What Justifies the State Taking Children Away From Their Parents?

[DC Al Fine]

I've noticed there's a significant cleavage on the forum between those who are quick to take children from their parents and those who are slow to. This has issue has come up in a number of threads (e.g. Anti-Vaxxers), but I thought it would be good to explore the issue separately.

What justifies the state taking children away from their parents?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Any kind of deliberate abuse that has been investigated thoroughly.

Unfortunately there aren't any clear cut criteria.  Willful neglect and abuse are the big ones.  Passive neglect or unintended neglect due to lack of resources should be addressed and remedied by officials by working with the family.

[Murica!]

Any kind of deliberate abuse that has been investigated thoroughly.

Unfortunately there aren't any clear cut criteria.  Willful neglect and abuse are the big ones.  Passive neglect or unintended neglect due to lack of resources should be addressed and remedied by officials by working with the family.

This.

[TNF]

Physical and/or sexual abuse. I don't think that we should be taking kids away from parents because the parents refuse to vaccinate their children.

[bedstuy]

The best interest of the child, with the assumption that taking away a child is a horrible, traumatic event that should be avoided if at all possible.  It's hard to come up with hard and fast rules, but that's the basic principle.  

You don't want to solve a problem like dumb parents refusing to give them kids an MMR vaccine by creating a bigger problem like putting a kid in a foster home.  The same goes for a fat kid or kid who smokes cigarettes.  But, if parents refuse to feed their kids or abuse them, it's a no brainer.  

[Indy Texas]

Decide which is the less-worse situation for the child: being in a foster home or being in their family home.

I don't know who is making the argument that children should be taken away for failure to be vaccinated. But you can use sticks like forbidding them from enrolling in public school and sending CPS workers for unannounced home visits. Remember that a lot of these anti-vaxxers are middle- and upper-class white people: the thought of someone from "the State" coming to their house is a grave social insult in and of itself and some of them will probably change their behavior rather than risk that happening.

[DC Al Fine]

Decide which is the less-worse situation for the child: being in a foster home or being in their family home.

I don't know who is making the argument that children should be taken away for failure to be vaccinated. But you can use sticks like forbidding them from enrolling in public school and sending CPS workers for unannounced home visits.

Snowstalker, Harry, and Lurker off the top of my head. There were some others who referred to it as child abuse, which presumably means they would support removal from the home. Actually I got the impression that you held that position from the sick privilege thread, but I see that's not the case.

[Goldwater]

Physical and/or sexual abuse. I don't think that we should be taking kids away from parents because the parents refuse to vaccinate their children.

This.

[ingemann]

I've noticed there's a significant cleavage on the forum between those who are quick to take children from their parents and those who are slow to. This has issue has come up in a number of threads (e.g. Anti-Vaxxers), but I thought it would be good to explore the issue separately.

What justifies the state taking children away from their parents?

That's a very good question. I think the parents should significant endanger, neglect or abuse their children and that doesn't mean just physical.

But no, not giving them vaccine is not enough.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Physical and/or sexual abuse. I don't think that we should be taking kids away from parents because the parents refuse to vaccinate their children.

This.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Physical and/or sexual abuse. I don't think that we should be taking kids away from parents because the parents refuse to vaccinate their children.

This.

[H. Ross Peron]

Physical and/or sexual abuse. I don't think that we should be taking kids away from parents because the parents refuse to vaccinate their children.

This.

Although this does not exclude still vaccinating children or otherwise giving them medically necessary treatment against the will of the parents.

[ingemann]

Physical and/or sexual abuse. I don't think that we should be taking kids away from parents because the parents refuse to vaccinate their children.

This.

Although this does not exclude still vaccinating children or otherwise giving them medically necessary treatment against the will of the parents.

Of course not. A solution could be how we deal with sick children of Jehova Witnesses in Denmark. If such a child need blood and the parents are against it, the doctor contact a jugde, who make him the guardian until the blood is given. It allow the parent's to keep their hands clean, while still saving their child.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Decide which is the less-worse situation for the child: being in a foster home or being in their family home.

I don't know who is making the argument that children should be taken away for failure to be vaccinated. But you can use sticks like forbidding them from enrolling in public school and sending CPS workers for unannounced home visits.

Snowstalker, Harry, and Lurker off the top of my head. There were some others who referred to it as child abuse, which presumably means they would support removal from the home. Actually I got the impression that you held that position from the sick privilege thread, but I see that's not the case.

If CPS, say, came to your house and found knives lying around, unsecured, or loaded guns not locked in a cabinet, or a roaring fire in an open fireplace that a kid could just walk up to, would they ding you for that? Not getting a kid vaccinated seems similar to me. It's a passive neglect. It doesn't mean the kid is going to get a disease, but it's a refusal to take a reasonable precaution against it. Leaving out a loaded gun doesn't mean a kid is going to play with it and kill themselves, but it's a refusal to take a reasonable precaution against such an eventuality.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Opposing the Democratic agenda. 

[ElectionsGuy]

I would say only violent or sexual abuse that is proven through conclusive evidence. Nothing else.

[Sopranos Republican]

I don't believe that the vaccination thing is enough obviously, but I wouldn't oppose vaccinating kids regardless of the opinion of the parents on the matter. The idea that parents essentially own their kids until the age of 18 is an archaic and extremely ignorant view to hold, and is the reason we have people like ODF of Tulsa, OK who have no idea how to take care of themselves.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Physical and/or sexual abuse. I don't think that we should be taking kids away from parents because the parents refuse to vaccinate their children.

This.

[7,052,770]

I don't thinks kids should automatically be taken away from their parents just for vaccine refusal. Instead, a judge should order the children vaccinated, preferably just doing it right there in the courthouse before the parents can barricade their kids up or something, and then Social Services should make a few follow up visits over next couple years to make sure the parents are treating the kids OK. I'm sure that in most cases the kids will be fine.

[t_host1]

 
 By default, law, it occurs when entering the public edukytion system, primary and higher ED.

[Slander and/or Libel]

 By default, law, it occurs when entering the public edukytion system, primary and higher ED.

You are incredible. Never change.