Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Last year in Colorado, 13 children died in the custody of their parents because the state took the same attitude you want Texas to take.
Are these 400 kids all victims of incest and pedophilia?Liz are you pro-incest and pro-pedophilla?
As distasteful as that question may be it has to be asked, you've argued this whole thread that it's better to leave these kids with the very people who are abusing them.
We don't know. Are you willing to leave them in the compound where they almost certainly will be victims of incest and pedophilia? <staff edit> Do you not understand that leaving them there is the same mistake Colorado officials made last year? <staff edit>Are these 400 kids all victims of incest and pedophilia?
<staff edit> We all have posted the facts and links to the facts that prove the children are in danger. <staff edit>Other than being members of the same religion or living in the same neighborhood, what evidence is there that all 400 of them are being abused?
What part of "it is more dangerous and hurtful to them to be left in an environment where they absolutely will be sexually abused" do you not understand??
Last year in Colorado, 13 children died in the custody of their parents because the state took the same attitude you want Texas to take. Despite evidence that the children were endangered, the supervisors took the attitude that is was better to leave them in the home with the parents. Now there are 24 people facing charges ranging from manslaughter to capitol murder because of bleeding hearts who don't want to see the truth. That's why kids need to be removed from homes when there is perhaps not enough evidence for a criminal conviction.
Certainly the third floor of the temple and the young pregnant girls who were taken out of the compound are ample evidence to substantiate the need to remove them and continue the investigation with the children in a safe environment. If you can't understand that, then you are too naive to have a part in the discussion.
You've been given the evidence. You ignore it. Why should I bother?What evidence is there for this assertion?
One. In a car wreck that wasn't the foster parents' fault. Nice try.And how many kids died in foster care?
It's an overgeneralized statement that doesn't bear up under scrutiny. Lost of adolescent mothers are separated form their children because of the nature of the allegations concerning them. In the case of the compound in Texas, many of the mothers are abused children themselves. You can't apply your situation (assuming it is yours, sorry if that's in error) to this one. This is unique and the size and scope of the investigation is unrprecedented. If this is indeed your scenario that you speak of, I'm sorry. But as a psychologist I'd have to side with the state at least until it's investigation is complete. There is no way to know what danger the child may or may not be in if left in the home. Colorado learned that the hard way.Perhaps I'm just more familiar than others with the kinds of abuse that can go on in foster care. Perhaps I think treating a mother who is 17 as a victim and a mother who is 18 as a perpetrator makes very little sense. A baby whose mother is 18 gets separated from his mother, but a baby whose mother is 17 doesn't. Is this arbitrary or what?
If the DNA evidence showed only adults had used it, would it still be so sick?You've been given the evidence. You ignore it. Why should I bother?One. In a car wreck that wasn't the foster parents' fault. Nice try.
You're a psychologist?It's an overgeneralized statement that doesn't bear up under scrutiny. Lost of adolescent mothers are separated form their children because of the nature of the allegations concerning them. In the case of the compound in Texas, many of the mothers are abused children themselves. You can't apply your situation (assuming it is yours, sorry if that's in error) to this one. This is unique and the size and scope of the investigation is unrprecedented. If this is indeed your scenario that you speak of, I'm sorry. But as a psychologist I'd have to side with the state at least until it's investigation is complete. There is no way to know what danger the child may or may not be in if left in the home. Colorado learned that the hard way.
Yes. It's a temple. Not a brothel. Only pagans had sex in their temples.If the DNA evidence showed only adults had used it, would it still be so sick?
So religious discrimination is part of the problem.Yes. It's a temple. Not a brothel. Only pagans had sex in their temples.
Nobody here is concerned that children are harmed when taken from their parents and the only home they have known, no matter how bad it is? In places other than Texas, social workers normally do all they can to keep children with their parents, because they know removing the children will be traumatic. They want to be VERY sure the harm being done is both immediate and worse than the trauma they will cause by the removal. Otherwise, they will use other interventions before removal.
I'm glad Colorado has had better luck with kids in foster care than California. Perhaps they keep the number of children in the system low enough that they can carefully screen potential foster parents and only choose the very best ones.You've been given the evidence. You ignore it. Why should I bother?One. In a car wreck that wasn't the foster parents' fault. Nice try.
It's an overgeneralized statement that doesn't bear up under scrutiny. Lost of adolescent mothers are separated form their children because of the nature of the allegations concerning them. In the case of the compound in Texas, many of the mothers are abused children themselves. You can't apply your situation (assuming it is yours, sorry if that's in error) to this one.
This is unique and the size and scope of the investigation is unrprecedented. If this is indeed your scenario that you speak of, I'm sorry. But as a psychologist I'd have to side with the state at least until it's investigation is complete. There is no way to know what danger the child may or may not be in if left in the home. Colorado learned that the hard way.
Your statement read as though you had been the "victim," personally, of having a child taken from you. My mistake in making that assumption. <staff edit>What kind of "situation" are you assuming I have?
Maybe the Colorado foster care system needs to be revamped. Your statements indicate it is better to leave a child in a home where they can be physically or sexually abused than to put them in foster care in your state. That speaks badly of your state's foster care system.I'm glad Colorado has had better luck with kids in foster care than California. Perhaps they keep the number of children in the system low enough that they can carefully screen potential foster parents and only choose the very best ones.
You have to weigh the risks. In order to lower the criteria for removal of children in CO so as to have prevented these 13 deaths, how many more children would have had to be put in the system? Since we can only know from hindsight which children actually will die, we certainly can't assume the number of kids in foster care would be increased by only 13.
So let's say Colorado doubled the number of children in foster care, just to be on the safe side. Unfortunately, the risk to children in foster care would more than double because Colorado would have to lower its standards, training, screening practices, increase the incentives to become foster parents, etc. All these things would make foster care more risky for children.
You can't just remove children from their homes wholesale "to be on the safe side." There are risks on both sides, and when you tip the balance, you increase the risks on the removal side.
If the family is teaching the underage pregnant teenager that it is that teenager's obligation to family and God to let someone else have intercourse with them, whether they want it or not, then yes, we should remove them from the home.What evidence is there for this assertion?
And how many kids died in foster care?
The third floor of the temple has a bed where people have sex. So what?
Should all pregnant teens be removed from their homes? Perhaps. And then we need to break the cycle of underage parenthood by taking these girls' babies away from them so they won't be able to make the same mistakes raising them that their own parents made, right?
There just isn't a simple answer.
But I guess I'm crazy for thinking the situation is complicated.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?