Jump to content


What's with the ads?

Photo
- - - - -

What regulations should protect children?


127 replies to this topic

What's with the ads?

#1 Carol in Cal.

Carol in Cal.

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17622 posts

Posted 19 January 2018 - 10:47 PM

Although I don't think that homeschooling regulations will protect children nearly as much as some hope, given that school children are not protected nearly as much as they should be, still, what regulations should we have to prevent human cockroaches like we have seen recently (shoot, I never talk that way but OMGosh) from isolating and abusing their children?

 

Also, what community involvement should be encouraged to help with this?



#2 Rosie_0801

Rosie_0801

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29577 posts

Posted 19 January 2018 - 11:06 PM

The regulations already exist. I think the/a trouble is that CPS is not an organisation people have faith will respond appropriately.



#3 Crimson Wife

Crimson Wife

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19737 posts

Posted 19 January 2018 - 11:12 PM

I would support a requirement for annual physicals by a licensed physician or nurse practitioner so long as funding is made available for families who lack insurance coverage. Make it a requirement for claiming the child on taxes or for benefits the way having a Social Security number is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • shawthorne44, Tsuga and Pam in CT like this

#4 Carol in Cal.

Carol in Cal.

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17622 posts

Posted 19 January 2018 - 11:13 PM

The regulations already exist. I think the/a trouble is that CPS is not an organisation people have faith will respond appropriately.

There is a lot of truth to that, and some evidence to back it up, too.

 

I am not all that familiar with the current regs.

For instance, I'm not sure whether folks are legally required to report births.  I mean, they do, in hospitals, but do they have to if they have a home birth? 

 

It seems like the most egregious child abuse stories are always of kids that are kept very far under the radar.


  • shinyhappypeople and celticmom like this

#5 kiwik

kiwik

    Hive Mind Level 4 Worker: Builder Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5704 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 01:23 AM

Surely you have a law throughout the US that requires births and deaths to be registered?

#6 Carol in Cal.

Carol in Cal.

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17622 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 01:50 AM

Surely you have a law throughout the US that requires births and deaths to be registered?

Deaths, yes.  

 

Probably births?  But oddly enough I am not certain of that.  If someone has a home birth and is not attended by someone licensed I'm not sure whether it's illegal or just very unusual and very discouraged not to report it.



#7 Patty Joanna

Patty Joanna

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10091 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 02:54 AM

I don’t know about s law that requires the reporting of births, but there is everything around it—getting s social security number, a birth certificate, a passport, college entrance—you don’t report a birth, the rest if these are impossible.

I don’t mean to be obtuse or flippant—but I have to say that regulations offer no protection for anyone. It is only prople’s Willingness to adhere to the regulations that helps in ant way.

I’ll use myself as a case in point, not as a proof.

Pot is illegal. (Well, it WAS.)
So I’m not interested in smoking pot. Never have been. The regulation has no effect on me. (And it is Autocorrect, not pot, that makes my posts incomprehensible from time to time.)

Then there are others who ARE interested, but are also respecters of the law. So they don’t smoke.

Then there are those who want to smoke snd think the law is stupid or that it doesnt apply to them...and so they smoke.

The question about regulation then is this: how much effect does it have in that middle category?
  • VaKim, shinyhappypeople, celticmom and 3 others like this

#8 Rosie_0801

Rosie_0801

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29577 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 03:19 AM

I don’t mean to be obtuse or flippant—but I have to say that regulations offer no protection for anyone. It is only prople’s Willingness to adhere to the regulations that helps in ant way.

 

It gives the state the right to prosecute, without which there'd be no way to stop transgressors.



#9 texasmom33

texasmom33

    Runaway of the Establishment Incorporated

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6601 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 07:30 AM

It gives the state the right to prosecute, without which there'd be no way to stop transgressors.


One of the problems as I see it in the US though, is that the laws are inconsistent across the board, in how they are written, in who they protect, and in how they are applied. I for one, think it is ridiculous that you can go to prison longer for tax evasion than for raping a child. I think child rape should also be a death penalty level offense. Full stop. But it’s not. The government has its priorities and despite talk, it seems to very rarely be children. They have no voice, no money (although advertisers would differ in the opinion) and no vote. So they’re ignored. I don’t know how to fix that though. I’m also a cynic and think evil will always exist, no matter what we try, but I think being much tougher against people who hurt kids would be a great start.

Also, to stop giving money to governments who turn a blind eye on child abuse- especially sex trafficking. Note I didn’t say stop humanitarian aid- but don’t deliver it to governments and don’t help prop up abusive systems who disregard childre under the guise of stability. You want instability? Let a bunch of kids be abused non stop by the very people assigned to protect them and then watch what happens in 20 years.
  • VaKim, TechWife, Snoopytwo and 4 others like this

#10 HomeAgain

HomeAgain

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4399 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 08:16 AM

I think it's easier to start with the rights of children, and work backwards.

