What regulations should protect children?

[Rosie_0801]

We're talking about statistically, what would help?

 

Regulations don't make a difference for 99% of families because 99% of families (or whatever high percentage it is) don't abuse their kids.

 

However, if you're talking about statistical regulations that would make a difference in child abuse, non-bio adult males would make a massive difference.

 

It does suck that it would take away freedom from women who want to get remarried or date/have live-in boyfriends after divorce or widowhood, that is true.

 

But it is also true that it would keep more kids alive and safe.

 

Thus is the nature of government regulation.  Easy to give up other people's rights but hard to give up your own.

 

But what about men's rights to re-partner? :svengo:

[TeenagerMom]

We're talking about statistically, what would help?

 

Regulations don't make a difference for 99% of families because 99% of families (or whatever high percentage it is) don't abuse their kids.

 

However, if you're talking about statistical regulations that would make a difference in child abuse, non-bio adult males would make a massive difference.

 

It does suck that it would take away freedom from women who want to get remarried or date/have live-in boyfriends after divorce or widowhood, that is true.

 

But it is also true that it would keep more kids alive and safe.

 

Thus is the nature of government regulation.  Easy to give up other people's rights but hard to give up your own.

 

Most of the cases that I have personally seen in the news regarded a non-bio male providing childcare while the mother worked.  Instead of telling women that they can't ever love someone again to protect their children (or men for that matter), how about put more childcare support in place for single parents so they don't have to rely on their boyfriend/girlfriend of 2 weeks to watch their child so they can pay the bills?  Here it is practically impossible to get childcare vouchers at all.

[unsinkable]

And that's incredibly sad. But it's probably not fair to lump caring step fathers in with random boyfriends. Or loving adoptive fathers. It is true that non related males hurt children, but so do biological fathers. And mothers. AndAnd teachers and baby sitters and priests and soccer coaches.

Right.

 

Bio-parents are the largest category of abusers. I think I'm phrasing that correctly.

[Rosie_0801]

Right.

 

Bio-parents are the largest category of abusers. I think I'm phrasing that correctly.

 

Do we have any information on whether the same men who abuse step-kids do or don't abuse their own?

 

Anyway, I think it is more socially acceptable to abuse your own, so maybe it is not possible to research this in any meaningful way.

[eternalsummer]

But what about men's rights to re-partner? :svengo:

 

I think the rate of women getting custody of children after a divorce (or as single parents who were not divorced) is much higher than me - something like 5x as high?

 

Personally, I want less government involvement - I'm not in favor of mandated home inspections, or mandated yearly checkups at the dr., or mandated dentist visits.  I'm not in favor of the government telling you with whom you can live, either, particularly.

 

I just wanted to point out that a lot of people are happy to give up their autonomy for relatively innocuous things that they personally are doing anyway - having mandated reporters in their home, taking their kids for yearly physicals, seeing the dentist twice a year.  but those things are, statistically speaking, not as effective as banning non-bio males would be.  So if you want to react to a sensational case of people being absolutely evil, who are nonetheless a zillionth of a percent of the population, with massive regulations on all regular people, you might as well do something effective.

 

If a stepfather or boyfriend is going to abuse his stepkids/girlfriend's kids, I don't know that daycare makes a huge difference.  The stepfathers I've known who were abusive were abusive after school, for kids who were school age.  Granted, the kids didn't die, so there's that.

[Bluegoat]

We're talking about statistically, what would help?

 

Regulations don't make a difference for 99% of families because 99% of families (or whatever high percentage it is) don't abuse their kids.

 

However, if you're talking about statistical regulations that would make a difference in child abuse, non-bio adult males would make a massive difference.

 

It does suck that it would take away freedom from women who want to get remarried or date/have live-in boyfriends after divorce or widowhood, that is true.

 

But it is also true that it would keep more kids alive and safe.

 

Thus is the nature of government regulation.  Easy to give up other people's rights but hard to give up your own.

 

I think this would be kind of a silly regulation, but it is the kind of thing that can be shaped to a certain extent through social norms.  Things that tended to create more stable families - moms and dads staying together, people not moving in together without significant commitment, not too many babies born to parents who aren't committed, etc would tend to make situations with unrelated males less common.

[eternalsummer]

I agree, it would be a silly regulation - but so would mandatory home inspections, etc.  

 

I also agree that the softest form of societal control is that which happens naturally by cultural norms and the influence of non-governmental institutions.  Unfortunately we've lost a fair amount of that influence and people are, in some ways, in much worse straits than they were 50 years ago.  (of course in other ways, not worse straits).

[Bluegoat]

As far as laws though, and what's the point if bad people don't follow them - even f we assume that they don't affect actual behaviour at all, which probably isn't true - if there aren't actually laws against things, you can't do anything when people do the bad things. There would, for example, be nothing you could do about a parent who neither sent the kids ti school nor made any effort to educate them.

