The Government Thinks This Couple Isn't Smart Enough to Be Parents(reason.com)
reason.com
The Government Thinks This Couple Isn't Smart Enough to Be Parents
http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/20/oregon-has-decided-this-couple-isnt-smar
3 comments
>Its sad, but the question we need to ask is, does the government have an obligation to provide the best opportunity for the child?
I don't think so. The government has the obligation to preserve the general welfare and public order - providing opportunities for any particular child is entirely the obligation of their parents and community.
Unless there's an actual law being broken - and as far as I know, being mentally incapacitated is no crime, and according to the article, there were no signs of abuse - then the government shouldn't get involved.
I don't think so. The government has the obligation to preserve the general welfare and public order - providing opportunities for any particular child is entirely the obligation of their parents and community.
Unless there's an actual law being broken - and as far as I know, being mentally incapacitated is no crime, and according to the article, there were no signs of abuse - then the government shouldn't get involved.
"Reason" always does this. They cherry pick and exaggerate like crazy.
That's fucking awful. Would love to see the state step in and take children from families where parents are working more than 40 hours a week.
Seems like leaving your child to their own devices is much more irresponsible than parents with low-IQ. After all, dumb parents being present are better than no parents.
Seems like leaving your child to their own devices is much more irresponsible than parents with low-IQ. After all, dumb parents being present are better than no parents.
> Would love to see the state step in and take children from families where parents are working more than 40 hours a week.
I'd rather the state step in and align the economic incentives so people don't feel the need to do that as much (though 40hrs—presumably per week—is a pretty low maximum threshold.) The state isn't much good at substituting for parents.
> Seems like leaving your child to their own devices is much more irresponsible than parents with low-IQ.
Probably, at least for very young children or somewhat older children for extended periods. But working doesn't inherently imply leaving your child to their own devices while you do that, even if both parents are working at the same time.
I'd rather the state step in and align the economic incentives so people don't feel the need to do that as much (though 40hrs—presumably per week—is a pretty low maximum threshold.) The state isn't much good at substituting for parents.
> Seems like leaving your child to their own devices is much more irresponsible than parents with low-IQ.
Probably, at least for very young children or somewhat older children for extended periods. But working doesn't inherently imply leaving your child to their own devices while you do that, even if both parents are working at the same time.
This is wrong morally and politically.
I usually find Reason pretty, well, reasonable.
But I think this article is potentially misleading, if unintentionally.
I do these sorts of evaluations professionally routinely, in exactly these sorts of cases.
The state (at least my state) doesn't take children away because of low cognitive ability. They take them away because there's some danger to the children, and low cognitive ability is found to be a contributing factor that's unlikely to go away.
72 and 66 are not just below average, as the article portrays. It's about 2sd below average.
I've seen exactly these sorts of cases, and they're extremely, extremely sad because the parents love their children and truly want the best for them. But when you see the consequences of not intervening, it's often even more sad.
This may be a case where the state screwed up. That happens, and it seems from the Oregonian story that there's disagreement among social workers about their parenting abilities, so it's possible it's in a very grey area.
Lost in the Reason story and buried in the Oregonian story, though, is that the state has a duty to protect the children's privacy usually. It states that they removed the recent child from the parents' care in the hospital without them even being able to take the child home.
In my experience, that often happens when something serious happens to the child in the hospital (for example, hospital staff witness something very threatening or concerning to them). If there was some doubt, given the previous history of involvement, child protection would be more likely to lean toward acting out of caution.
Critically, though, neither child protection nor the hospital would say a peep about this to the press, to protect the child's privacy. So what it would look like from the outside is that the state just came in and took the child away, and isn't providing any explanation for what triggered the removal.
It's also possible this case isn't really over. Children get taken away for long periods of time and then are returned, as long as there aren't permanent decisions in the court system.
I've seen a lot of these types of scenarios, and the reporting on this seems potentially misleading, even if well intended. Although the impression the press is giving could be accurate, I'd want to see a lot more information before I'd pass judgment.
But I think this article is potentially misleading, if unintentionally.
I do these sorts of evaluations professionally routinely, in exactly these sorts of cases.
The state (at least my state) doesn't take children away because of low cognitive ability. They take them away because there's some danger to the children, and low cognitive ability is found to be a contributing factor that's unlikely to go away.
72 and 66 are not just below average, as the article portrays. It's about 2sd below average.
I've seen exactly these sorts of cases, and they're extremely, extremely sad because the parents love their children and truly want the best for them. But when you see the consequences of not intervening, it's often even more sad.
This may be a case where the state screwed up. That happens, and it seems from the Oregonian story that there's disagreement among social workers about their parenting abilities, so it's possible it's in a very grey area.
Lost in the Reason story and buried in the Oregonian story, though, is that the state has a duty to protect the children's privacy usually. It states that they removed the recent child from the parents' care in the hospital without them even being able to take the child home.
In my experience, that often happens when something serious happens to the child in the hospital (for example, hospital staff witness something very threatening or concerning to them). If there was some doubt, given the previous history of involvement, child protection would be more likely to lean toward acting out of caution.
Critically, though, neither child protection nor the hospital would say a peep about this to the press, to protect the child's privacy. So what it would look like from the outside is that the state just came in and took the child away, and isn't providing any explanation for what triggered the removal.
It's also possible this case isn't really over. Children get taken away for long periods of time and then are returned, as long as there aren't permanent decisions in the court system.
I've seen a lot of these types of scenarios, and the reporting on this seems potentially misleading, even if well intended. Although the impression the press is giving could be accurate, I'd want to see a lot more information before I'd pass judgment.
"According to child welfare records provided by the couple, Ziegler "has been sleeping with the baby on the floor and almost rolled over on him. There were also reports that Eric is easily frustrated and often forgets to feed his dog.""
Its sad, but the question we need to ask is, does the government have an obligation to provide the best opportunity for the child? If so, given that the mothers mother is dead and her father is quite old, and that both parent suffer difficulties, maybe this is the least worst option for the child and the parents.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2...