 

Children have the right to an education - I believe there should be some office or such that oversees ALL schools, and regulates the separation of curriculum companies from standardized testing, giving schools a scope& sequence, but giving teachers the autonomy to plan together and develop courses for their schools.

 

Children have a right to medical treatment - I believe this should be a given, and Medicare-for-all would solve this.

 

Children have a right to a community - I believe suburbs should be restructured to create safe play spaces, sidewalks, and centers for people to gather.  I want to see floating offices like MFLCs- family counselors in the military who don't hide in their offices, but go out and interact with parents at playgroups and gatherings, being a friendly face first and setting up counseling later if a parent asks for it.

 

 

This wouldn't end abuse.  Nothing ends abuse from people insistent.  I look at the U.S. gymnasts who endured abuse at the hands of Larry Nasser, and were failed by their community, their parents, and anyone who should have done anything, including the Olympic committee who brushed aside allegations.  But I think we can re-vamp how we look at childhood and by putting kids first, we can be creative about building stronger bonds.  We seem to have lost that in the digital age.  Life certainly wasn't perfect before, but when we can put the two tools together (community bonds AND online community), I think we have a greater chance of reducing abuse in isolated communities.


  • shinyhappypeople, Bluegoat, MASHomeschooler and 3 others like this

#11 SparklyUnicorn

SparklyUnicorn

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38864 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 08:28 AM

I don't know.  I don't like the regs in my state, but I manage them just fine.  They aren't meaningful however.  Sending a plan with quarterly reports is pointless nonsense.   I could write anything on there.  The testing seems a bit meaningful, but what bugs me is that it does not allow for alternatives.  I have one kid who has major meltdowns over testing.  The only way I can get him through it is to use an untimed test (but it's a lot longer) and spread it out forever.  Which thankfully my district allows me to do myself because if they insisted I use a certified teacher I couldn't afford to do that if I had to pay someone to come here 100 times to get him through the damn test.  He does quite well on the test, but again it takes a longgg time and each time it's a battle.  If he were in public school I could opt him out of testing, but as a homeschooler I cannot.  So for him something like a portfolio review or something else would be better.  For my other kid he does the entire thing in one sitting to get it over with.

 

I do take my kids for regular physicals and their vaccines, but I don't really see what exactly that does in terms of tracking what I do.  My doc does know we homeschool and he's cool with that (I chose him because others I asked said he was friendly towards homeschoolers).  I once had a doctor who was not.  When my kid was three she was upset that I wasn't going to send my child to preschool and asked how I'd manage to teach him myself.  At three.  Wow.  I hope I don't come across that low level.  If I am I probably don't have any business having kids or driving or lots of other things.  Some people are prejudice towards homeschooling and that's my problem with dealing with regulations.  The right official would understand homeschooling.  Many do not and think you run some sort of mini public school classroom and can't imagine anything else.  So I'm fine with being scrutinized FAIRLY by people who understand homeschooling. 

 

 


  • shinyhappypeople, snowbeltmom, scoutingmom and 1 other like this

#12 CES2005

CES2005

    Hive Mind Level 2 Worker: Nurse Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1529 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 08:48 AM

The regulations already exist. I think the/a trouble is that CPS is not an organisation people have faith will respond appropriately.

 

I second that.



#13 Mbelle

Mbelle

    Just Visiting

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 736 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 11:00 AM

I don't know what can keep children safe.  It is heartbreaking.  I know of times when there were no safeguards such as my grandfather being taken out of school at 11 years old, right after 5th grade and being given to a big farmer to work so the family could live in a house on his property.  Everyone knew about it and nothing was done.  He is still alive, so this wasn't that long ago.  These days I know about people who are divorced and the over regulated stupid courts insist that the kids go to dead beat father who is terrible and everyone knows about it and it still happens.  I know of a child who said at school that her mother had yelled at her and the teacher called CPS and and the poor family had to go through a ridiculous ordeal.  Did the school keep the child safe?  I honestly don't know what the answer is.  Because all these scenarios are abusive and cruel with or without regulations.  It's a beast of a problem.  



#14 Entropymama

Entropymama

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1516 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 11:17 AM

Somehow it seems that CPS has both too much and too little power. Too much, as in they can investigate anyone for anything, causing normal, healthy families to panic and have their reputations tarnished. As an example - I had a neighbor, years ago, who's kindergarten aged son told a neighbor kid that boys had (boy parts) and girls had (girl parts) using their anatomically correct names. Neighbor child's mother freaked out and called CPS and they came and did an investigation. Insane. The family was terrified that their kids would be taken away, curtailed their activities, lived in a state of panic for some time. Annual checks continued for a couple of years, but we've lost touch so I'm not sure what ever happened. 