[unsinkable]

Do we have any information on whether the same men who abuse step-kids do or don't abuse their own?

 

Anyway, I think it is more socially acceptable to abuse your own, so maybe it is not possible to research this in any meaningful way.

I don't know.

 

I have anecdotes from friends and family who were treated badly and abused by the non-bio males that their mothers partnered with, and some of them said their stepsibs weren't mistreated. Some didn't have stepsibs.

[TechWife]

As far as laws though, and what's the point if bad people don't follow them - even f we assume that they don't affect actual behaviour at all, which probably isn't true - if there aren't actually laws against things, you can't do anything when people do the bad things. There would, for example, be nothing you could do about a parent who neither sent the kids ti school nor made any effort to educate them.

I know someone who had to recently appear before a judge because they had a truant child. So yes, you can do things to hold the parents accountable. The consequence was a proactive one - parenting classes, if it happens again, the consequences will be punitive.

Edited January 20, 2018 by TechWife

[Rosie_0801]

I don't know.

 

I have anecdotes from friends and family who were treated badly and abused by the non-bio males that their mothers partnered with, and some of them said their stepsibs weren't mistreated. Some didn't have stepsibs.

 

In the only situation involving a stepfather I'm familiar with, the bio-child cops the brunt of the (non-violent) abuse and step child's seems to be a byproduct of that.

 

In all the other situations I know, the bio fathers are the abusers, and there are no steps involved.

[Bluegoat]

I know someone who had to recently appear before a judge because they had a truant child. So yes, you can do things to hold the parents accountable. The consequence was a proactive one - parenting classes, if it happens again, the consequences will be punitive.

 

Yes - so obviously if being truant wasn't illegal, there would have been no accountability.

[Crimson Wife]

I think the rate of women getting custody of children after a divorce (or as single parents who were not divorced) is much higher than me - something like 5x as high?

 

Personally, I want less government involvement - I'm not in favor of mandated home inspections, or mandated yearly checkups at the dr., or mandated dentist visits.  I'm not in favor of the government telling you with whom you can live, either, particularly.

 

I just wanted to point out that a lot of people are happy to give up their autonomy for relatively innocuous things that they personally are doing anyway - having mandated reporters in their home, taking their kids for yearly physicals, seeing the dentist twice a year.  but those things are, statistically speaking, not as effective as banning non-bio males would be.  So if you want to react to a sensational case of people being absolutely evil, who are nonetheless a zillionth of a percent of the population, with massive regulations on all regular people, you might as well do something effective.

 

If a stepfather or boyfriend is going to abuse his stepkids/girlfriend's kids, I don't know that daycare makes a huge difference.  The stepfathers I've known who were abusive were abusive after school, for kids who were school age.  Granted, the kids didn't die, so there's that.

 

Please provide a source for your claim that more children are killed by stepfathers or boyfriends of the mom than children who are medically neglected (either because the parents are too dysfunctional to get proper medical care or because the parents simply "don't believe in Western medicine" and rely on faith healing or ineffective home remedies, etc.).

 

[Crimson Wife]

According to the National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, 75% of cases involve neglect (of all sorts) vs. 9% s*xual abuse and 8% physical abuse. Source.

[AimeeM]

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

 

I think this is a great idea -- in theory.

In practice, though, I don't see how it's viable.

 

The only cases of abuse that would be caught, would be in-your-face obvious, and the most serious of cases. Because, absent something huge and obvious, abuse is typically decided based on a pattern of injuries, lack of growth (absent medical reasons), etc., isn't it?

There would be no way to ensure people see the same doctor/NP every single year, and since there is no central database, there would be no way to keep up with potential patterns. 

Unless, of course, we also have to turn over those medical reports to the government. I'm not okay with that idea. Public school kids do not have to turn over their medical records. Actually, nobody (adult or child) is required, absent a court order, to turn their medical records to the government.

 

The biggest hurdle to anything like this (even if we "fixed" the above issues), is the funding. If the government pays out for this like they do for medicaid... well, good luck. Most doctors can only take on a small number of medicaid patients (unless they are a government funded clinic) because of the absurdly small pay out. I think I once read it was the equivalent of less than minimum wage per hour -- and offices can't run on that, while maintaining property, utilities, equipment, insurance, and staff. I'm not sure we'd have enough doctors to go around. Even if your area has a ton of doctors (my area does!), "new patient appointments" can (absent an emergency) take months and months to get, even with general practitioners. And, even if your area has a ton of doctors available right now, you have to take into account the number of people who do not currently have a GP, and would suddenly need one, and the number of people who use holistic doctors (most of whom do not have an MD or nursing degree) or chiropractor, and would suddenly be running for doctors and NPs... and would cause a shortage even if there isn't one currently.

[AimeeM]

One of the latest "families" that sparked my reply now has a dead infant killed by a boyfriend.

