Gut Rumbles
 

April 26, 2007

A glimmer of sanity

Originally published October 31, 2004

I believe that any person who abuses a child--- either sexually, physically or emotionally--- is one sick sumbitch who should be staked out on a fire ant mound, right after a red-hot poker wrapped in barbed wire is shoved up the abuser's ass. Such people fill me with revulsion.

But the matter has gotten 'WAY out of hand once government decided to "fix" the problem. I submit that today, Child Protection Agencies commit more abuse on children than child abusers do. That's another government agency that looked good on paper, but quickly started to abuse POWER, which always happens when government gets involved in ANYTHING.

If you don't know at least one parent who has had a run-in with a Child Protection Agency, you don't get around much. Some people I know have real horror stories to tell.

It's also another example of the Constitution being turned upside-down, because THEY don't have to prove that you did anything wrong before they sieze your children. You have to prove your innocense to get your children back.

Maybe we can see a faint light, a glimmer of sanity in this case. The fact that it went to court in the first place proves my accusation that Child Protection agencies behave like Islamist goon-squads.

A battered woman's failure to prevent her children from witnessing her own abuse does not automatically give protective agencies license to remove the child, the New York Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in a groundbreaking opinion.

Lemme get the logic straight... a battered woman should have found a way to prevent her children from witnessing her battering. Since she didn't, and was battered in front of her children, protective agencies should "automatically" have license to sieze the children.

What a crock, so typical of the way protective agencies think.

Tuesday's ruling in Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 113, appears to impose new burdens on both child welfare administrators and Family Court judges. It requires the assessment of individual cases and rejects a one-size-fits-all approach to the problem of domestic violence vis--vis its impact on children.

WHAT??? "One-size-fits-all" is the only thing government knows. Having actually to THINK and make decisions "imposes new burdens" on the agencies? Bejus! The HUMANITY!!!

I would much rather the agencies face those burdens than innocent parents, who have carried that load long enough.

Comments
Post a comment














*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.