Why doesn't CPS take away the minor children?

[Jacie Estes]

I haven't read this entire thread, and so maybe this has been said already - but I'll say it anyway.

Sometimes when I read WS, my jaw hits the floor because I honestly cannot believe the low threshold some people have for government intrusion. As a person who wants the government to stay as far, far away from me and my family as I can possibly keep them, I have some serious comprehension problems when it comes to people wishing CPS would just barge into private homes and take children away when there are perfectly competent adults to care for them.

I'm at the front of the line when it comes to being critical of drinking while parenting and neglecting the kids. But, there are lots of things that can be done in the way of child protection short of removing kids from a home, and to my knowledge, nobody here knows what has or has not been done with regard to the kids in this case. Removing kids is an awful experience for everyone, especially the kids, and should be a dead-last resort, when there is nobody else in the family to care for them. In this case, we've got a father who (as far as I can tell) hasn't admitted to anything untoward, as well as a plethora of other perfectly competent relatives. For all we know, there may be an order that DB is not to be left alone in charge of the kids. Maybe that's why the family has been living with relatives. We don't know - nor should we know, as a matter of privacy.

The idea that the government should take the other children away, based on what we know, disgusts me. Blech.

BBM Frightening, isn't it?

 

[Lillith]

Exactly. I know no one is going to like when I say this, but truthfully the title of this thread got my blood boiling a little. WHY would CPS remove the children form this home? Because DB admitted that she was drunk that night? Once? (and no, I'm not saying that that was ok for her to do that, I think that was very irresponsible).

I mean seriously, what evidence of abuse or neglect is there to say that these poor kids need to be taken away from their parents? Is there any? I don't see it.

Ok, rant over. I just hate this. :furious:

Having grown up with an alcoholic parent I would like to argue that getting "blackout drunk" with three small children in one's sole care is at the very least neglect and quite possibly abuse...... It certainly felt like it to me....

 

[Jacie Estes]

The woman who claims she left her child in the car when it run out of gas-CPS took her second child and put that child in foster car. But here is DB who admits to drinking, her baby gone missing, and yet she is keeping both kids, one of whom is not even hers (but JI's). I frankly don't get it.

Elizabeth Smart's mother brought a homeless man, Brian David Mitchell, off of the streets in Salt Lake City into their home to do work. He kidnapped Elizabeth and raped her repeatedly in a 'camp' not far from their home. Was Mrs. Smart neglectful? Were her other children taken away?

 

[oh_gal]

Exactly. I know no one is going to like when I say this, but truthfully the title of this thread got my blood boiling a little. WHY would CPS remove the children form this home? Because DB admitted that she was drunk that night? Once? (and no, I'm not saying that that was ok for her to do that, I think that was very irresponsible).

I mean seriously, what evidence of abuse or neglect is there to say that these poor kids need to be taken away from their parents? Is there any? I don't see it.

Ok, rant over. I just hate this. :furious:

Just out of curiosity, do you feel that her "adult time", then, was a one-time thing?

Because, to me, personally, having a parent say, "Yeah, I had "X" number of drinks (enough to be impaired), but hey, it's all good! It's Adult Time, and I don't see anything wrong with me having my Adult Time!" would send up a giant red flag.

I remember a few years ago, there was a news story that showed these 20- and 30-something moms, who would gather at someone's house, let their kids play (this was in the middle of the day) and they'd knock back some drinks and "unwind". They, like DB, saw absolutely nothing wrong with this. They would then pack their kids back up in their car, and drive, and some of them were probably impaired. But hey, it was Adult Time!

When I need Adult Time, I go wander the aisles of Walmart aimlessly (I live in the sticks, there's nowhere else to go), while my husband stays home with the kids, and I decompress.