 

Maybe...no live-in non-bio males unless it is with children over 7 who have a personal phone with them at all times who also know how to call 911 for help.I

 

Edit: words

 

Where does this leave adoptive parents? Heck, adoptive families in general, once we included extended family. For that matter, where does this leave all of the children regularly adopted from foster care or through domestic adoptions? 

[Bluegoat]

Where does this leave adoptive parents? Heck, adoptive families in general, once we included extended family. For that matter, where does this leave all of the children regularly adopted from foster care or through domestic adoptions? 

 

One thing about adoptive families is they typically have a lot of screening, and also indirectly in many cases because it's just such a slog to adopt.  And they tend not to have issues around things like poverty.

 

But - honestly, this would be a bizarre and impractical thing to try and do - even though it is true that non-related males pose a higher risk.  (And in the animal world, too.)

[unsinkable]

Is this thread:

 

what should protect children?

 

Or

 

What legislation should be enacted to protect children?

[TechWife]

I think this is a great idea -- in theory.

In practice, though, I don't see how it's viable.

 

The only cases of abuse that would be caught, would be in-your-face obvious, and the most serious of cases. Because, absent something huge and obvious, abuse is typically decided based on a pattern of injuries, lack of growth (absent medical reasons), etc., isn't it?

There would be no way to ensure people see the same doctor/NP every single year, and since there is no central database, there would be no way to keep up with potential patterns.

Unless, of course, we also have to turn over those medical reports to the government. I'm not okay with that idea. Public school kids do not have to turn over their medical records. Actually, nobody (adult or child) is required, absent a court order, to turn their medical records to the government.

 

The biggest hurdle to anything like this (even if we "fixed" the above issues), is the funding. If the government pays out for this like they do for medicaid... well, good luck. Most doctors can only take on a small number of medicaid patients (unless they are a government funded clinic) because of the absurdly small pay out. I think I once read it was the equivalent of less than minimum wage per hour -- and offices can't run on that, while maintaining property, utilities, equipment, insurance, and staff. I'm not sure we'd have enough doctors to go around. Even if your area has a ton of doctors (my area does!), "new patient appointments" can (absent an emergency) take months and months to get, even with general practitioners. And, even if your area has a ton of doctors available right now, you have to take into account the number of people who do not currently have a GP, and would suddenly need one, and the number of people who use holistic doctors (most of whom do not have an MD or nursing degree) or chiropractor, and would suddenly be running for doctors and NPs... and would cause a shortage even if there isn't one currently.

Sometimes oversight is about providing opportunities. With a mandatory physical, there is an opportunity for a physician to pick up on a problem, not only through a physical exam, but by observing family interactions. It also provides the children with the opportunity to know that there is someone who cares about their well-being. Not only that, it gives a child an opportunity to say something, if at all possible. After a certain age, children do have private exams with the doctor, providing further opportunity to talk. Medical records over time also can reveal trends that may indicate abuse. When parents move and do not provide previous medical records for physicians, it is an opportunity for the physician to explore further and attempt to assess the family and determine whether or not a child may be at risk.

 

As for funding, if we, the people, have our priorities in order, it won’t be an issue. We would make sure funds are available to care for children and we would make sure that the amount is adequate so that physicians willingly provide care to children, no matter who is paying the bills.

[TeenagerMom]

Sometimes oversight is about providing opportunities. With a mandatory physical, there is an opportunity for a physician to pick up on a problem, not only through a physical exam, but by observing family interactions. It also provides the children with the opportunity to know that there is someone who cares about their well-being. Not only that, it gives a child an opportunity to say something, if at all possible. After a certain age, children do have private exams with the doctor, providing further opportunity to talk. Medical records over time also can reveal trends that may indicate abuse. When parents move and do not provide previous medical records for physicians, it is an opportunity for the physician to explore further and attempt to assess the family and determine whether or not a child may be at risk.

 

As for funding, if we, the people, have our priorities in order, it won’t be an issue. We would make sure funds are available to care for children and we would make sure that the amount is adequate so that physicians willingly provide care to children, no matter who is paying the bills.

 

My kids don't have private exams.  We were just at the dr on Monday with my 17 year old and I was required to go back with her because she is a minor. 

[vonfirmath]

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.

 

And we definitely see this in AWANA. Our homeschooled kids consistently get closer to finishing the book in Truth & Training. Yes, we have some PS students that do it. But overall, a greater percentage of our homeschooled students do and their parents say that AWANA is a school subject for them. So it makes a lot of sense.

 

[TechWife]

My kids don't have private exams. We were just at the dr on Monday with my 17 year old and I was required to go back with her because she is a minor.