 

On the other hand, we see case after case of children who are horribly abused and sometimes die, even though CPS was involved and had been investigating. 

 

The whole system seems broken. 


  • VaKim, Carol in Cal., Laurie4b and 7 others like this

#15 TechWife

TechWife

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9731 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 11:39 AM

Our culture has to decide that it values children and sees them of worthy of protecting. Until then, no number of laws and regulations will truly project everyone. If we decide that, then there would be no issue putting the money on the table to make sure that there are adequate resources to provide for families that are in various stressful situations. We need to stop demonizing people who need financial assistance and seeing them as "less than" those who do not. In other words, we need to value people, period. 

 

What do adequate resources look like? Food. Safe shelter. Clothing. Medical care. Mental health care. Education. Transportation. Community. 

 

Once we have adequate resources in place, we have something to offer troubled children and families. That should motivate us to notice and extend a helping hand, build community. The community itself will do a lot of "self-policing." It won't ever be perfect. Evil will still exist. Maybe that's what troubles us the most. 

 

At it's root, the situation in California developed because the parents don't value the children. Beyond that, they were able to hide because there was not a strong sense of community in that immediate area. Children who go to school face teachers, administrators and other adults who choose to either not believe the children, or who look away. Why do they look away? Because they aren't sure if that child is worth all the trouble they could cause. They don't value the child as much as they value the status quo. They aren't sure that in the end, the child will end up being better off. They don't trust the system, it is woefully inadequate to rescue and redeem. If a mandated reporter could be sure that a fully trained CPS staff member would look thoroughly at the situation and have resources to offer the parents (including parenting classes, part of that community aspect I mentioned), if a child could tell an adult "i need help" and be sure they would be heard. If a judge could act decisively, will full information at his/her disposal, if the community would step up to provide shelter, care and love to children in need. 

 

Until then, no number of laws will help, I don't think. It is already illegal to do drugs, provide drugs to children, beat children, imprison them, deprive them of food, keep them from getting an education, and on and on.  More regulations won't solve the problem. A shift in perspective would be a start. 


  • Carol in Cal., Rosie_0801, fastforward and 6 others like this

#16 Laurie4b

Laurie4b

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14404 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 12:23 PM

I think Rosie's point is well taken. If CPS were a better operation and better trusted, it would be great. My former neighbor was a CPS supervisor . One of the most reasonable, down-to-earth people I've ever met.  If she or someone under her supervision were investigating, you could expect a reasonable, helpful response whether that meant clearing the parents, providing support to the parents, or removing the child from the home.  OTOH, I worked at a residential facility for kids with emotional/behavioral problems with a statewide cachement area, and I got to see the workings of multiple CPSs throughout our state. It was an absolute mess in some places. I think rolling dice would predict outcomes (family given supportive services, child taken from home, etc.) better than knowing the facts of the case.  I hated to make referrals there. A referral could put the child in more danger (ie there was serious abuse, CPS didn't see it (I decided not to type out some specifics for confidentiality's sake but believe me, there was serious abuse with ample evidence) and dropped things, and the parents retaliated and the child learned not to tell.

 

As for oversight, in the case of the 13 CA children, I read a news report that they had never seen a dentist and none of them had seen a doctor in 4 years. Wait! At least one of them saw a doctor 4 years ago, hadn't had dental care all her/his life, and was underweight and the doctor did not report it? 

 

The sisters of the mom were worried but after the marriage their sister was very much out of contact, so remaining that way after children didn't seem like a departure from the norm. 

 

IDK if there is an answer. 


  • celticmom, scoutingmom and homemommy83 like this

#17 Crimson Wife

Crimson Wife

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19737 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 01:21 PM

I do take my kids for regular physicals and their vaccines, but I don't really see what exactly that does in terms of tracking what I do.


Requiring annual physicals by a licensed physician or nurse practitioner would cut down on the number of children with health or developmental problems that go untreated because of parental denial, neglect, or abuse.

If you are a responsible parent with healthy children, then it is just a precaution. But better to have every child screened annually than to miss kids who really need to see a health practitioner and don’t because their parents are irresponsible


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Pam in CT, Tanaqui and SparklyUnicorn like this

#18 Tanaqui

Tanaqui

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8613 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 01:40 PM

First things first, I want child services to be adequately funded. You have workers who are overworked and underpaid, well, you're gonna get what you pay for. They wouldn't make so many errors, in either direction, if they were properly funded. (And better checking for foster families as well.)

 

Secondly, I want better resources given to lower income families. A lot of times, what looks like abuse boils down to simply poverty. Removing children from the home because their parents can't afford to care for them is not just unjust, but damaging.

