Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Another update: the Naugler kids are back with their parents, though the state retains legal custody (not physical custody)."
I see this as a reasonable solution. The government doesn't do a very good job of raising children, we've seen it over and over again. Warts and all, the children are better off with their family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d
Which means that the parents have to be on their best behavior and not slide back into their neglectful ways.
Exactly, which makes it a good compromise.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
They are no different than kids raised in hippie communes, well except they look a lot cleaner. The parents are cooperating, so I expect they will get their kids back.
It is a lot more complicated than just cooperating. I've known mothers who did every single thing demanded of the case plan. The government is all like 'yeah, you did your case plan, but that's not good enough' and then they never get the kids back anyway. I definitely know how that is in KY. The government will even insist the parents did the case plan only to get the kids back. So complying doesn't mean squat. You can kiss the government's behind and they still won't give the kids back. The states get federal grant money for every kid they adopt out. Taking kids is a cash cow for them.
If the kids were in any danger they wouldn't have been allowed to return to the home. Either they are being abused or they aren't,,, neglected or they aren't. There's no such thing as "excusable abuse and neglect"... or is there? That's like being "a little bit pregnant".
Children from neglectful homes, where the state retains legal custody or some other means of oversight of the children, can often be returned very successfully to their home. They are much happier at home with their parents, whom they love and who love them, but now in a situation where the dangers created by neglect, whether purposeful or due to ignorance, are controlled. It meets the goal of doing what is in the best interest of the child. These are not children that were ever in danger because their parents were violent or physically abusive, they were in danger because they weren't being safeguarded. The cheapest and best way for the state to safeguard children in this type of situation is to place the children back in the home with an assigned caseworker who checks up on them, after making sure the parents understand the repercussions of defying the caseworker or court.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Very interesting replies from both sides. I guess in the US we have decided that if you aren't living a lifestyle equivalent to 1980s US you are neglecting your children.
They plan to work until they are mid 30s then buy land, build a cabin, and raise their family off the grid. Are people ok with this? If so, why? Because they took a more conventional route?
Very interesting replies from both sides. I guess in the US we have decided that if you aren't living a lifestyle equivalent to 1980s US you are neglecting your children.
They plan to work until they are mid 30s then buy land, build a cabin, and raise their family off the grid. Are people ok with this? If so, why? Because they took a more conventional route?
There is a difference between living off-the-grid or frugally in a shelter and living in squalor where your children are exposed to raw sewage, or other unsanitary practices, with no established shelter. People who choose to live off-the-grid have to also be willing to work hard, one or both of the parents in the Naugler family failed to step up to the plate.
It's not that the couple whose website you displayed are going a more convential route, it is that they are going a better thought out, planned, and prepared route.
By the way, I just love how these folks who want to "live of-the-grid" can't seem to give up their computers or social media. A little hypocritical, ya think?
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Children from neglectful homes, where the state retains legal custody or some other means of oversight of the children, can often be returned very successfully to their home. They are much happier at home with their parents, whom they love and who love them, but now in a situation where the dangers created by neglect, whether purposeful or due to ignorance, are controlled. It meets the goal of doing what is in the best interest of the child. These are not children that were ever in danger because their parents were violent or physically abusive, they were in danger because they weren't being safeguarded. The cheapest and best way for the state to safeguard children in this type of situation is to place the children back in the home with an assigned caseworker who checks up on them, after making sure the parents understand the repercussions of defying the caseworker or court.
You gotta love the black and white thinking you were responding to. As if there are never shades of grey. As if neglect can never be the product of ignorance or lack of resources rather than malice or drugs. Sigh.
Very interesting replies from both sides. I guess in the US we have decided that if you aren't living a lifestyle equivalent to 1980s US you are neglecting your children.
They plan to work until they are mid 30s then buy land, build a cabin, and raise their family off the grid. Are people ok with this? If so, why? Because they took a more conventional route?
Sigh. Have you read the entire thread? The "cabin" didn't even meet basic third-world standards, and certainly wouldn't have protected the family in the winter. Basic sanitation was not taken care of. The children were largely unsupervised and left to wander among livestock and an open pond.
People live off the grid all the time with no problem. These parents had no idea how to do it safely, and their children were both neglected and endangered. It had nothing to do with a "1980s" standard of living.
What if it's water animals defecated and urinated in?
Using manure is one thing letting it fly willy nilly in the drinking water is another.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