Your seventeen year old daughter has never had a private physical exam? Do you not do well child check ups? Those are the types of exams I am speaking of. A portion is done with the parent in the room and a portion is done with the parent out of the room to allow for privacy. Fr M what Mt son has told me, there is a brief genital exam and the doctor asks him questions about sexual activity and provides any educational information about that topic that is needed and he asked him if he feels sake at home, or something like that.

[AimeeM]

Sometimes oversight is about providing opportunities. With a mandatory physical, there is an opportunity for a physician to pick up on a problem, not only through a physical exam, but by observing family interactions. It also provides the children with the opportunity to know that there is someone who cares about their well-being. Not only that, it gives a child an opportunity to say something, if at all possible. After a certain age, children do have private exams with the doctor, providing further opportunity to talk. Medical records over time also can reveal trends that may indicate abuse. When parents move and do not provide previous medical records for physicians, it is an opportunity for the physician to explore further and attempt to assess the family and determine whether or not a child may be at risk.

 

As for funding, if we, the people, have our priorities in order, it won’t be an issue. We would make sure funds are available to care for children and we would make sure that the amount is adequate so that physicians willingly provide care to children, no matter who is paying the bills.

 

I have kids from 5 to 16, and never has the doctor asked me to leave the room. My daughter can ask me to leave, but the doctor never has, so I'm not sure that all (or even most) children have private exams with a doctor -- I've never heard of a pediatrician requiring it. 

 

If all we are (hypothetically) mandating is that the parents submit to a physical yearly, then we aren't mandating that parents acquire a regular (and consistent) family physician, so I'm not sure how we would enforce that they provide previous medical records. Even now, if you take your child to a clinic (urgent cares, walk-in clinics, etc.) for, say, a last minute physical for school, camp, or a sport, they do not require all previous medical records. In my area, any one of the dozens and dozens medical offices and clinics could be affiliated with several different hospital systems (or none at all; many of the best are private and unaffiliated), which makes sharing and accessing records between the systems difficult, since records are only shared on online platforms with offices within the same hospital system (at least in my area).

 

It sounds great to want the government to pay out enough to ensure quality, accessible care for all children. However, the reality is that even in countries where there is funding for all children to see doctors, at all times, there are shortages of providers to do just that. Which was the other point to my earlier reply -- accessibility when you suddenly have a ton of people wanting to see a doctor, who have previously not utilized them, or who typically preference other types of primary care (I have a cousin who swears by a chiropractor for virtually everything). 

Our state has medicaid for low income children, and then they have a "between" program for those in the lower middle class category, but who do not qualify for medicaid. My friend's husband brought in about 40K yearly (very low cost of living area in the south) and they have three children -- and qualified for this "between" program, which is (I believe) sliding scale based for the co-pays, but like medicaid otherwise. I believe most insurances cover well-child check ups (physicals) 100%. 

 

So, funding aside -- what about the logistics? I'll pretend that the aforementioned programs do not exist (because they are not accessible every where in the U.S.), and we have (hypothetically) set up some sort of fund that allows for all children to receive free physicals. If the number of children without primary providers to see for this is at all substantial, where do we find the providers? Full physicals are not short appointments at all. My children's pediatrician allots about 45-60 minutes per physical / well-child check up, because we have the standard full body examination, discussion and follow-up of any previous illnesses or new medical history for the past year; discussion with parents and child about school and home (behavior, any concerns, etc.), depression screenings for the teenage crowd, and then you have hearing and vision screenings themselves (if the child doesn't have an audiologist or optometry doctor they see elsewhere for those things). 

 

And we require this is done by when, exactly? My children are established in a private practice, but still -- physicals are such long affairs that it may be weeks or months out from the past year's physical, by the time scheduling comes into play, when combined with the time of year (summer and fall being their "good luck with that" seasons, if you try to schedule a physical). 

 

FTR, I'm not at all opposed to such funding. I just don't know that I agree it would help for this specific situation. 

[scoutingmom]

We're talking about statistically, what would help?

 

Regulations don't make a difference for 99% of families because 99% of families (or whatever high percentage it is) don't abuse their kids.

 

However, if you're talking about statistical regulations that would make a difference in child abuse, non-bio adult males would make a massive difference.

 

It does suck that it would take away freedom from women who want to get remarried or date/have live-in boyfriends after divorce or widowhood, that is true.

 

But it is also true that it would keep more kids alive and safe.

 

Thus is the nature of government regulation. Easy to give up other people's rights but hard to give up your own.

And how would this even possibly be enforced? This is absurd.

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.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[scoutingmom]

I know someone who had to recently appear before a judge because they had a truant child. So yes, you can do things to hold the parents accountable. The consequence was a proactive one - parenting classes, if it happens again, the consequences will be punitive.