 

The sort of protections I want for kids in an ideal world won't do much if we don't tackle the funding issue first.

 

But, since you asked, I'd like to see that *all* children are required to see a doctor, dentist, and eye doctor yearly. This should be paid for by the state. (And I'd like to see no exemptions other than medical ones for vaccination requirements at schools, camps, and daycares.)

 

For homeschooled children in particular, I think it's reasonable for somebody to check that they've learned something (with reasonable accommodations for children with disabilities or illness). We can debate all day about what manner of assessment is best, and what standards are okay - but you should be able to show that your kid has at least learned SOMETHING over the school year. (And yes, I think that this rule should apply to kids in public, private, online, charter, parochial schools as well. There are a great many private schools which don't educate their kids at all. Here in NYC the big ongoing scandal is yeshivas that provide virtually no secular education, but this exists at all sorts of schools in all sorts of places. And I want public schools given the resources they need to educate THEIR kids as well.)

 

I also would support a rule that if a child services report was filed against the parents *prior* to withdrawing their kids, they should either not be allowed to homeschool or be subject to extra scrutiny until the case is closed. However, this wouldn't apply if it was filed after they withdrew their kids, because some people are vindictive like that. I would additionally, with some reservations, be okay with laws requiring that people convicted of certain forms of severe child abuse not be allowed to homeschool - period. (The details would have to be hammered out, and that's where my reservations come in.) And if the educators don't have a high school diploma or GED, I'm tentatively in favor of a higher level of *educational* scrutiny for their kids - though, again, the exact details would have to be worked out.

 

And on the carrot side of things, I think more free and low-cost extracurriculars should be provided that aren't connected to the schools, and that all students of at least middle school age and up should be able to take classes in the schools via dual enrollment, and also any extracurriculars that don't have a GPA minimum required - and that any area with a high enough population of homeschoolers ought to have some funding for a publicly run optional co-op.

 

But, again, until we value this sort of work as a society, enough to fund it, nothing much is going to come of this. Child services needs to have the funding to do its job - and it doesn't. The schools need to be funded to do their jobs - and they're really not. Assistance for lower-income families needs to be sufficient to actually help them - and it's just *not*.


Edited by Tanaqui, 20 January 2018 - 01:44 PM.

  • AmandaVT, Pam in CT, fralala and 1 other like this

#19 Heigh Ho

Heigh Ho

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12368 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 01:54 PM

I posted on the other thread, but I"ll repeat here. RIght now the police have the responsibility for community policing, and they plus the parole officers do save a lot of children who are in the home of someone who is on parole.  I'd like to see that effort expanded to people who are sociopaths and to those who are isolating the woman and children.  Right now, the post office and the JWs are the only people who go to every home in the neighborhood frequently, so very easy to isolate for evil or poor mental health.

 

I'd also like to have mandatory well checkups and dental. Lots of growth issues that can be caught early, if the dc can be seen.  Here in NY public schooled children do have to have an annual physical, and the nurse does check to see that the paperwork is legit.  Nurse also has to do height/weight checks for public health organization, and offer vision screening...I'd like to see that extended to nonpublic school students ,and the data analyzed. It can be taken out of the schools and done with a mobile setup. 

 

I'd also like to see the schools take on the parent education via night classes or a visiting teacher.  Some states have that for infant development.  Too may parents have no example of how to run a stable household and some are marginal on ability.  The school nurse has that task here & now, but its hard to accomplish over the phone, even if the parent is willing.  Some people struggle so much that they need to be walked through the household and child management tasks. 

 

I don't think all of society agrees so make it the health a nonprofit.  People with children understand and will contribute. 

Make the checkups part of community policing.


Edited by Heigh Ho, 20 January 2018 - 01:58 PM.

  • Pam in CT likes this

#20 TechWife

TechWife

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9731 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 02:20 PM

I must say I don't like the term "community policing" as it applies to creating an environment where children are protected from harm and can thrive. Community, yes, but must we create an environment of suspicion, where people are watched to see what they are doing wrong all the time? I'd rather see the creation of a community where the focus is on healthy families and healthy community relationships, thereby making it more likely that the unhealthy ones will stick out like sore thumbs. 


  • Rosie_0801, shinyhappypeople, Sadie and 5 others like this

#21 SparklyUnicorn

SparklyUnicorn

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38864 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 02:25 PM

I must say I don't like the term "community policing" as it applies to creating an environment where children are protected from harm and can thrive. Community, yes, but must we create an environment of suspicion, where people are watched to see what they are doing wrong all the time? I'd rather see the creation of a community where the focus is on healthy families and healthy community relationships, thereby making it more likely that the unhealthy ones will stick out like sore thumbs. 