While I "get" the "there's no hard evidence that DB did something to her child, so why would the kids be taken away", line of reasoning, sometimes there are other reasons to look into the stability of a household or parents, one being....drinking the night away with very young children under your care, and seeing nothing wrong with it. As someone else mentioned, if it was your nanny or babysitter having some Adult Time while your kids were under her care, I bet a lot people would have a problem with that, and they would say that that caregiver was unfit. They might even go so far as to have the police brought in. Probably because a Nanny or babysitters job is to watch and take care of the children....kinda like a...oh, I don't know....parent, maybe?

IMO, Adult Time is a regularly occurring theme in this house.

 

[Jacie Estes]

Just out of curiosity, do you feel that her "adult time", then, was a one-time thing?

Because, to me, personally, having a parent say, "Yeah, I had "X" number of drinks (enough to be impaired), but hey, it's all good! It's Adult Time, and I don't see anything wrong with me having my Adult Time!" would send up a giant red flag.

I remember a few years ago, there was a news story that showed these 20- and 30-something moms, who would gather at someone's house, let their kids play (this was in the middle of the day) and they'd knock back some drinks and "unwind". They, like DB, saw absolutely nothing wrong with this. They would then pack their kids back up in their car, and drive, and some of them were probably impaired. But hey, it was Adult Time!

When I need Adult Time, I go wander the aisles of Walmart aimlessly (I live in the sticks, there's nowhere else to go), while my husband stays home with the kids, and I decompress.

While I "get" the "there's no hard evidence that DB did something to her child, so why would the kids be taken away", line of reasoning, sometimes there are other reasons to look into the stability of a household or parents, one being....drinking the night away with very young children under your care, and seeing nothing wrong with it. As someone else mentioned, if it was your nanny or babysitter having some Adult Time while your kids were under her care, I bet a lot people would have a problem with that, and they would say that that caregiver was unfit. They might even go so far as to have the police brought in. Probably because a Nanny or babysitters job is to watch and take care of the children....kinda like a...oh, I don't know....parent, maybe?

IMO, Adult Time is a regularly occurring theme in this house.

'Adult time' is subjective; what works for some, doesn't for others.

 

[oh_gal]

'Adult time' is subjective; what works for some, doesn't for others.

And one could say the same for "discipline." As in, I spank my child on the bottom with an open hand, but you (not you, personally) strike them with a belt. I feel my form of discipline is fine, and yet, so do you! Yet, CPS has been known to come into houses and remove children for the way they were being "disciplined, a "subjective" issue.

What would have happened if one of those children required medical attention? For all we know, one of them did.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

'Adult time' is subjective; what works for some, doesn't for others.

Well, it didn't work out so well for Lisa.

 

[Lillith]

'Adult time' is subjective; what works for some, doesn't for others.

I don't believe it's as simple as this. Alcohol is not an illegal substance but there are laws relating to it's consumption in inappropriate circumstances ie: Driving.
I don't know of many employers who would continue your employment if you were drunk at work amidst your responsibilities.
There are laws relating to inappropriate behavior whilst drunk etc etc -
Alcohol is a legal substance, yes, but it comes with many restrictions and the question of which circumstances are unsuitable for inebriation is valid for discussion.
Being drunk whilst in the sole care of 3 children might "work for some" adults - I promise you, it doesn't work for the children.....

 

[spamelope]

Here's one mom whose "adult time" didn't work out so well for her.
Napa Police: Drunk Mom Arrested for Child Neglect

She passed out on her 5-year-old and 2-year-old kids, according to police.
http://napa.patch.com/articles/napa-police-drunk-mom-arrested-for-child-neglect

And another: http://www.tmz.com/2011/06/11/in-pl...arrested-child-neglect-911-call/#.TsUJtVa8A3g

These are cases where there isn't any other evidence of abuse or neglect-simply being drunk while in charge of children is enough in itself. While both of these cases are in CA, if this happened in my state, the results would be the same. I don't understand how anyone can think that it's not child neglect for the sole caretaker of children to be blackout drunk. Being fumblestuck drunk is not the same as being asleep.

