Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(32,021 posts)
Thu Apr 2, 2015, 07:10 PM Apr 2015

California court issues ruling about out-of-control kids

Source: AP

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The state can remove an out-of-control child from the custody of a parent even if the mother or father is not to blame for the child's behavior, a California appeals court said Thursday.

If children face substantial risk of harming themselves, it doesn't matter whether the parent did anything intentional to put them in that position, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled.

"When a child thereby faces a substantial risk of serious physical harm, a parent's inability to supervise or protect a child is enough by itself to invoke the juvenile court's dependency jurisdiction," the court said in its 3-0 ruling.

The ruling came in the case of an unnamed Los Angeles County mother whose teen daughter repeatedly ran away from home and had a child at the age of 15. The appellate court said the girl remained incorrigible despite her mother's best efforts, which included looking for her each time she left home, sending her to live with her grandparents and calling the police and Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services for help.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9b3549643aef4d9385e8be182759e323/california-court-issues-ruling-about-out-control-kids

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
1. I don't think I like this. At the least the parents should
Thu Apr 2, 2015, 07:15 PM
Apr 2015

Have some consideration before yanking the child from the home.

RKP5637

(67,108 posts)
2. I felt the same, but I was thinking there are probably so many mixed
Thu Apr 2, 2015, 07:25 PM
Apr 2015

emotions involved that the parents might not be able to make the best decision. That, of course, assumes those making the decisions for the state are reputable and not jerks.

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
3. That's true. I guess bottom line is we wait to see first case
Thu Apr 2, 2015, 07:30 PM
Apr 2015

and hope they are making correct assessments with regards to the child or children. It seems so "cross your fingers" though.

Xithras

(16,191 posts)
11. The parents really shouldn't get consideration in some cases.
Fri Apr 3, 2015, 12:22 PM
Apr 2015

The role of the state is to protect the child. Ultimately, if securing the best outcome for the child means harming the parent or parents, that is what has to happen.

The only real question that needs to be asked is this: Can the state do a better job at solving the behavior problem than the parent can?

In cases like the one in the excerpt, I think the answer is actually NO. If the parent is actively trying to get the kid under control and can't do it, I can't see how the state will be any more successful than the parents.

On the other hand, I've met a lot of parents over the years who genuinely don't give a damn about their kids. The kids are running with gangs, using drugs, terrorizing the neighborhood and other kids, and yet the parents won't do a thing about it. I know a guy, right now, whose kids have been in and out of juvie many times for assaults, drug dealing, burglaries, etc. He doesn't even TRY to intervene or be a parent, and if you ask him why he'll just shrug his shoulders and say, "It won't make a difference. They're just going to do whatever they want to do anyway." Kids in situations like this can often be turned around with the right intervention.

BobTheSubgenius

(11,563 posts)
4. Someone I know very, very well was in similar circumstances.
Thu Apr 2, 2015, 08:27 PM
Apr 2015

She was a social worker that worked with children, so it wasn't like she didn't know the "textbook" solutions. Her elder daughter was everyone's dream of a daughter. OK, not everyone, but most. Cheerleader, honour roll every term, valedictorian, home-coming queen, excellent musician. You get the idea. She had been a very successful parent, as well as having the theoretical training that came after she had had her kids.

Her younger sister was hell on wheels. Actually, Hell On Wheels. Constantly truant, wandered off for days at a time, thought nothing of stealing what wasn't nailed down, even if she could be sure she would be caught - one day, she left home wearing her mother's Rx eyeglasses, even though she had perfect vision - and, very disturbing, using her much-older-than-her-years looks to date guys several years older than her 13 years. She was incorrigible.

After living with relatives turned out to not be the answer, there was no other solution than to let the state have a try.

Happily, while she is still a bit flaky at times, she is a responsible mother of two little girls that she takes VERY good care of and has fierce pride in, and.....against the odds....looks like she is going to make it into her 30's. Not all these stories have such happy endings....and there are a LOT of these stories.

brett_jv

(1,245 posts)
5. AND GIVE THEM TO WHO?!?
Thu Apr 2, 2015, 10:01 PM
Apr 2015

That's what I'd like to know?

If the state can prove the parent is negligent, fine. But if they can't? Who the hell are they going to hand over these kids TO, that's likely to do a better job (and in fact, aren't we discussing cases where 'the job' the parent is doing ... is not even the issue?).

This makes zero sense to me. Troubled kids I'd think are going to be far MORE likely to remain troubled if taken from their parents ... unless the parents are just demonstrably doing a terrible job.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
6. I am also interested in what they do with these kids after they are removed from the home. I would
Thu Apr 2, 2015, 10:58 PM
Apr 2015

assume foster care or group homes. But last I heard doesn't California still have some of its institutions open?

XemaSab

(60,212 posts)
7. We need programs to send troubled kids out into the woods for months on end
Fri Apr 3, 2015, 12:07 AM
Apr 2015

There's hella areas that need thinning.

5 troubled teens, 5 chainsaws, 5 square miles, and 5 months to clear that action.