 

I agree.  Opinions are going to vary in terms of what is necessary and good practice.  I'm not religious, for example, some might interpret that I'm being abusive by not providing for my children's spiritual needs.  And this could go the other way around.  Someone not religious might interpret religious parents as being abusive for "forcing" XYZ.

 

If the "system" is so super controlling and rigid, I doubt it causes people to behave better.  I think it causes them to avoid, hide, and retreat.


  • Patty Joanna, Sadie, misty.warden and 1 other like this

#22 happypamama

happypamama

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9906 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 02:39 PM



But, since you asked, I'd like to see that *all* children are required to see a doctor, dentist, and eye doctor yearly. This should be paid for by the state. (And I'd like to see no exemptions other than medical ones for vaccination requirements at schools, camps, and daycares.)

Okay, but what about homeschooled children? I’m totally fine with schools stating that children must have vaccinations to attend or if they take an exemption, they realize that they may not be allowed to attend in case of outbreak. But then they also need not to require homeschooled students to be vaccinated. My state requires even homeschooled students to be vaccinated the same as public school students, unless they file an exemption. At this point, homeschoolers are allowed a medical exemption (signed by a doctor), or an exemption based on strong moral or ethical beliefs similar to a religious belief (no signature other than parent’s required). I’m absolutely against parental choice about vaccination, education, and a bunch of other things being being limited.

And still, HOW are you going to require that people get checkups for kids? In my state, checkups ARE already required unless you claim an exemption. WHO knows about the kids whose parents are underground? Does the neighbor know and report to the authorities that Joe And Jane Smith had a baby and didn’t report that child properly? If they don’t report the child (used a non-CNM midwife or had an unassisted birth and never requested a birth certificate or SSN, don’t include child on census or taxes, etc.), who would know they didn’t report the child, and then how would authorities know about the child? My district knows about my children because I reported them in official was like I’m supposed to, but if I didn’t, how would the district know they existed? How would any random person who saw a kid outside during school hours know if that child was legally homeschooling, attending a private school that had a break that day (or a public one for that matter — my local public school seems to have very few weeks where kids are attending all day all five days), or was underground?

I’m not necessarily anti reasonable laws and rules, but we need to take care that our laws are actually going to DO something other than put more limitations on law abiding citizens.
  • shinyhappypeople, celticmom and misty.warden like this

#23 Heigh Ho

Heigh Ho

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12368 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 02:50 PM

I must say I don't like the term "community policing" as it applies to creating an environment where children are protected from harm and can thrive. Community, yes, but must we create an environment of suspicion, where people are watched to see what they are doing wrong all the time? I'd rather see the creation of a community where the focus is on healthy families and healthy community relationships, thereby making it more likely that the unhealthy ones will stick out like sore thumbs. 

 

The focus of community policing is on helping people get the interaction or info they need to function in a healthy manner.  The policing term is there because the existing police have the job.  No one is watching to see what people are 'doing wrong', they are helping people cope with or solve issues that, if allowed to grow, would result in criminal behavior or neglect/death of another.  If you take the time to use your search engine, you'll see what the current efforts are across the country.



#24 TechWife

TechWife

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9731 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 02:59 PM

Okay, but what about homeschooled children? I’m totally fine with schools stating that children must have vaccinations to attend or if they take an exemption, they realize that they may not be allowed to attend in case of outbreak. But then they also need not to require homeschooled students to be vaccinated. My state requires even homeschooled students to be vaccinated the same as public school students, unless they file an exemption. At this point, homeschoolers are allowed a medical exemption (signed by a doctor), or an exemption based on strong moral or ethical beliefs similar to a religious belief (no signature other than parent’s required). I’m absolutely against parental choice about vaccination, education, and a bunch of other things being being limited.

And still, HOW are you going to require that people get checkups for kids? In my state, checkups ARE already required unless you claim an exemption. WHO knows about the kids whose parents are underground? Does the neighbor know and report to the authorities that Joe And Jane Smith had a baby and didn’t report that child properly? If they don’t report the child (used a non-CNM midwife or had an unassisted birth and never requested a birth certificate or SSN, don’t include child on census or taxes, etc.), who would know they didn’t report the child, and then how would authorities know about the child? My district knows about my children because I reported them in official was like I’m supposed to, but if I didn’t, how would the district know they existed? How would any random person who saw a kid outside during school hours know if that child was legally homeschooling, attending a private school that had a break that day (or a public one for that matter — my local public school seems to have very few weeks where kids are attending all day all five days), or was underground?

I’m not necessarily anti reasonable laws and rules, but we need to take care that our laws are actually going to DO something other than put more limitations on law abiding citizens.

