whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Apr 27, 2011 17:20:39 GMT -5
Agree 100%. Unfortunately we have become VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY forgiving country.
Instead of numerous "children's advocate" agencies, I would very much like to see a "matching" agency that will take children away from unfit parents and match them with people who now go overseas to adopt.
Lena
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,745
|
Post by raeoflyte on Apr 27, 2011 17:30:47 GMT -5
Birth control is here. Many loving wanna-be parents can't find a baby to adopt. Greatly reduce/eliminate welfare and once again - becoming a parent is going to be a hard, life changing decision.Again though - it's the kids who suffer for that if the parents choose not to step up to their responsibilities. It's not like people will have fewer kids they can't support, they'll just have unhappier kids. And I personally think that if you make enough stupid choices, you should forfeit some of your freedom to continue making stupid choices. If you got six DUIs and they hadn't yet taken your license away, wouldn't you say that they SHOULD have? There just isn't anyway that this could happen while insuring people's basic rights. I babysat for 2 biological brothers, who were adopted by my friends (lesbians--gasp!). They were child 5 and 6 from the same bio-mom/dad. It's a sad story, and yes I'd like to sterilize bio-mom herself (all but 1 kid was a meth-baby, and the one that wasn't is because she was in jail) but sad as it is, I'm not willing to give that power to a 3rd party who gets to dictate who is good enough to reproduce and who isn't. The topic is near and dear to me because I strongly feel that I wouldn't be given the privilege of having kids simply for not be straight. When we were looking at adoption only about half of the counties would even accept our application.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 27, 2011 17:34:27 GMT -5
The topic is near and dear to me because I strongly feel that I wouldn't be given the privilege of having kids simply for not be straight. When we were looking at adoption only about half of the counties would even accept our application.
That's a different problem. Being turned down because you don't have the resources to adopt is legitimate. Being turned down because of your sexuality is discrimination, pure and simple.
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,745
|
Post by raeoflyte on Apr 27, 2011 17:42:27 GMT -5
The topic is near and dear to me because I strongly feel that I wouldn't be given the privilege of having kids simply for not be straight. When we were looking at adoption only about half of the counties would even accept our application. That's a different problem. Being turned down because you don't have the resources to adopt is legitimate. Being turned down because of your sexuality is discrimination, pure and simple. I'm a very trusting person, but I still can't see how anything would stay that simple. How much money do I need to make to be able to afford a baby? If I can't get joint health insurance with my partner we typically pay more. (We even pay more if we can as the amount the employer pays for the partner is imputed income, but in my experience it was nominal). My point without completing hijacking the thread is that discrimination and abuse of power would happen if we had laws like this. China tried it and baby girls were killed or abandoned.... I really don't care about social engineering, and doubt many people actually think about how much a l/o will affect their taxes, but I would be fine with tax laws that do not favor additional dependents. That is quite a bit different than dictating how people can live their life.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,868
|
Post by zibazinski on Apr 27, 2011 17:52:37 GMT -5
You can have as many babies as you like as long as you can afford them. If you cannot, then they are removed and put up for adoption. No one is interfering with your right to breed just your right to have others support your "right."
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 27, 2011 18:00:57 GMT -5
How much money do I need to make to be able to afford a baby?
I think "enough to not need any form of welfare program to support your kids, barring unforeseeable changes" is the only reasonable standard we can have, at least in the beginning.
And zib is right, you could continue to have the kids but if you couldn't afford them then they would be adopted.
I'm not saying this would, could, or even necessarily SHOULD happen. I just don't like the current system that rewards people for breeding when they can't afford it. However, it's that same system that keeps kids from going hungry when their parents are idiots - and switching to a different one would cause a host of different problems.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Apr 27, 2011 18:11:22 GMT -5
I think "enough to not need any form of welfare program to support your kids, barring unforeseeable changes" is the only reasonable standard we can have, at least in the beginning. And if I have a good job when my wife gets pregnant, but lose it right before she gives birth, do I lose my child or would I get a grace period to find another job? If I did lose them, would I get them back when I found another job? How many times are we going to bounce kids back and forth between a biological and adoptive home? I'm no child psychologist, but I'm pretty sure that sort of thing isn't healthy. It might not be a big deal when we're talking about newborns, but it definitely affects older kids. If I have kids and a good job for a decade, but then get laid off, do I lose my kids immediately, or would I again get a grace period? Would we determine "make enough to be able to afford a baby" according to a standard set locally or federally? Income only or all assets? What if I make under that amount by a little bit but my parents agree to help me out until I can get up to the line, OK, or off the kids go to adoptive parents?
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 27, 2011 18:16:30 GMT -5
It might not be a big deal when we're talking about newborns, but it definitely affects older kids. If I have kids and a good job for a decade, but then get laid off, do I lose my kids immediately, or would I again get a grace period? Would we determine "make enough to be able to afford a baby" according to a standard set locally or federally? Income only or all assets? What if I make under that amount by a little bit but my parents agree to help me out until I can get up to the line, OK, or off the kids go to adoptive parents?