I think that would knock a lot of the bullshit out of some of these kids.

cynzke

(1,254 posts)
9. That Is Not A Bad Idea!
Fri Apr 3, 2015, 09:45 AM
Apr 2015

Isolate and reform. Separate them from society for a time....from friends, the streets, the destructive environments that re-enforce and perpetuate their behavior. They need to be away from distractions and where there is always someone to takes care of them with no responsibility on their part to do anything. These kids never learn to take responsibility for their lives. They need A BIG TIME OUT, where they are confronted with the mess their lives are in and forced to deal with that themselves. Like a drunk who has sobered up and looks at himself honestly.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
10. Labor camps, what a refreshingly progressive idea!
Fri Apr 3, 2015, 11:21 AM
Apr 2015

If we ran out of forests we could always outsource to Siberia.

mntleo2

(2,535 posts)
15. Sooo, the state believes ~ what?
Sat Apr 11, 2015, 07:51 AM
Apr 2015

Last edited Sat Apr 11, 2015, 08:46 AM - Edit history (2)

That the State of CA believe it can do a better job than good parents who are working at incorrigible behavior with all they can do? This is ridiculous! The government are terrible parents! For the most part foster care and adoption is a failure for most kids because it removes them from their roots. It is no secret that foster and adopted kids are more likely to drop out of school, become substances abusers, become homeless, become teen parents, got to jail and become mentally ill when they are removed form their families. It is also known that if left in their families with services and support, even when the parent as substance abuse issues, the child will have a better chance at thriving.

In the the 9th Circuit Court case Los Angeles County VS Humphrey if you read the comments the court made at that time, they said they lacked any trust that the State could even make decent decisions because they have no accountability. In other words they face no consequences for their failure, which are myriad ~ and this is the way it is in all states, CA is no different than any other state in the Union.

This is because the courts have the hubris to give more power to themselves than they do for parents, which used to be a sacred family right. Not so much anymore since the laws have been corrupted. This is because of course, (sarcasm here) since the child is acting out, well whether they can legally find fault with their parents or not, the unspoken assumption is that the parents are a fault and gave bad parenting doncha know.

Listen People you need to understand a few things about what has happened to the law since the 1980s when the witch hunt over child satanic sex abuse hysteria was all the rage. In the McMartin case, which was later debunked and found to be all lies, the media was all over it and every inch of the clown show was followed nationally. There were similar witch hunt cases in Washington State and Massachusetts as well ~ all of them exposed as pure baloney.

The so-called mental health "experts" were using a now lampooned "therapy" where they experimented on children with what is now called "false memory retrieval". This is where the "therapist" suggestively got kids to "remember" sexual abuse as infants and when they were very young that they supposedly had traumatically "forgotten". Now they know (and so do the kids as adults) that in truth the kids were just trying to please and/or shut up the therapists, police, and social workers who hounded these kids sometimes for hours asking over and over the same questions until they got the answers they wanted. Here is the worse part: then they presented this so-called "forgotten memories" in court as fact meaning that it carried the same legal weight as a DNA test would carry.

Why is using this claptrap therapy as fact significant in this case? Because even though it was debunked, those court findings still exist as fact on the record and built the framework for the laws we see today. The horror about all this is not one single judge, lawyer, social worker, psychologist, police personnel or anyone was ever held accountable for all the lies that were told in court.

In fact after (privately) realizing their disastrous mistakes, many of these "professionals" got legislators to make them legally immune before these kids became adults and sued them after they realized they had been manipulated and their lives ruined ~ and they will carry the lifelong burden of the part they were forced to play in ruining their family's lives as well. Indeed most of these "professionals" have been promoted into even more influential positions as a reward and so they are in positions to continue to uphold their actions. These laws are on the books and until your state and national legislators do the right thing and change those laws, which they won't since it has to do with some major federal funding they would lose if they did that was inspired by this hysteria, the courts will continue to make those damaging decisions that ruin entire families at their whim.

Believe me I know that child sex abuse exists and needs attention when it occurs. But the hysteria around the witch hunts at that time has only made things legally worse in a wider context for parents, their families and the falsely accused. Furthermore as an example as to the affect of these laws, it is one-sided as it focuses more on male sex offenders and virtually ignores boys who have been exploited by older women, which btw cause as much damage to a boy's life as it does for girls who have been sexually abused by men. Indeed the studies that have been done shows that 80% of the male prison populations were sexually abused as children ~ but the startling find was that of those abused, over 70% were boys that were abused by grown women! Again the hysteria that spread across this nation was mostly focused on male sex offenders. Accused men are almost automatically assumed guilty before they can defend themselves. Few women ever face the same consequences. Indeed most men and boys think they have been "lucky" to have been sexually abused by women even after they themselves get into trouble with substance abuse, anger issues, buried issues with anger at women and power issues, and their male-oriented forms of sexually acting out ~ many of the same patterns as girls who have been sexually abused. Mostly ignored. Thanks to the hysteria that was prevalent 30 + years ago creating these laws that corrupt parental rights vs the State.

The point I'm trying to make is that, if the courts will take as fact complete and utter lies that affect parenting rights, it is because they believe they are "correct" and citizens have no right to question their authority no matter what hogwash they promote since they face absolutely no consequences if they are wrong and it ruins entire families. So whatever way they tilt the facts they ignore, the truths they pretend do not exist, well unless you have $hundreds of $thousands of dollars to prove otherwise, YOU are the one at fault, not them. Ever.

My 2 cents, Cat in Seattle

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»California court issues r...