+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: When is it permissible for the state to interfere to protect an infant?

  1. #1
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default When is it permissible for the state to interfere to protect an infant?

    In a heart-breaking case in Seattle a criminal court refused to issue an injunction that would have removed an infant from her mother as soon as she was born.

    No matter how draconian that may sound, at first glance, I can't help but feel that the prosecutor in this case has some reason to be concerned: The parents involved have already had two children removed from them because of health concerns. They are even facing sentencing for charges stemming from the claim that they'd been starving their youngest.
    That charge came after their second daughter, born in August 2008, gained only one pound in her first two months of life
    Even more chilling, with the children in foster care, the mother is suspected of having been the agency whereby a laxative had been administered to her younger daughter:
    a laboratory test indicated that the younger girl had been fed a laxative, according to CPS. The girl had diarrhea after a visit with her mother, court paperwork said.
    The parents are very concerned that their daughters are getting fat while in foster care.

    For that matter, the mother has been hospitalized recently because of concerns about whether she was getting adequate nutrition.
    [she] was admitted to the hospital earlier this month after failing to eat enough to provide nourishment for her unborn child
    Just to add to the questionable circumstances, the couple in question are homeless, too.

    At the moment CPS is refusing to enter the case, because the child they'd be trying to protect hasn't been born. They won't enter the case until they've gotten a complaint that something specific risking this baby has happened.

    I understand the concerns about the real risks to abortion rights if CPS were to protect a baby that doesn't yet exist. However, my inclination is to agree with the prosecutor in this case:
    This is a train wreck; we all see it coming,
    ISTM that the requested order would have struck the right balance between protecting this soon-to-be infant and acknowledging the woman's rights to her own body. Certainly, someone who is reported to be rolling her eyes in court isn't someone I expect to find particularly moved by the threat of contempt charges.

    Having said all that, I'd love to hear what other people think about this.

    Oh - the full story is here.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by OtakuLoki View post
    In a heart-breaking case in Seattle a criminal court refused to issue an injunction that would have removed an infant from her mother as soon as she was born.
    Given the circumstances, that's a ridiculous and obviously wrong choice. I don't know about the legalities of it, but it's morally wrong. I think in any circumstance in which someone is currently legally barred from guardianship of their existing kids, they should automatically have future children taken away.

    Although my understanding is that that's not how it works, even in cases of, say, repeated physical and sexual abuse.

  3. #3
    like Gandalf in a way Nrblex's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    844

    Default

    Yeah, I know we have to respect people's reproductive rights and all, but if you've shown yourself repeatedly to be A VERY BAD PARENT it seems like taking the kid as soon as it's born would be the most humane thing you could do. As long as she's pregnant, it's all about the mother's choice and her body, but when that kid pops out? Reproduction has been accomplished, bitches, now make the kid safe.

  4. #4
    aka ivan the not-quite-as-terrible ivan astikov's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    moston, UK.
    Posts
    4,779

    Default

    Is it more, or less morally wrong, to take the child when it is just another small bag of skin and bones, than it is to let the mother get to know the infant for a year or two, by which time, she's decided she's not really that keen on it?
    Last edited by ivan astikov; 09 Aug 2010 at 04:18 AM.
    To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts