The Worst Bill of This Session

Parenting plans (0.00 / 0)

I had to read HB 217 myself because I thought:  "Surely you exaggerate."  Sadly, you do not.  I am amazed by the ignorance reflected in this legislation.  I worked as a guardian ad litem in another state and know some things for sure:

1. that the vast majority of children removed from the home for abuse and neglect are not leaving an environment that has positively influenced their "education, religious and social training, and general upbringing;"

2. that already overburdened social workers and human services systems don't have the time or resources to "determine . . . the values, wishes, and desires of the parent" and to prepare and implement a detailed "parental values plan" as required by the bill;

3. that qualified foster parents and other temporary caregivers already are scarce and often overwhelmed; and

4. that even though every effort is made to resolve abuse and neglect issues as quickly as possible in the best interests of children, considerable time may elapse between removal and resolution, and the parents should not be "in control" while their case is proceeding. 

Even if parental rights are not terminated and children are ultimately reunified with their parents, in all cases it was determined at the time of removal that the parents were not capable of "controlling" the lives of their children.  It makes no sense to legislatively mandate that they exercise control when there is compelling evidence of abuse and neglect.

In most cases, children are removed because their parents have substance abuse or mental health issues, often both, and the children need protection.  It is in everybody's best interests that the parents follow a parenting plan, not that they impose one. 

---

by: Sharon @ Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 21:19:15 PM UTC

Foster Parents (0.00 / 0)

As a former foster parent, it was made abundantly clear to us that we were required to respect the child's religion and cultural beliefs.  However, if the birth family's values included neglect and abuse, we worked to overcome the damage inflicted.  This bill is utter nonsense.

Also, if the bill about Parent's Rights is to be complete, they shouldn't leave out the Parent's Responsibilities, too.  And the responsibilities should seriously outweigh the rights.

Children are not our property; they are our responsibility to raise as well as we possibly can. And what about children's rights?  The right not to be beaten by parents, ignored by parents, emotionally damaged by parents, and so on. The right to a quality education, nutritious food, affection, support and encouragement?

For crying out loud, this group of white, male, Christians appears to want to treat their wife, children and pets as chattel.  And they want the government to support them in their ownership.

Thanks for letting me rant.

---

by: Deborah @ Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 22:04:33 PM UTC

Missing the point. (0.00 / 0)

I think we might be missing the rather more insidious point here.  This bill would codify personal beliefs and values as statute, open to evidence and action.  In other words, the state would be placed in the position of defending the pass of religion, from one generation to the next.

It's really easy to get blindsided by this kind chicanery.  We all want what's best for the kids, right?  But a parent who abuses or neglects could still claim fundamentalist Christian values, (or Satanism, for that matter) and the state would be charged with defending the passing of those beliefs generationaly.  To that degree, religion becomes a state construct.  This isn't only pragmatically stupid, it is contra-Constitutional.  I've every confidence that that was precisely Lange's intent.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 23:54:56 PM UTC

You know what's really funny about this... (4.00 / 1)

If it was *Satanists* who were abusing their kids and creating a need for foster care, would we ever see this bill? The thing just screams "child abusers and fundamentalist Christians" to me.

---

by: Chris O. @ Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:08:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So (0.00 / 0)

So, if the child was removed form an abusive home where some sort of strange substance induced beating and neglect was the practing norm, are foster parents supposed to abuse and neglect the kid as well?

How would this be enforced?

---

by: Atlas1 @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 02:12:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think ... (0.00 / 0)

you're getting the point, Atlas ... except that there might be a ginormous difference between what a parent does, and what they claim in court.  Kinda a sticky wicket, yes?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 05:23:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]