I don't have all the answers, hence my comment that I don't know that this could, would, or even SHOULD happen. But I would lean toward a pretty generous grace period. Say two years. Once you had the baby, if circumstances forced you to go on welfare, you still get to keep your kids for two years. If you haven't gotten off welfare by then, it is possible that your children will be taken from your home on a temporary basis (like foster care) and you'd have x number of years to get back on your feet and get them back before they were permanently adopted.
I know it sounds harsh but if I were a parent that would be a pretty damn good motivator for me to get up off my ass and find another job so I wouldn't get my kids taken away. Sort of the opposite motivation of welfare.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Apr 27, 2011 19:00:08 GMT -5
I grew up on welfare, and I think I've turned out alright. I also saw a lot of pretty blatant abuse and entitlement mentality going on. I'm actually much less supportive of welfare programs than my wife who grew up in an upper middle class stable household. All that said, I get really skeeved out by the idea of the government dictating who can and can't have kids, keep their kids (except in abusive and dangerous situations obviously), or what is required to raise kids.
|
|
|
Post by bobbysgirl on Apr 27, 2011 19:35:54 GMT -5
Let's see now, mom won't raise my allowance. I will fix her. I will skip school so she gets thrown in jail. That will show her! Yep, seems like a good law to me. What do they want the parent to do - chain the kid to a desk when they drop them off? Bingo!! What happened to a person being responsible for their own actions. This world is so messed up.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 19:20:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2011 19:38:09 GMT -5
Yeah... mom won't raise my allowance... i think i'll try foster care instead...
So why then are TEACHERS responsible for the kids' actions? If the parents can't be held responsible? ...
|
|
|
Post by bobbysgirl on Apr 27, 2011 19:39:04 GMT -5
It might not be a big deal when we're talking about newborns, but it definitely affects older kids. If I have kids and a good job for a decade, but then get laid off, do I lose my kids immediately, or would I again get a grace period? Would we determine "make enough to be able to afford a baby" according to a standard set locally or federally? Income only or all assets? What if I make under that amount by a little bit but my parents agree to help me out until I can get up to the line, OK, or off the kids go to adoptive parents? I don't have all the answers, hence my comment that I don't know that this could, would, or even SHOULD happen. But I would lean toward a pretty generous grace period. Say two years. Once you had the baby, if circumstances forced you to go on welfare, you still get to keep your kids for two years. If you haven't gotten off welfare by then, it is possible that your children will be taken from your home on a temporary basis (like foster care) and you'd have x number of years to get back on your feet and get them back before they were permanently adopted. I know it sounds harsh but if I were a parent that would be a pretty damn good motivator for me to get up off my ass and find another job so I wouldn't get my kids taken away. Sort of the opposite motivation of welfare. What the hey is the matter with you? What about the damage being moved around in foster homes does to children. All to save the almighty dollar.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 19:20:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2011 19:40:40 GMT -5
And the thing is, our foster care program sucks the big one... it is horrible...
|
|
azphx1972
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 2, 2011 22:08:36 GMT -5
Posts: 809
|
Post by azphx1972 on Apr 27, 2011 19:53:20 GMT -5
This message has been deleted.
ETA: I'm going to start a new thread to discuss this.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,868
|
Post by zibazinski on Apr 28, 2011 8:08:16 GMT -5
Foster care is way better than these "homes" they are removed from.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 19:20:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2011 9:41:22 GMT -5
If that was true, i'd be for it more zib... but all to often they are actually WORSE... if not always in the same way... sorry... do a little research... i can give you some sources if you are interested.
I am not saying there are no good foster homes... there are some great foster parents... but as a whole... the system is highly dysfunctional....
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 28, 2011 10:30:58 GMT -5
Oped, frugal, I agree with you guys. The foster care system in this country is all messed up. There are genuinely wonderful people who want to foster children, but not nearly enough of them.
You have to understand, the goal of the kind of system I was outlining yesterday wouldn't be "get more kids in foster care!" Instead, it would be "get more parents to take responsibility for their own offspring by threatening serious consequences if they don't!" Ideally, we would come to a point where the threat of having your kids taken away wasn't even something the average parent would have reason to fear.
Unfortunately I know a lot of parents who are incredibly lazy and determined to ride the gravy train of the system as far as it will take them. However, they really do love their kids. And faced with the choice of learning to provide for them on their own or losing them completely, I really believe they would step up and learn to get themselves off welfare. It's amazing what people can do with really negative potential consequences staring them in the face if they don't.