 

[Jacie Estes]

DB was in her home; her partner, JI, was coming home soon. There was another adult there, as well as another child. There were 4 children in the house that night, only one was abducted. Lisa was targeted by a bald headed, sprinkler turning off, fire setting homeless drifter who was in the area of JI/DB's house that night. IMHO

 

[Abby Normal]

And one could say the same for "discipline." As in, I spank my child on the bottom with an open hand, but you (not you, personally) strike them with a belt. I feel my form of discipline is fine, and yet, so do you! Yet, CPS has been known to come into houses and remove children for the way they were being "disciplined, a "subjective" issue.

What would have happened if one of those children required medical attention? For all we know, one of them did.

And then there are people like me, who don't believe in striking children at all. One day, people with my mindset could set the standard, we wouldn't be the first society to ban spanking. Only then would we lose the subjective nature of children's services on the matter of force and discipline. Those are the sorts of things that happen when we decide that it needs to be black and white.

Think of it this way- any act, or failure to act that results in imminent risk or excessive harm.

She may very well lose her children, but first they have to find out how she acted on something, or didn't act on something that caused risk or harm. Obviously her child came to risk or harm, that's not debatable. But there is nothing to say that if she had done things differently, it wouldn't have happened. However, we have a whole camp of people trying to show just that. Which is honestly more than most kids get.

Lillith, I hear you loud and clear. I was raised my first 4/5 years by a druggie and my next so many by a drunk. I really do hear you. I was also in and out of foster care my whole life too, though. I feel that there is excessive heartache in both avenues. That's as far as I can get into it on a personal level, but I hear you and I don't disagree. It's such a hard line to walk, and such a gray area to navigate.

 

[cityslick]

And one could say the same for "discipline." As in, I spank my child on the bottom with an open hand, but you (not you, personally) strike them with a belt. I feel my form of discipline is fine, and yet, so do you! Yet, CPS has been known to come into houses and remove children for the way they were being "disciplined, a "subjective" issue.

What would have happened if one of those children required medical attention? For all we know, one of them did.

What gets lost in this whole debate about her being drunk is if her story is true, DB expected JI to be at the home earlier. So that may have influenced her thinking in that she thought all would be fine because he'll be home soon anyway. So the intent never was, I'm going to get drunk and pass out and leave the kids unattended.

If you don't believe her story is true, then obviously you don't believe she was drunk to pass out anyway and the debate is moot.

 

[Nixie]

I think Jeremy was usually home for her "adult time" not making excuses for her, just saying that I don't think it was regularly occurring that she was home alone with the children during her adult time. I think more often then not she would have a few drinks and he was home to supervise the children. I am not sure if he drank also but I haven't seen it reported that he did so I can only assume when she said she had adult time a couple times a week Jeremy was usually there. Also I am confused on the timeline was it Jeremy who was home with the children or did the neighbor watch them when DB went to get her wine? Did he know she would be drinking that night or did he assume that she wouldn't be because he would be working? I know his overtime job was kind of a one time thing so maybe that is why CPS hasn't taken the children........

 

[scmom]

And then there are people like me, who don't believe in striking children at all. One day, people with my mindset could set the standard, we wouldn't be the first society to ban spanking. Only then would we lose the subjective nature of children's services on the matter of force and discipline. Those are the sorts of things that happen when we decide that it needs to be black and white.

Think of it this way- any act, or failure to act that results in imminent risk or excessive harm.

She may very well lose her children, but first they have to find out how she acted on something, or didn't act on something that caused risk or harm. Obviously her child came to risk or harm, that's not debatable. But there is nothing to say that if she had done things differently, it wouldn't have happened. However, we have a whole camp of people trying to show just that. Which is honestly more than most kids get.

Lillith, I hear you loud and clear. I was raised my first 4/5 years by a druggie and my next so many by a drunk. I really do hear you. I was also in and out of foster care my whole life too, though. I feel that there is excessive heartache in both avenues. That's as far as I can get into it on a personal level, but I hear you and I don't disagree. It's such a hard line to walk, and such a gray area to navigate.

