A mandated "license to have kids," what should be on the test?

Attach to your answer form a photocopy (front and back) of the CPR/First aid/Infant First Aid card you earned within the last two years.


needscoffee
**Quote: Originally Posted by Czarcasm **
How about a mandatory stint of foster parenting?
**
Hope you’re joking. Foster kids aren’t guinea pigs to weed out shitty parents.

No, but they are (unfortunately) living, breathing, suffering examples of what happens to kids when their parents are so irresponsible that neighbors and/or officials notice and feel the need to take those kids away. They could seriously benefit from your care and attention and you will undoubtedly learn what NOT to do that the birth-parent(s) did wrong.


monstro Which of the following should not be given to a baby?

4. Mellow Yellow

:eek:You can’t seriously – Oh!
You’re talking about that carbonated drink that’s like Mountain Dew…
Never mind. :smack:

What needscoffee said. Also, again, I do this stuff for a living. My clients who are adoptive parents adopted those kids out of the same dependency court that’s now taking them back. Not only were they foster parents, they fostered those specific children that they adopted and later abused, neglected, or abandoned. It’s not a bulwark against shitty parenting. I’ve also had a number of clients who had their kids taken away because they used drugs, so their kids were deemed at risk even though they had not yet been harmed, only for those kids to be severely physically or sexually abused in foster care. You can imagine how that makes the parents feel about the system.

And then there was this fun case (here’s a link to a free copy of the slip opinion; if that doesn’t work, you can try searching elsewhere):
https://cadependencyonlineguide.info/view/cases/16091.PDF
In re B.D. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 803
TL;DR version: kid was taken away from his parents and placed with foster parents who were deemed suitable adoptive parents. The bio parents’ parental rights were terminated, and the adoption process was moving forward when it came to light that the foster parent was physically abusing the kid. But wait, it gets worse! It turns out this adoptive parent had been investigated for sexually abusing this same child a year earlier, but the right hand of the child welfare agency didn’t know what the left hand was doing, and this information was never shared with the social worker on the case, the child’s attorney, or the judge. But wait, there’s more! This foster parent had had his parental rights to his own children terminated, he had previously been convicted of a violent crime and sentenced to prison, and he had grown children living at home who had sexually abused other children! And the Bureau knew this but didn’t disclose because somehow this guy still managed to become a licensed foster parent, so golly gee, guess he’s all right!

So it’s a cute idea and all, but even if we ignore the Constitutional problems, there’s the inherent Minority Report problem of trying to figure out in advance who is going to be a bad parent, to say nothing of the practical problem of staggering governmental incompetence to actually implement such a system.

Here’s an idea: we could spend our resources helping parents instead of punishing them. I once informally polled the County Counsel (our court’s prosecutors) as to how many of these cases would go away if the child welfare agency could just buy a house for everyone who needed it. I assumed their guesses would be lower than mine; it’s well-established that poverty alone is not a basis to detain children, and presumably they believe in what they’re doing. But I got estimates as high as 80%, and the lowest was 50%. Read that again. The lawyers whose job it is to take away kids in LA County believe that half of those parents just need a home.

This was starkly illustrated by one of the first cases I picked up as a baby lawyer. I represented a mom whom I’m sure most of you would not approve for a parenting license. She was black, poor, uneducated, unemployed, and had 5 kids by 5 different men. The first 4 were in the wind; the fifth had just beaten her up. I spend a lot of time trying to persuade DV victims to leave their abusers so they can get their kids back, but I didn’t have to do that with her; she promptly took her kids and left without a backward glance the first time he laid a hand on her. Problem was, they were now homeless, along with tens of thousands of other people in a county with limited shelters. The Department wanted to take her kids away. Now, at the time, the county paid foster parents $800 per month per child; it’s gone up since then and there have always been higher rates for special-needs kids. So they were going to pay $4,000 per month just to the caregivers. They literally could have bought her a house for that. And it was clear in that case that a house was really all she needed. She was a great mom. Her kids were happy, healthy, clean, and attending school (those that were school-aged). Her oldest was diagnosed with ADHD, and she was on top of his medication. Her youngest had a speech delay, and she was on top of his Regional Center services. She was on top of the school administration when her daughter was being bullied. I saw her deftly supervise all five kids at once while listening to my advice and responding with intelligent questions. Her kids loved her to pieces; I saw them run to her in court and hug her and refuse to let go, after they had been detained and before I got them released. After they returned to her care, she continued to struggle to find a place to live; she was on a mile-long waiting list for Section 8 housing, which she finally got after about 2 years. But even while they were couch-surfing, her children thrived in her care, as reported by the social worker who continued to supervise the family. She finally got her case closed when she finally got a Section 8 apartment. She hasn’t been back in the system yet.

So perhaps we could all look inward and ask ourselves why we’re willing to go to such great lengths and expense to curtail other people’s freedoms, when we could often just help them for less.

Well played.

I have nothing to add to it but, that’s one hell of a write up and I appreciated reading every word of it.

Thank you.