And what if the parents are trying to get the child to go to school and the child won't? I know of a case like that. (The child is now an adult.). The child decided that "you can't make me" and she was right. The parents withheld privaleges. Removed everything but basics. Tried to physically drag the child to school. Tried a reward system. The school provided a few rewards, likd the child got to participate in a special program at the art gallery.... child would go for the half a day that day of the week. Truant officers came. Truant officers saw parents doing all they could. Truant officers gave up and stopped coming. Child saw physcologists. Parents did. Family did. Parents asked other parents for advice. This child attended school maybe 15-20 days a year. Extreme case of truancy. Would have been horrible to add punitive consequences to the parents. Sure, punish the parents if THEY are not letting the kid attend. Don't if the parents are trying. Fortunately, that is what the truant officers chose.

[Ausmumof3]

According to the National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, 75% of cases involve neglect (of all sorts) vs. 9% s*xual abuse and 8% physical abuse. Source.

Interesting. Stats I looked at for Australia the other day were much more evenly balanced. I suspect in part that few people call for neglect here because the child protection agencies are so bad you don't want to report unless it's really bad.

[Ausmumof3]

Your seventeen year old daughter has never had a private physical exam? Do you not do well child check ups? Those are the types of exams I am speaking of. A portion is done with the parent in the room and a portion is done with the parent out of the room to allow for privacy. Fr M what Mt son has told me, there is a brief genital exam and the doctor asks him questions about sexual activity and provides any educational information about that topic that is needed and he asked him if he feels sake at home, or something like that.

We don't have well child checks by default here but if we did there's no way in hell my kid would be having a private checkup with dr before about age 14.

 

Yes I have major trust issues with medical people!

[Melissa in Australia]

Your seventeen year old daughter has never had a private physical exam? Do you not do well child check ups? Those are the types of exams I am speaking of. A portion is done with the parent in the room and a portion is done with the parent out of the room to allow for privacy. Fr M what Mt son has told me, there is a brief genital exam and the doctor asks him questions about sexual activity and provides any educational information about that topic that is needed and he asked him if he feels sake at home, or something like that.

well checks are not done in Australia. instead we take our children to the doctor when they are SICK. there is no pelvic examination  after 6 week check up in infancy at all until you are sexually active.  we have generally better health than you guys have in USA. 

[Rosie_0801]

We don't have well child checks by default here but if we did there's no way in hell my kid would be having a private checkup with dr before about age 14.

 

Yes I have major trust issues with medical people!

 

There are the infant welfare checks, but I gave up going to them because the nurse (the good one, not the dopey one) kept telling me she loved our appointments because she learned so much.  :glare:

[Ausmumof3]

There are the infant welfare checks, but I gave up going to them because the nurse (the good one, not the dopey one) kept telling me she loved our appointments because she learned so much. :glare:

lol yeah.

 

Some of the helpful comments from health nurses we had were that my two week old was using me as a dummy and I should stop letting him suck so much. Also when my ds couldn't follow directions spoken by an Esl nurse whose accent I could barely understand that he must have a learning delay. I went to the dr for checks for the other two instead.

 

That said I do think it would be a very helpful screening service if they had good quality up to date scientific information.

 

Then again the obstetrician also warned me to make sure my six week old fully breastfed baby didn't put on too much weight because research shows that the weight they carry before age two determines the likelihood of obesity later in life.

[TeenagerMom]

Your seventeen year old daughter has never had a private physical exam? Do you not do well child check ups? Those are the types of exams I am speaking of. A portion is done with the parent in the room and a portion is done with the parent out of the room to allow for privacy. Fr M what Mt son has told me, there is a brief genital exam and the doctor asks him questions about sexual activity and provides any educational information about that topic that is needed and he asked him if he feels sake at home, or something like that.

 

Nope, she doesn't.  We do well child check ups yearly because their office requires it for referrals to their specialists.  Her doctors have never examined her genitals beyond toddler age to check for labial adhesions (3 different Pediatrician offices with 4 Pediatricians in 17 years).  My son has seen a Urologist since the age of 7, so she hasn't done genital checks on him either since his Urologist does those (which consists of me stepping out of the room for maybe 2 minutes for privacy and that only happened at his last appointment,  prior to that I just turned around to give my son privacy).  The Pediatrician informed us about 13 years old that she doesn't do gynecological exams or birth control but if we needed to see the CNM in their office, to let her know.

[amo_mea_filiis.]

Minimally adequate parenting needs to be defined better.

 

More care needs to go into the emotional neglect category. Neglect needs to be taken more seriously.

 

Supervisors should not be able to shut down the opinion of an investigator who has been to a home 10 times in 2 months and wants to remove the child. (This would have prevented a big abuse incident, but maybe wouldn’t have kept the kid out of the home long term).

 

Families that have had longer open cases, or multiple open cases for neglect, should have an undefined number of unannounced visits by different workers before the case can be closed.

 

Parent training when the kids are in the home shouldn’t be scheduled. The trainer just pops in to assist getting ready for school, after school, dinner, whatever.

 

Home checks should all be unannounced when the case is open.

