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.
Kids do not get removed from the home because of "dirty dishes in the sink." Maybe there were dirty dishes, in a roach infested house, with no clean clothes or bedding, dog ***** on the floor, oh and the kid had belt marks all over his backside, not to mention the drugs hidden in a bedroom.
Kids do not get taken away because of dirty dishes.
I do not condone the killing and think the loss of life is sad.
But yeah, Vermont is widely known as a very communistic state. The parent may have took offense at the taking of her child, maybe for a very unjustified reason.
Sorry what do you mean "communistic state?"
"Communistic state" ( i.e. the USSR) didn't have any of it - i.e. the forceful removal of children from families. It's very capitalist practice in essence; former Soviet states got it only after they became Americanized.
This practice is essentially directed against the poor; how many children living in wealthy families, in private houses behind the "picked fences" are taken into custody by state in this manner?
The reason "communistic state" was not taking children away from their parents was because "communistic state" was guaranteeing every parent ( every single mother including) a job with convenient hours, a place to live ( i.e. a roof over their head) day-cares free of charge, schooling ( with after-hours if necessary,) extra-curricular activities for children and so on. So since the state was making sure that all the basics for children were covered even in the poorest families, it couldn't make target of any parent for "inadequate care" of a child; "dirty dishes in a sink" or not. ( Unless, of course, a mother was drunk day after day, which was quite rare.)
So no, it's a very capitalist practice indeed, not "communistic."
Kids do not get removed from the home because of "dirty dishes in the sink." Maybe there were dirty dishes, in a roach infested house, with no clean clothes or bedding, dog ***** on the floor, oh and the kid had belt marks all over his backside, not to mention the drugs hidden in a bedroom.
Kids do not get taken away because of dirty dishes.
And I would like to know more about any case in which a child was supposedly taken from a mother for failing to protect it from the father who was beating it and her, and then given to the father.
And I would like to know more about any case in which a child was supposedly taken from a mother for failing to protect it from the father who was beating it and her, and then given to the father.
I volunteered at a DV shelter. Beating the child too? Probably not. Beating just the mother? Unfortunately, there are far too many examples of that. The more common scenario though is that the children end up with neither parent. Part of the problem is that many of those mothers who have to be forced to leave an abusive husband are mentally unstable, whether because of the abuse or because the willingness to live in an abusive situation was just one more symptom of their underlying mental illness. By the time a woman ends up in a DV shelter a large number of them, for a variety of reasons, are incapable of taking care of themselves, let alone children. That is one of those ugly truths people don't like to talk about.
But, what is not a dispute is that witnessing domestic violence is extremely traumatic for children and has both short term and long term negative consequences.
Regardless, her killing other humans because she didn't like the outcome of a court case erases any doubt that removing those children from her custody was justified.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
The way they bear false witness to steal children I am surprised it doesn't happen more often. And the parents can jump through every hoop in the case plan trying to get the children back and they will make excuses to terminate parental rights anyway.
I used to try to help mothers get their kids back. They were taken for frivolous reasons like dirty dishes in the sink, stuff that happens from time to time in just about every household without a dishwasher, or the mothers would lose the children after leaving an abusive husband or boyfriend. Every single one of the mothers complied with the case plan. Not a single one of them were able to get their kids back. Not one. I had to stop helping because it was too hard to see them go through that.
My 'favorite' scenario was the ones who left abusers. The mothers were charged with "failure to protect" because the mothers were beaten in the same home with their children. Then, the government gave the children to the abuser because he was considered more stable and she was staying in a battered women's shelter. So, the abuser is considered a better parent than the victim. Someone who beats the children's mother is considered better than the mother who takes the children with her to the shelter to get away from the parent who beats her. Why is the government not guilty of "failure to protect" then? If he's not so bad then why is she being punished for failing to protect her children from him?
States receive federal grant money for each child they steal. It's a cash racket. And a lot of the children end up having to be chemically sedated because they're traumatized so bad from being stolen from their parents.
The more common scenario is that children end up hurt or emotionally damaged because the emphasis is on keeping the family intact/family reunification, which means they aren't removed soon enough. And even when they are removed, they are often returned too soon, there are too cases where "second chances become third, fourth, tenth chances, and they linger for years in a limbo between foster care and being with toxic parents. There are far too many cases where they didn't terminate parental rights soon enough.
Quote:
The DCF has dealt with recent criticisms over its handling of cases, which prompted a new law.
A special legislative committee was set up to investigate the state child welfare system after the deaths last year of two toddlers who had been involved with DCF, 2-year-old Dezirae Sheldon, of Poultney, and 15-month-old Peighton Geraw, of Winooski. Murder charges are pending against Dezirae's stepfather and Peighton's mother, who have pleaded not guilty.
The new child safety law shifts the state's priority in protecting children, focusing on their well-being instead of on an imperative to reunite them with their families.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
I do not condone the killing and think the loss of life is sad.
But yeah, Vermont is widely known as a very communistic state. The parent may have took offense at the taking of her child, maybe for a very unjustified reason.
Uh, Vermont has a very liberal gun law, you cannot just state Vermont is socialist or whatever. Frankly, it sounds like you are ignorant of politics in New England.
Last edited by FlowerPower00; 08-09-2015 at 02:57 PM..
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.
It gets worse ......