I actually have an even worse published case about children being abused by their adoptive parents who had passed all the tests, though I don’t recommend reading it if you ever want to sleep again: In re A.E. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1124.
https://cadependencyonlineguide.info/view/cases/16237.PDF

How about a phone app? Sort of like one of those Kamagachi games where you have to “feed” it every two hours and the phone’s motion sensor tracks how you handle it. And every 2 to 45 minutes it will randomly emit an earpiercing shriek for 2 to 45 minutes regardless of what you do. And the prospective parent will be required to carry 50 lbs of 5 lb weighted balls (1 to simulate the baby, the rest to simulate the rest of the crap you have to carry around for the baby). At least one of those balls will be covered with a sterile gel that looks, feels, smells and tastes like human feces. The app will also freeze the applicant’s financial assets to appropriately simulate the costs associated with raising a child. Also, the applicant will be required to place several large inflatables in their home to simulate the reduction in living space.

Foster kids need forever homes. They are not to be used as temporary training children for people whose intention it is to give them back to the system once the potential parents have passed the test. Get them a fucking dog to practice on, not damaged, abused, neglected children.

Just a note, not an attempted hijack, the most recently reported birth rate in the US had fallen to 1.73.

Good thing? Bad thing? Maybe worth discussing in another thread?

dupe post, apologies

My parents wanted to foster after my brother and I grew up and left the house. Turns out, they are MUCH harsher with guidelines to foster children than they are to adopt them. My parents would have had to install locks on the cabinets, fridge (because my dad keeps his insulin there), everything. That in addition to other demands convinced my parents it wasn’t worth the bother, even though they really love kids and I’m unlikely to give them any grandchildren. It’s a shame, because there are so many kids in desperate need of foster homes as it is. They shouldn’t be driving away families who WANT to go it and have glowing recommendations from their own kids.

One thing on the test should be how to lay an infant down. I don’t have kids, nor do I plan to have them, so I didn’t realize how dangerous it could be to leave an infant propped up or have their head tilted forward to ANY degree until someone did it in a YT video and they were called out (kid was fine, it was an accident and everyone learned their lesson).

Was it this one?Every prospective parent should read it - it’s heartbreaking and really makes you think.

In your theoretical situation, which is a scifi one, not real life, I’m assuming there’s universal contraception so that people can actually choose to be parents rather than it accidentally happening. No forced abortions or forced adoptions. And I assume we’re talking newborns.

I’d go for:

Has taken a childcare course
Has no major health issues at the point of acceptance, or, if they do, there’s a second parent who is healthy
Has back-ups in the form of other parents, grandparents, godparents, other people who’d sign up for life
Is under 50
Has enough money to sustain the family for a few months if they get laid off, or their back-ups agree to support them

I 100% agree - your client sounds like a good mother who just needed a home in which to parent her children. It would at least have been worth a try and sounds like it worked out.

But it’s not what the OP was asking about. Maybe it should have a thread of its own?

This basically already exists. There are programmable dolls on the market that (crudely) attempt to simulate the 24x7 nature of being a parent of an infant and track caretakers’ responses.

Dude. OP asked what should be on a parenting test and gave the example of kids left in hot cars as an example of what we’re trying to avoid. Several people pointed out that even the best parents can make that mistake. I pointed out, with examples, that some of the best parents I’ve seen wouldn’t pass any of the tests people had suggested so far, due to being young, unmarried, uneducated, etc. and also, that these tests already exist for foster parents, but they fail to weed out the monsters. And then you seriously say *that’s nice and all, but what’s the relevance? That mom sounds great, but let’s give her kids to someone who’s taken a childcare course, has a partner or family members to serve as back-ups, and has more money. *

So let me be more explicit. Your suggestions that poor people shouldn’t be allowed to have kids are classist bullshit and have nothing to do with the well-being of children. You had an opportunity here to learn something about why children suffer and die at the hands of their parents and what can be done to help them (and which if your novel ideas have already been tried), but it seems you prefer to remain ignorant.

You are probably trying to be funny, but that’s actually pretty racist.

OK, so to get back on topic, some thoughts:

  1. Test questions about vaccines - that they do not cause autism - and which vaccines are recommended/mandatory for kids
  2. Test questions regarding SIDS
  3. Test questions regarding common illnesses or injuries that babies/toddlers/children may suffer
  4. Test questions regarding special-ed kids: autism, Asperger’s, mental handicap, Down’s, etc.
  5. Test questions about 911, fire department, Poison Control
  6. Test questions about all “common myths and misconceptions about children and parenting”
  7. Test questions about firearm safety (keeping locked in safe, unloaded, etc.)
  8. Test questions about drowning prevention and spotting the signs of drowning
  9. Test questions about car seats (as mentioned above)

For starters what do I wish all kids had?

  1. Economic security.
  2. Raised by a natural parent on home-cooked meals.
  3. Emotionally stable family.
  4. A home environment that values education.
    So, then, any committee of competent social workers, in a few hours, could formulate a simple test that would indicate whether a couple is prepared to meet these four basic criteria. It would be foolish, wasteful and counterproductive to try to screen for minor details like keeping car tires properly inflated, or sharp objects in a locked drawer. Too many babies would be thrown out with that bathwater.

You don’t need to test against the one child in thousands that will die playing with guns or roasting in a car. You need to test against the one in 2 or 3 who will drop out of education or grow up in child-care or nourished by Ramen surrounded by anger and poverty

Spotting the signs of drowning?

These things are usually already covered by the hospital and child’s pediatrician.

I question why you are supplying these test questions on a topic you seem to know so little about.