 

Caseworkers shouldn’t stay on open cases for more than 6 months. They get too close. The house isn’t “that bad†anymore. Etc.

 

Eye drs and dentists need to be making more calls to report. A 3yo with thick glasses who never has access to those glasses is not being cared for. Untreated amblyopia because the child whines a bit is not acceptable.

 

No idea how to help kids who are hidden, but there are plenty of visible kids who are being neglected and abused and not being helped. That doesn’t mean I don’t care! I basically took a family in and make sure the kids are seen.

[KrissiK]

I’m not sure how it would even be possible to enforce mandatory annual health screenings. How on earth would you find these children?? Even if the mother had the child in a hospital, so there is a record of the birth, even with the help of computers, how would it even be possible to locate these children and track them down and determine if they have had well-child visits??

 

And then, on the flip-side, people like me, who are very conscientious, will be burdened to make appointments every year for my very healthy 5 children. We do not have insurance and our excellent GP, who we love, does not take Medi-Cal, so we would have to go somewhere else and sit in a waiting room for hours so the doctor can look in their ears, weigh them and say, “yep, your kid is fine!†I don’t think so!!

[amy g.]

I read a once that the number one thing you can do to keep your child safe is to not give him/her a stepfather. I could never find it again, so it was probably made up.

 

Still, I wonder about risk factors for abuse. Is the homeschooled child living with both biological parents who are married more at risk than the PS child living with one parent, or in a blended family or with mom and her latest boyfriend? Is there even a way to find out?

 

I know some stepdads who are amazing. They really make a bright future for their stepchildren, emotionally, physically, financially, even when mom herself isn’t so hot.

 

But daily, we read about the ones who are abusive. Is it a good idea for every adult not still with the other parent of their kids to give up on future relationships if it could prevent just one stepkid from being beaten to death? Is it selfish to put a parent’s happiness over the life of a stranger’s child?

 

I don’t take my kids to well-child check ups. The last place I would want a well kid is in a building full of sick people. I selectively vax and do not do any academic testing. And just like those families with awesome stepdad’s, it works for us and the results speak for themselves.

 

But is it selfish not to want regulation preventing me from doing what is working and what makes us happy because if I willingly gave up my freedom to parent and educate as I see best, it *might* save one child from being starved and chained to a bed for decades.

 

Furthermore, we do not eat sugar. I know that most families enjoy it with no ill consequences whatsoever, but due to the childhood obesity epidemic, shouldn’t we all give up sugar. Shouldn’t we pay more taxes to establish a new government agency that ensures no one under 21 is given sugar?

 

Isn’t it the right thing to do? Sure some parents will ignore the law, and of course, you will really miss your birthday cake and Thanksgiving pie but isn’t that a small and obvious sacrifice to make if it keeps just one stranger’s child from developing diabetes?

[SparklyUnicorn]

Your seventeen year old daughter has never had a private physical exam? Do you not do well child check ups? Those are the types of exams I am speaking of. A portion is done with the parent in the room and a portion is done with the parent out of the room to allow for privacy. Fr M what Mt son has told me, there is a brief genital exam and the doctor asks him questions about sexual activity and provides any educational information about that topic that is needed and he asked him if he feels sake at home, or something like that.

 

My kids have never had private exams without me in the room. 

[Crimson Wife]

I have kids from 5 to 16, and never has the doctor asked me to leave the room. My daughter can ask me to leave, but the doctor never has, so I'm not sure that all (or even most) children have private exams with a doctor -- I've never heard of a pediatrician requiring it. 

 

If all we are (hypothetically) mandating is that the parents submit to a physical yearly, then we aren't mandating that parents acquire a regular (and consistent) family physician, so I'm not sure how we would enforce that they provide previous medical records. Even now, if you take your child to a clinic (urgent cares, walk-in clinics, etc.) for, say, a last minute physical for school, camp, or a sport, they do not require all previous medical records. In my area, any one of the dozens and dozens medical offices and clinics could be affiliated with several different hospital systems (or none at all; many of the best are private and unaffiliated), which makes sharing and accessing records between the systems difficult, since records are only shared on online platforms with offices within the same hospital system (at least in my area).

 

It sounds great to want the government to pay out enough to ensure quality, accessible care for all children. However, the reality is that even in countries where there is funding for all children to see doctors, at all times, there are shortages of providers to do just that. Which was the other point to my earlier reply -- accessibility when you suddenly have a ton of people wanting to see a doctor, who have previously not utilized them, or who typically preference other types of primary care (I have a cousin who swears by a chiropractor for virtually everything). 

Our state has medicaid for low income children, and then they have a "between" program for those in the lower middle class category, but who do not qualify for medicaid. My friend's husband brought in about 40K yearly (very low cost of living area in the south) and they have three children -- and qualified for this "between" program, which is (I believe) sliding scale based for the co-pays, but like medicaid otherwise. I believe most insurances cover well-child check ups (physicals) 100%. 

