Gut Rumbles

October 31, 2004

a glimmer of sanity

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.


There's so many freakin things wrong with the child welfare's good to see that they've decided to start SOMEWHERE.
Rob, your pet peeve is obviously child welfare people...mine is 'victims' of domestic violence. I came very close to being fired once for my views on domestic violence. I'm of the opinion that you're only a victim ONCE. And apparently, as a social worker, you're not supposed to say things like that to 'victims' of domestic violence.

Posted by: Chablis on October 31, 2004 04:29 PM

It looks like the decision will do more to keep that kind of thing from happening, Rob. But did you read THIS?

However, Kaye observed in a footnote that a child protective manager had testified that authorities commonly removed children in domestic violence cases and then procrastinated going to court because "after a few days of the children being in foster care, the mother will usually agree" to any conditions the city demands.

(Emphasis mine.) Now THAT is some sick, abusive $h!T. Where I come from it is called blackmail, pure and simple. And it is mental abuse at the very least.


Posted by: Joni on November 2, 2004 02:47 AM
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.