinner, getting married, smoking a cigarette, owning property, holding a job, on and on and on and on. Children do not have the basic human rights that adults have.

Now, if you want and confuse that reality with racism/sexism, impugning someone's character in the process, then go right ahead.  Just don't expect the rest of us to go along with that "logic".

[MicroBalrog]

In what reality? What court, where, had accepted this doctrine that children have no rights whatever?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Children do not have the basic human rights that adults have.



thats a perspective often held by those who have not yet spawned, well after they become independant.  while living off mom and dad they commonly think they have extra rights

and while i certainly intend not to make this a habit i second microbalogs question

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Little Johnny:  I want to eat chocolate cake for breakfast!

Mother:  You know better than that.  No cake for breakfast, eat your cereal.

Johnny:  Who are you to tell me what I can and can't eat?!  I have rights and you'd better respect them!

Mother: Ya know, you're right.  I don't get to tell you how to live your life.  Cake it is.

 

[Marnoot]

Both sides here are arguing to absurdity, a bit. The one side here is not saying that "children have no rights whatever", the other is not saying that children have every right that adults do (they obviously do not; contracts, voting, alcohol, etc.). One side is arguing that children have fewer rights than adults, which is true. Though children also have rights that adults don't (or shouldn't). A child has the right to have his/her parent feed them, clothe them, etc.. Whereas adults can't [shouldn't be able to] demand such things when able to care for themselves.

This thread will go nowhere while both sides continue to mis-characterize or reduce-to-the-absurd what the other side is saying.

[lupinus]

Children do not have the basic human rights that adults have.

No, children are not allowed to exorcise some basic human rights because they do not yet have the ability to do so responsibly. It is the parents job, and right, to teach them to do so responsibly when they are old enough to do so.

That does not mean they do not have those rights, it merely means they are not yet in a position to exorcise them. However, not being able to exorcise ones human rights does not mean those rights do not exist.

[MicroBalrog]

I really don't understand what is controversial here. I'm not saying children have the right to do whatever they want. But nowhere – nowhere in the civilized world – is there a legal doctrine stating that children are the property of their parents.  At a minimum, children have a right to their own bodies in the sense that parents are not normally allowed to (for example) tattoo the children or beat them with baseball bats, or kill them. Throughout most of the world, children are at least formally guaranteed a long list of other rights.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm not suggesting that you be allowed to commit crimes against a child, murder them or assault them or whatnot.  Whether children have adult rights or not is independent of whether it's a crime to attack them.