 

So, funding aside -- what about the logistics? I'll pretend that the aforementioned programs do not exist (because they are not accessible every where in the U.S.), and we have (hypothetically) set up some sort of fund that allows for all children to receive free physicals. If the number of children without primary providers to see for this is at all substantial, where do we find the providers? Full physicals are not short appointments at all. My children's pediatrician allots about 45-60 minutes per physical / well-child check up, because we have the standard full body examination, discussion and follow-up of any previous illnesses or new medical history for the past year; discussion with parents and child about school and home (behavior, any concerns, etc.), depression screenings for the teenage crowd, and then you have hearing and vision screenings themselves (if the child doesn't have an audiologist or optometry doctor they see elsewhere for those things). 

 

And we require this is done by when, exactly? My children are established in a private practice, but still -- physicals are such long affairs that it may be weeks or months out from the past year's physical, by the time scheduling comes into play, when combined with the time of year (summer and fall being their "good luck with that" seasons, if you try to schedule a physical). 

 

FTR, I'm not at all opposed to such funding. I just don't know that I agree it would help for this specific situation. 

 

Public schools already require a physical within 90 days prior to entering kindergarten. There is a waiver available if your child has had a physical within the same calendar year and can't get another one but the school WILL follow up in 6 months for kids who've submitted the waiver form (my daughter gets her physicals in January so outside the 90 days time frame).

 

There doesn't seem to be some huge problem with getting kids in to see someone for their kindergarten physicals since most kids already have responsible parents who would get physicals regardless of the legal requirement.

[SparklyUnicorn]

well checks are not done in Australia. instead we take our children to the doctor when they are SICK. there is no pelvic examination  after 6 week check up in infancy at all until you are sexually active.  we have generally better health than you guys have in USA. 

 

And in my experiences, they do very little at these exams.  I always feel like it's a waste of time (and money).

[Crimson Wife]

I’m not sure how it would even be possible to enforce mandatory annual health screenings. How on earth would you find these children?? Even if the mother had the child in a hospital, so there is a record of the birth, even with the help of computers, how would it even be possible to locate these children and track them down and determine if they have had well-child visits??

 

Annual tax filing and any other benefit program. If you want to claim your child for tax/benefits purposes, you submit the form that your doctor/nurse provides you attesting that your child has had his/her annual physical.

 

It won't catch the people who go completely underground but the overwhelming majority of people would comply.

[snowbeltmom]

And in my experiences, they do very little at these exams.  I always feel like it's a waste of time (and money).

I agree. When my kids were younger, I took them to the doctor when it was time for an immunization shot or they were sick. I did not take them in for a yearly "well check." Two of my kids would go years in between doctor visits.

[AimeeM]

Public schools already require a physical within 90 days prior to entering kindergarten. There is a waiver available if your child has had a physical within the same calendar year and can't get another one but the school WILL follow up in 6 months for kids who've submitted the waiver form (my daughter gets her physicals in January so outside the 90 days time frame).

 

There doesn't seem to be some huge problem with getting kids in to see someone for their kindergarten physicals since most kids already have responsible parents who would get physicals regardless of the legal requirement.

 

My state allows for religious exemptions for virtually everything that is required in public schools (medically speaking -- physicals, vaccinations, etc.).

[Rosie_0801]

Supervisors should not be able to shut down the opinion of an investigator who has been to a home 10 times in 2 months and wants to remove the child. (This would have prevented a big abuse incident, but maybe wouldn’t have kept the kid out of the home long term).

 

Or vice versa.  :crying:

 

We have a fun rule where if divorced parents live in different jurisdictions, they aren't necessarily visited by the same investigator. Your report can be written by someone that only met the other party.

[Catwoman]

My kids have never had private exams without me in the room.

Same here. My ds has always been fine with it, and the doctors have never asked me to leave the room.

[Catwoman]

And in my experiences, they do very little at these exams.  I always feel like it's a waste of time (and money).

  

I agree. When my kids were younger, I took them to the doctor when it was time for an immunization shot or they were sick. I did not take them in for a yearly "well check." Two of my kids would go years in between doctor visits.

:iagree:

 

I have always been very quick to take my ds to the doctor when he was sick, but the well child visits have always seemed like a complete waste of time to me, too.

[ktgrok]

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.

 

Wow. 

 

So my teen wouldn't have had a stable father figure in his life at all, and my other three children wouldn't exist. You would have had it so that my son would be without the man that loves him unconditionally, has raised him, and been the father his own father wouldn't be. And no siblings.

 

 

Edited January 22, 2018 by ktgrok

[unsinkable]

Wow.

 

So my teen wouldn't have had a stable father figure in his life at all, and my other three children wouldn't exist. You would have had it so that my son would be without the man that loves him unconditionally, has raised him, and been the father his own father wouldn't be. And no siblings.