I think the problem is that children aren't given the same rights as adults as far as who gets to hit them or not. If an adult hits another adult it's regarded as an assault, but the same standard does not apply if an adult hits one of their children. While I have never seen an open-hand spanking as child abuse, it is a slippery slope. I think the law right now still sees children as chattel, much as women were regarded in the past.

 

[Lillith]

DB was in her home; her partner, JI, was coming home soon. There was another adult there, as well as another child. There were 4 children in the house that night, only one was abducted.

BBM

Ummmm, isn't one enough?

As for the "other adult" - she was also drinking so no one was actually on duty. I know I'm getting into uncomfortable territory for many people here as drinking around kids is not uncommon - however, this situation is a good example of what can happen when parents are being negligent - and yes, I sincerely believe that getting drunk without a nominated 'sober adult' is negligent when in charge of small children.

 

[Marshmallow]

"Why doesn't CPS take away the minor children?"

Because there is no evidence to show that this must be done.

society feels it's okay for a parent to get so drunk they pass out when they're supposed to be tending to and protecting their minor children. it's their home, their kids and if they want to spend their parenting time being drunk and passing out while the children fend for thermselves then who are we to point the finger at them? and if one child turns up missing well it's okay, it's the parent's right to have it happen. They deserve high priced attys, tv programs, pity , and of course money for life. After all they have a right to drink and if they chose to drink to the point of blacking out whn their kids are on their watch... oh well.

 

[Lillith]

And then there are people like me, who don't believe in striking children at all. One day, people with my mindset could set the standard, we wouldn't be the first society to ban spanking. Only then would we lose the subjective nature of children's services on the matter of force and discipline. Those are the sorts of things that happen when we decide that it needs to be black and white.

Think of it this way- any act, or failure to act that results in imminent risk or excessive harm.

She may very well lose her children, but first they have to find out how she acted on something, or didn't act on something that caused risk or harm. Obviously her child came to risk or harm, that's not debatable. But there is nothing to say that if she had done things differently, it wouldn't have happened. However, we have a whole camp of people trying to show just that. Which is honestly more than most kids get.

Lillith, I hear you loud and clear. I was raised my first 4/5 years by a druggie and my next so many by a drunk. I really do hear you. I was also in and out of foster care my whole life too, though. I feel that there is excessive heartache in both avenues. That's as far as I can get into it on a personal level, but I hear you and I don't disagree. It's such a hard line to walk, and such a gray area to navigate.

Thanks Abbey, I'm sorry to hear you've dealt with such hardship. I believe you re: Foster care - seems the best solution is to be a totally focused, devoted parent in the first place. Parents who think that being mentally absent through substances but physically present is good enough, are kidding themselves. Not only do kids need your very best judgement at all times but they also find 'altered adults' confusing and scary.
I also agree with the smacking. I've had 3 kids and couldn't imagine hitting them ever. Plenty of other ways to discipline like 'time out' - reward systems - stickers etc that don't send contradictory messages (I'd never let them hit each other, so why would I ?).

 

[Rosemarie]

'Adult time' is subjective; what works for some, doesn't for others.

Having one too many drinks apparently wasn't a good adult time activity for Deborah.

 

[Rosemarie]

"Why doesn't CPS take away the minor children?"

Because there is no evidence to show that this must be done.

There is evidence. The neglectful mother said she put Lisa to bed at 6:30pm. Waitttttt or was it 10:30pm? :banghead: Mom never checked on her baby again that night. Mom told certain news media she was drunk --again on that night.
One child -a baby disappeared. The older boys were left to fend for themselves. imo

 

[Rosemarie]

What gets lost in this whole debate about her being drunk is if her story is true, DB expected JI to be at the home earlier. So that may have influenced her thinking in that she thought all would be fine because he'll be home soon anyway. So the intent never was, I'm going to get drunk and pass out and leave the kids unattended.

If you don't believe her story is true, then obviously you don't believe she was drunk to pass out anyway and the debate is moot.

The number of spins for this woman amazes me.