Abuse Recovery

Question:

These people were not pushed into abuse. To these people abuse was more desirable than simply taking their child to a safe place and dropping her off. Didn’t they repeatedly try to get Family Services to take custody of the child?  If they wouldn’t take her when they walked her in the front door in the daytime, I doubt they’d take her if they dropped her on the doorstep at night.  More likely she’d be returned first thing in the morning with threats of criminal penalties to the parents, but no help.

They could have walked away. They could have "abandoned" her right there at the department of children and family services. If they had really not wanted to abuse her, they would have simply walked away. They didn’t. They could have taken the criminal penalties, which, I might point out, would have at least have kept the child out of their home. They chose instead to lock her in a cage and abuse her. Unfortunately, our social "services" won’t step in unless and until there’s abuse.  I’m reminded of the case of the 600lb girl who died in California — her mother had asked for help no less than 50 times from local agencies and hospitals and not received any.  Yet once the girl was dead, the "justice" system had unlimited resources, and moved with lightning speed to prosecute the grieving mother.  Do you think she could have relinquished that kid?  Is there *anywere* where you can just relinquish a kid?  (If you give out an address, there’ll probably be lines around the block and into the next State).

There are alternatives to abuse. Nobody forced these people to abuse their daughter, and had they really wanted to not do so, they wouldn’t have. Had they been serious about relinquishing their daughter, they would have taken her to family services (or another social service agency) and left her there. They never did. They instead chose to lock her in a cage.                                                           Lainie

Response:

Lainie Petersen wrote … snip… | |There are alternatives to abuse. Nobody forced these people to abuse their |daughter, and had they really wanted to not do so, they wouldn’t have. Had |they been serious about relinquishing their daughter, they would have taken |her to family services (or another social service agency) and left her |there. They never did. They instead chose to lock her in a cage. I agree with you that nobody forced these people to abuse their child. However, you really don’t have a clue as to how social service agencies work nowadays.  The majority of them are overloaded and underfunded.  Add to this the mandates that discourage any attempts to remove a child from the family unless abhorrent abuse is taking place along with overwhelmed caseworkers and you have a recipe for inneffectiveness inaction until it is too damn late. There is no way that a family could simply dump a child that they no longer wanted on the door of Children’s Services agency and wash their hands of the situation.  Look at how many time babies are abandoned in trash barrels and the first thing the police and these agencies do is start tracking the mother down.  Even with the infant recently found along the interstate, clearly having been tossed from a car, the first thing mentioned in the article is that they are looking everywhere for the mother.  To my mind, if someone throws a baby in a trash can or out of a moving car, that person is not a parent and has no business with a child.  Also, if it were that easy to give children up, such drastic measures wouldn’t be so commonplace. glas

Response:

Sue, this is right, but it’s not the basis for social order.

Rupa, please remember that I’m the one who for a coon’s age has been promoting the concept of parental licensing so that people who have zero parenting skills and/or who have suffered at the hands of poor or absent parenting models will be provided remedial support BEFORE conception or counseled to avoid conception (if they see that  as a solution) altogether … or some other yet to be determined outcome … but the result would be fewer instances of abusive parenting. Would you recommend ‘compassion’ in the form of highly abbreviated sentences for all people who violate the law?

I recommend compassion for all people. And punishment for illegal ACTIONS/ BEHAVIOR. The two can be administered simultaneously. Re: Victim versus bystander status. Would you agree that WE ARE ALL VICTIMIZED by the caged child scenario? By the death of any person?  If you do, you and I and John Donne are reading from the same page here.   No, I didn’t look out from the bars as that child did, but I am victimized nonetheless. I wish everyone felt that … But — as the account points out — it may prevent the parents from regaining

custody, and permit permanent arrangements to be made for the children. Otherwise, they will just be in foster care of one sort or another until their parents come out and try to get them back. I’m also one of the people who supports that "Do serious harm to your child and all your children will be removed from the home, never to return … at least not without intrusive, continual, and high cost oversight." We need to be MORE proactive in these cases, allocating the necessary big-ticket  $$ (and demanding accountability), imo, and less punitive afterwards. Aren’t you being a bit idealistic here, Sue?

I hope you know I read that as a HIGH compliment. Scott can’t change the laws by himself

Scott has presented himself as one dedicated to major societal change — most of it punitive and after-the-fact — I’m suggesting that he might be more proactive, and in doing so actually achieve more of what he professes to want … a world in which all children are safe from harm at the hands of their parents and/or daily care givers. Best wishes.                                        Sue T.

Response:

Lisa, I’m not sure whether information provided to me in email has also been shared with the a.a. group.  If "extenuating circumstances" doesn’t ring a bell, I guess it hasn’t. Well, I haven’t heard of any ‘extenuating circumstances’, so please, enlighten me. However, I am having a hard time imaging just what ‘extenuating circumstances’ would ameliorate or excuse locking a child in a dog cage.

I believe that Sue is referring to this news article, which I thought I had posted in reply to Steve’s request for an url on the story: Sue: Site index