The current system has the opposite motivation. Not only do you not have to worry that the state will take your kids if you can't feed them, the state will give you MORE money to feed them the more you have. And again, there are advantages to that system (mainly that children don't have to suffer for their parents' bad decisions) but there are gaping holes in it as well.
|
|
qofcc
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:30:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,869
|
Post by qofcc on Apr 28, 2011 10:36:24 GMT -5
If the goal is to get people off welfare, I don't think threatening to take away their kids is the right way to do it. Requiring them to work to earn the welfare money (or be enrolled n school with passing grades) while their children are in school or government provided daycare would be a better motivator. If they're choosing between picking up trash on the highway for their cash assistance money or flipping burgers for minimum wage, they'll probably choose flipping burgers.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 28, 2011 10:36:48 GMT -5
I grew up on welfare, and I think I've turned out alright. I also saw a lot of pretty blatant abuse and entitlement mentality going on. I'm actually much less supportive of welfare programs than my wife who grew up in an upper middle class stable household. All that said, I get really skeeved out by the idea of the government dictating who can and can't have kids, keep their kids (except in abusive and dangerous situations obviously), or what is required to raise kids.
If everyone took childbearing seriously, the way it's meant to be taken, I'd agree with you. But they don't. Some people aren't mature enough to have children - and again, it's one thing if you rise to the opportunity and grow up quickly. But many don't, and the kids continue to grow up in a poverty cycle because they don't know any better.
I'm not okay with that. Do I have a better idea? Not really. But I don't like the way things are now, either.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 28, 2011 10:39:22 GMT -5
If the goal is to get people off welfare, I don't think threatening to take away their kids is the right way to do it. Requiring them to work to earn the welfare money (or be enrolled n school with passing grades) while their children are in school or government provided daycare would be a better motivator. If they're choosing between picking up trash on the highway for their cash assistance money or flipping burgers for minimum wage, they'll probably choose flipping burgers.
That could work too. I'm in favor of ANYTHING that provides serious motivation to get off welfare and disincentivizes having more children to get more welfare. I didn't say my way was the only way.
I just know an awful lot of parents that, while they're totally okay with being lazy as long as the system will let them, would do whatever was necessary to keep their kids. Sure, they'd scream at the injustice of it all - but at the end of the day, they would get a job and start providing for their own families if the alternative was losing those families.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,868
|
Post by zibazinski on Apr 28, 2011 11:24:31 GMT -5
I see a lot of foster homes as a GAL. I have also seen the homes children have been removed from. Worlds apart.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,868
|
Post by zibazinski on Apr 28, 2011 11:24:46 GMT -5
I see a lot of foster homes as a GAL. I have also seen the homes children have been removed from. Worlds apart.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,868
|
Post by zibazinski on Apr 28, 2011 11:25:28 GMT -5
oops, sorry for double post.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 19:20:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2011 11:33:46 GMT -5
While in foster care, Colby was also diagnosed as bipolar. According to his medical records, he was taking as many as four medications at the same time that gave him seizures. "I woke up at the hospital with something stuck in my arm," Colby says. He is not alone. "I found babies, 2-year olds, 3-year olds being given mind-altering drugs," says Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Texas' state comptroller. Strayhorn conducted her own two-year investigation into allegations that foster kids in Texas are overmedicated. "Children in foster care in Texas are dying. Children in foster care are being drugged," Strayhorn says. There are similar allegations being made in California, Ohio and Florida. www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/18/eveningnews/main2104249.shtmlwww.liftingtheveil.org/foster04.htmon and on and on... Like i said... its not there are no good foster homes... but systemically... it is not a good system...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 19:20:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2011 11:49:45 GMT -5
Would you make a child eat a vegan diet? I don't know much about that aspect... I assume there must be some vegetarian children in the system?
I know I won't do this when i still have kids at home... especially since i figure i'd have to send the foster kid to school...? don't know much about that either...
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Apr 28, 2011 11:50:26 GMT -5
Oped, are you a foster parent?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 19:20:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2011 12:08:26 GMT -5
No. I won't do it while i have kids at home, or at least not at the current ages... I have considered it as a possibilty later... will obvously depend on how things go... but i recognize there is a problem with the system, and understand that it will continue to be that way unless people step up to try to make it better... provide better environments than some of the ones that exist / advocate for kids...
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,868
|
Post by zibazinski on Apr 28, 2011 12:12:07 GMT -5
As a GAL, I watched for this sort of thing. By the time the kids are FINALLY rescued from their "home" they are pretty messed up. Thanks to the laws that protect "parents" rights over their kids "rights" to safe and good home, it takes years of boomeranging before kids are finally removed permanently from these "parents." Kids are pretty messed up by then. The only ones removed at an early enough age to perhaps be salvaged are the ones whose parents crimes were so heinous that even the "law" can't look the other way. The doctors that take Medicaid are lousy. Drugs are cheaper than therapy. As a GAL, I can demand a good doctor and therapy for kids. Social workers have to ask-nicely-and just maybe it'll get granted but the repercussions for them asking can be challenging. No one can touch me so I have no such issues. I can do what is right for my clients without worrying about my job or promotion.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Apr 28, 2011 12:37:48 GMT -5
What is GAL?
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 28, 2011 13:03:35 GMT -5
Guardian ad litem.
|
|