I was thinking to put all kids in orphanages at birth, along with ear tubes, since biomoms and biodads are the biggest categories of abusers but I learned from another thread that I don't know the definition of orphan, despite being an "actual orphan."

[Carol in Cal.]

See, this just illustrates how hard it is to craft actual legislation.

There are always a bunch of unforeseen consequences in almost any proposal, and once they get hammered out they are so weakened that they are nearly useless.  Nevertheless, we have to do it (as a country.)  It's just not right not to protect children.

[HS Mom in NC]

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.

 

You can't possibly be serious.  What stops the boyfriend from abusing the kids if he isn't a live in?  Nothing.  And what about all those kids (like me and my bio-brother) whose mothers dumped the drunk, abusive bio-father and married the stable, loving step-dad? And what about my husband, who is the adoptive (non-bio) father to our youngest?

 

 

[HS Mom in NC]

If you think step-dads and live in boyfriends who aren't biologically related are the only ones abusing kids, you need to talk to CPS workers who place foster kids in care.  I went to church with a foster kid beaten with a baseball bat into a coma by his bio dad when he was 5.  Another kid there had been repeatedly raped as a young child by his bio brother as his bio parents watched and encouraged it.  Seriously folks, there are bad bio fathers out there committing heinous crimes against their children. Don't be naive.

[Tsuga]

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.

 

We actually have a document on this!

 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/itop97.pdf

 

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

 

No, not a federal law. See above.

 

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

 

Children have the right to an education -...

 

Children have a right to medical treatment - ...

 

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.

...

 

Well said. I think a lot of this is making the perfect the enemy of the good, and making the good "not good enough". It is true that one child is one child too many.

 

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.  

 

The reports are supposed to be the alternatives, but evaluating qualitative data is super expensive. Presumably the plan and the reports on what you did is what will back you up if the child continually fails all tests. That's what all teachers do.

 

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. ...

 

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. ... 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. 

 

Exactly.

 

 

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.

 

I remember your posts and that you live in an area where the public schools are basically prisons, and there are a lot of really bad things going on in general, so I might be imagining too much here, but... 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/parents-determine-child-success-income-inequality-2014-1

 

Not to mention, people who asked this exact question, the question thousands of single women ask themselves, what is more harmful, being dirt poor, or having a stepdad who could never love them like a real dad?

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/family-income-not-family-structure-more-apt-impact-kids-lives-n313486

 

It's true, my kids have at least one parent who is too disorganized to manage a marriage, a stable life, etc. And that in and of itself is a problem. So you'd expect that to have some effects. But it seems bizarre to take from a remaining stable parent the possibility of economic stability, which is the one thing they can give their kids.

 

... Not to mention restricting any single mother out there from ever being able to have a healthy relationship again? 

 

Have you ever heard people discuss step-parenting or single-parenting on the Internet? I wouldn't ask that question if I were you. 

 

... Instead of telling women that they can't ever love someone again to protect their children (or men for that matter), how about put more childcare support in place for single parents so they don't have to rely on their boyfriend/girlfriend of 2 weeks to watch their child so they can pay the bills?  Here it is practically impossible to get childcare vouchers at all.

 

But most taxes are paid by men (who out-own women by a huge amount, and out-earn us by nearly as much), and they don't want to pay for other men's kids. That's why they don't want to provide this. It's helping another man have kids. So the answer is no.

 

Wow. 

 

So my teen wouldn't have had a stable father figure in his life at all, and my other three children wouldn't exist. You would have had it so that my son would be without the man that loves him unconditionally, has raised him, and been the father his own father wouldn't be. And no siblings.

 

And my partner, whose dad is a hot mess, also wouldn't have had a step-dad. And my kids wouldn't have a step dad to teach them all the dad things that their dad can't because he just... is another hot mess.

 

If you think step-dads and live in boyfriends who aren't biologically related are the only ones abusing kids, you need to talk to CPS workers who place foster kids in care.  I went to church with a foster kid beaten with a baseball bat into a coma by his bio dad when he was 5.  Another kid there had been repeatedly raped as a young child by his bio brother as his bio parents watched and encouraged it.  Seriously folks, there are bad bio fathers out there committing heinous crimes against their children. Don't be naive.

 

Those are horrible stories. I'm so sorry. :(

[Sandwalker]

Annual tax filing and any other benefit program. If you want to claim your child for tax/benefits purposes, you submit the form that your doctor/nurse provides you attesting that your child has had his/her annual physical.

 

It won't catch the people who go completely underground but the overwhelming majority of people would comply.

We're going to need more pediatricians/family practitioners for this plan. And the IRS has enough power already, tyvm. Since citizens aren't subject to the same protections under the law vs the IRS as they are against any other agency, I would not want them overseeing my child's medical care as well.