 

We can maintain parental choice and look for a way to keep children from falling through the cracks. Namely, by getting rid of those cracks and, where the cracks exist, develop a sense of community so that people are peering into those cracks to see what's going on.There are existing laws on the books that aren't being enforced. Lets look for ways to enforce them. As we enforce them, if they are too weak, we strengthen them. Let's look for ways to prevent this from happening - be proactive, not reactive. Community resources must be adequate and in place. When prevention fails, we must react, emphasizing the importance of the word act. If we care more about our individual choices as parents than we do about the health and wellbeing of children, then our choices will be misguided. Our choices of when and with whom to become involved will be self centered. People will always be able to choose evil. 

 

Christian content follows:

This is what we are told to do as Christians. It isn't easy. It is hard. It is all about relationships. "Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus." (Philippians 2: 1-5)


  • Sadie and Tanaqui like this

#25 Tanaqui

Tanaqui

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8613 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 03:13 PM

Okay, but what about homeschooled children? I’m totally fine with schools stating that children must have vaccinations to attend or if they take an exemption, they realize that they may not be allowed to attend in case of outbreak. But then they also need not to require homeschooled students to be vaccinated. My state requires even homeschooled students to be vaccinated the same as public school students, unless they file an exemption. At this point, homeschoolers are allowed a medical exemption (signed by a doctor), or an exemption based on strong moral or ethical beliefs similar to a religious belief (no signature other than parent’s required). I’m absolutely against parental choice about vaccination, education, and a bunch of other things being being limited.

 

Why do they "need to not require homeschool students to be vaccinated"? I don't think that taking care of your child's medical needs is a choice - especially when that "choice" puts other people's kids at risk.

 

I’m not necessarily anti reasonable laws and rules, but we need to take care that our laws are actually going to DO something other than put more limitations on law abiding citizens.

 

You can use this argument about pretty much any law ever. "Good people already don't do that awful thing, and bad people hide it!" So why have any rules at all, just throw 'em all out!


Edited by Tanaqui, 20 January 2018 - 03:14 PM.

  • TechWife likes this

#26 TechWife

TechWife

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9731 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 03:16 PM

I am struck here by the fact that this conversation seems to be taking a turn similar to the discussions on gun control. Of what benefit are more laws? Laws do not prevent evil. How can we, then, do as much as we can, to keep evil from winning here on this earth? How can we keep people from acting on evil desires? 

 

ETA: Just to clarify, I am not against strengthening weak laws and putting laws in place where they need to be. Laws are a good and necessary part of community and culture. 


Edited by TechWife, 20 January 2018 - 03:18 PM.

  • misty.warden and Tanaqui like this

#27 unsinkable

unsinkable

    AD QUEM IBIMUS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17880 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 03:19 PM

No live in boyfriends/males/hook-ups/lovers with no biological relationship to the children.

So many babies are abused, brain dead or killed around here by these guys.
  • amy g., JanOH, Heatherwith4 and 3 others like this

#28 Tanaqui

Tanaqui

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8613 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 03:21 PM

No live in boyfriends/males/hook-ups/lovers with no biological relationship to the children.

So many babies are abused, brain dead or killed around here by these guys.

 

And also by stepfathers. This is so common across different cultures that serious research has gone into discovering why. But are you really going to forbid all blended families from homeschooling? Because stepdads are just as much of an issue as boyfriends.


  • eternalsummer likes this

#29 unsinkable

unsinkable

    AD QUEM IBIMUS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17880 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 03:25 PM

And also by stepfathers. This is so common across different cultures that serious research has gone into discovering why. But are you really going to forbid all blended families from homeschooling? Because stepdads are just as much of an issue as boyfriends.

Stepdads would fall under males with no biological relationship.

So, Yes, I really am.

Edited to add: I thought this was about what to do to prevent child abuse and protect children, not about homeschooling. But yeah, no live-in, non-bio-related males would go a long way.

Edited by unsinkable, 20 January 2018 - 03:59 PM.

  • eternalsummer likes this

#30 Crimson Wife

Crimson Wife

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19737 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:02 PM

 
And still, HOW are you going to require that people get checkups for kids? In my state, checkups ARE already required unless you claim an exemption. WHO knows about the kids whose parents are underground? Does the neighbor know and report to the authorities that Joe And Jane Smith had a baby and didn’t report that child properly? If they don’t report the child (used a non-CNM midwife or had an unassisted birth and never requested a birth certificate or SSN, don’t include child on census or taxes, etc.), who would know they didn’t report the child, and then how would authorities know about the child? 

 

You're never going to catch the people who go totally underground to the point where they don't get a SSN or claim any sort of benefits/tax exemptions for that child. But 99+% of people report their children for tax purposes if nothing else.


