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!
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.