  • maryanne and Tanaqui like this

#31 Crimson Wife

Crimson Wife

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19737 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:04 PM

I am struck here by the fact that this conversation seems to be taking a turn similar to the discussions on gun control. Of what benefit are more laws? Laws do not prevent evil. How can we, then, do as much as we can, to keep evil from winning here on this earth? How can we keep people from acting on evil desires? 

 

ETA: Just to clarify, I am not against strengthening weak laws and putting laws in place where they need to be. Laws are a good and necessary part of community and culture. 

 

I don't think deliberate evil is remotely as big a problem as dysfunctional parenting. Child neglect is a FAR bigger problem in our society than child abuse.


  • Heatherwith4 and Tanaqui like this

#32 Guinevere

Guinevere

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 802 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:14 PM

Heigh Ho mentioned that the only people going to everyone's home is the post office, and JW. I'll add UPS and Fed Ex.

I don't really like the idea of creating a secret watching community, but I am curious if postal workers, and delivery people are mandated reporters?

#33 SparklyUnicorn

SparklyUnicorn

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38864 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:15 PM

Heigh Ho mentioned that the only people going to everyone's home is the post office, and JW. I'll add UPS and Fed Ex.

I don't really like the idea of creating a secret watching community, but I am curious if postal workers, and delivery people are mandated reporters?

 

I seriously doubt it.



#34 Guinevere

Guinevere

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 802 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:20 PM

I seriously doubt it.


It might not be a bad idea? I mean, they probably do hear and see some stuff. I wonder if they are required to report things that might be a crime?

#35 SparklyUnicorn

SparklyUnicorn

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38864 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:23 PM

It might not be a bad idea? I mean, they probably do hear and see some stuff. I wonder if they are required to report things that might be a crime?

 

I don't know.  I mean geesh maybe they just want do make their deliveries.  I am sure that some would report something crazy, but to mandate they do so?  Seems a bit much.



#36 Guinevere

Guinevere

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 802 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:25 PM

I don't know. I mean geesh maybe they just want do make their deliveries. I am sure that some would report something crazy, but to mandate they do so? Seems a bit much.


Yeah, you're right.

#37 SparklyUnicorn

SparklyUnicorn

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38864 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:26 PM

I will say one thing that I think is crappy where I am is we are not allowed to participate in school anything.  And in terms of children, nearly everything is tied to the school.  The idea of "community" everything is THE SCHOOL.  KWIM?  So I don't have access to any sort of built in community.  Plenty of outside people see my kids on a regular basis, but these things are spread out and don't form any kind of cohesive community.

 

So maybe they could stop being such pips and let us join in on some of the school stuff.

 

 


  • Carol in Cal., dmmetler, mom2scouts and 6 others like this

#38 SparklyUnicorn

SparklyUnicorn

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38864 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:27 PM

To add, and I live in a high reg state.  So the message I get is they want to control me, but they don't actually want to help me.  So that I'm a little bitter about the regs...mmm can you blame me so much? 


  • Carol in Cal., Rosie_0801, TechWife and 7 others like this

#39 SparklyUnicorn

SparklyUnicorn

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38864 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:31 PM

Requiring annual physicals by a licensed physician or nurse practitioner would cut down on the number of children with health or developmental problems that go untreated because of parental denial, neglect, or abuse.

If you are a responsible parent with healthy children, then it is just a precaution. But better to have every child screened annually than to miss kids who really need to see a health practitioner and don’t because their parents are irresponsible


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

In theory you'd think.  Except for the vaccines there isn't much else to their physicals.  They have never tested anything else on my kids.  Knee tap, stand on the scale, ask me a few questions, fork around in their junk, and that's about it.  So what health problem would they detect unless it was perhaps about not gaining weight or something like that?  And they charge $800 for this.  I would die if I had to pay for that.  You can be sure they just would not be getting physicals because I could not afford that every year.


  • celticmom likes this

#40 Rosie_0801

Rosie_0801

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29577 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:38 PM

I must say I don't like the term "community policing" as it applies to creating an environment where children are protected from harm and can thrive. Community, yes, but must we create an environment of suspicion, where people are watched to see what they are doing wrong all the time? I'd rather see the creation of a community where the focus is on healthy families and healthy community relationships, thereby making it more likely that the unhealthy ones will stick out like sore thumbs. 

 

Difficult to do, because some parts of the system currently punish for overachievement. It's as though they never even see B+ parenting, so if they do see an A, they flunk it. If you achieve too much, it can be used as proof of earlier neglect.



#41 Rosie_0801

Rosie_0801

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29577 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:43 PM

Stepdads would fall under males with no biological relationship.

So, Yes, I really am.

Edited to add: I thought this was about what to do to prevent child abuse and protect children, not about homeschooling. But yeah, no live-in, non-bio-related males would go a long way.

 

But what if they bring their own bio-kids with them? Then they are properly respectable because everyone knows kids do better with their bio-father in their house. 



#42 Tanaqui

Tanaqui

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8613 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:44 PM

So maybe they could stop being such pips and let us join in on some of the school stuff.

 

So agreed. There is no reason that they can't do dual enrollment once they're at the age where they're switching classes, except that the schools here don't allow that.



#43 maize

maize

    Maizgyver

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20008 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:48 PM

Partial enrollment is possible at all grade levels in my state. Of course it is logistically more practical in secondary school but there are people who send their kids part time in elementary.

Extracurricular stuff is also open to homeschoolers.

I've never understood the rationale behind restricting such access; if the state has an interest in the education and well-being of all children they really ought to be welcoming homeschooler participation.
  • Sadie and Sandwalker like this

#44 Tanaqui

Tanaqui

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8613 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 05:01 PM

I can sort of see restricting extracurriculars. If participation is only allowed to people with a certain GPA, then some parents might complain that homeschoolers can skip that requirement (though honestly, there could be a work-around), and if it's based on auditions/tryouts then parents might complain that homeschoolers perforce have more time to practice.

 

The solution to the latter is to have more extracurriculars which are NOT tryout based. There's the sports team where you have to audition, and the developmental one where everybody gets to play. The chorus where you have to audition, and the one where you just have to show up. And so on.


  • amy g. and Kalmia like this

#45 TeenagerMom

TeenagerMom

    Hive Mind Level 3 Worker: Honeymaking Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 824 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 05:01 PM

No live in boyfriends/males/hook-ups/lovers with no biological relationship to the children.

So many babies are abused, brain dead or killed around here by these guys.

 

See, I can't even wrap my head around that. I know many, many children who are being raised by loving stepfathers and live-in boyfriends.  My "husband" is the only father my children have EVER known and he would give his life to save their's and if anyone ever tried to tell them he wasn't their father, he would probably end up in jail.   You can't lump all men who aren't related to children as potential abusers since many of those very men are the ones who end up being a strong male role model that those children need.  Not to mention restricting any single mother out there from ever being able to have a healthy relationship again? 


Edited by TeenagerMom, 20 January 2018 - 05:03 PM.

  • Rosie_0801, TechWife, celticmom and 8 others like this

#46 unsinkable

unsinkable

    AD QUEM IBIMUS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17880 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 05:04 PM

But what if they bring their own bio-kids with them? Then they are properly respectable because everyone knows kids do better with their bio-father in their house.


The bio-father might be fine with his biokids, but it is the welfare of his non bio kids that is concerning.

#47 unsinkable

unsinkable

    AD QUEM IBIMUS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17880 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 05:06 PM

See, I can't even wrap my head around that. I know many, many children who are being raised by loving stepfathers and live-in boyfriends. My "husband" is the only father my children have EVER known and he would give his life to save their's and if anyone ever tried to tell them he wasn't their father, he would probably end up in jail. You can't lump all men who aren't related to children as potential abusers since many of those very men are the ones who end up being a strong male role model that those children need. Not to mention restricting any single mother out there from ever being able to have a healthy relationship again?

I can't wrap my head around dead babies and brain dead babies.

Edited to add: I'm sure it is hyperbole when you wrote your husband would end up in jail if anyone suggested he wasn't your kid's father. Right? Or did you literally mean he'd be so offended he'd break the law (what law?) and be jailed?

Edited by unsinkable, 20 January 2018 - 05:12 PM.

  • amy g. and eternalsummer like this

#48 Rosie_0801

Rosie_0801

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29577 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 05:07 PM

The bio-father might be fine with his biokids, but it is the welfare of his non bio kids that is concerning.

 

I expect it depends what kind of abuse we're talking about. Somehow the clickbait articles never get past blanket statements.



#49 Rosie_0801

Rosie_0801

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29577 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 05:11 PM

I can't wrap my head around dead babies and brain dead babies.

 

I can.



#50 Cnew02

Cnew02

    Hive Mind Worker Bee

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 63 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 05:36 PM

Stepdads would fall under males with no biological relationship.

So, Yes, I really am.

Edited to add: I thought this was about what to do to prevent child abuse and protect children, not about homeschooling. But yeah, no live-in, non-bio-related males would go a long way.


There is a huge difference between a hook up, or even a live in boyfriend and a step father. By this same logic we can't let married couples adopt, or foster or widows remarry. And the family that sparked this whole debate had a biological father doing the abuse, so this "regulation" wouldn't even have helped them in particular.
I can't wrap my head around the idea of just eliminating men as a real suggestion for keeping kids safe.
  • TeenagerMom, Heatherwith4, happypamama and 4 others like this