Anyone who disagrees that ditching your kid[s] is the act of a lowlife. The bases for my speculation are my personal values.
Lots of people give up their kids. It’s called adoption. Happens all the time.
I guess some folks think that trying to make a go of it, with kids they probably should have put up for adoption years ago, makes these people bad parents. Or not giving them up years earlier makes them bad parents.
To me, I see these parents/guardians that turn these kids over to “safe havens” not as slackers; but as loving the kid enough to give it up. The “I can’t do it. I just can’t do it. I can’t manage this this kid. He or she will stand a better chance of a decent life if they get the hell outta here”
Put me firmly in the “We need to judge each case” camp.
The vibe I’m getting from you is that you consider upwards of 90%, probably over 99% of parents to be bad parents. Which seems a mite harsh… Of course, I believe that ALL parents have at some time for some reason wanted to dump their kid, if only for a hairline instant and not with any will, seriousness, or intent. ALL parents. Which would definitely agree with your figure of 99%+ of bad kids coming from bad parents!
(Heck, as a youth I once stormed out of the house once swearing I wasn’t coming back, and my dad replied, essentially, “Fine, go then!” He won his automatic lowlife award! (I was allowed back in upon my return after cooling off, of course.))
Back on the OP, I want to repeat that I think that this whole “drive-by kid dumping” thing is a terrible idea. We have systems in place for assessing paternal qualifications regarding child rearing. They may be imperfect, by why should we suddenly start bypassing them entirely? Just so people can be vindicated in feeling that they have no responsibilities whatsoever?
Economics is part of the equation.
How on Earth did you get that vibe? I think 99% of the parents of bad kids are bad parents, yes. Do I think 99% of parents, in general are bad parents? Hell no.
You don’t have to guess that people think that. I’m telling you I think that. What else does it make them? “Responsible”? No. Giving up a pet you can’t take care of is responsible. When you can take care of a kid you man up and change your life so that you can. Or give it to Nebraska.
Right now there aren’t enough foster homes for the children who are already in the system. So what will happen to these kids?
I guess most will end up in group homes, which puts them at great risk for abuse, drugs, and a lack of a consistent parental figure. They’d be housed with a buch of usually delinquent teenagers who aren’t well supervised.
For this to be better than they have at home, things would have to be REALLY BAD at home.
And how good do you think things are when your parents want to dump your ass off, presumably to never be seen again?
Well, it’s partly just the math - for every bad kid there must by a bad parent, and there must be numberous bad parents who also have no bad kids. Partly because I know of parents whose kids went bad because the parents had to work long hours and were tired much of the rest of the time, and if that all it takes to be a bad parent then there’s bad parents everywhere. Partly because I know that kids are prone to reacting negatively to many different kids of parental influences, and of course, there’s piles of influences outside the home that a parent would have to be some kind of diety to control or prevent. And partially because you cite variances of discipline, variances of calmness, and variances of attention as indicators of ‘bad’ parents without indicating that you’re limiting these comments to extremely extreme variances in the abuse direction.
But what do I know, it’s just a vibe.
You’re right, it’s just a vibe. And it sounds like we might be talking about two different things with regards to what a “bad” kid is. I’m talking about kids that get hooked on hard drugs, wind up prostituing themselves, robbing/killing people, beating their siblings, etc etc. The kids that are “rotten to the core” that Pixilated started this sidetrack with. I don’t believe those kids are born, I believe they’re made. And when I talk about a parent “calming down” I mean going from a raging asshole who can’t control their temper and beats/yells at their kid constantly to a mellow older man or woman. Seems to happen a lot in people’s 40s and 50s.
I’ll concede that I was using a more inclusive definition of bad but counter with, have you ever heard of this mythical thing called a “gang”? I’d wager that in places those are prevalent, they may have a slight amount of influence on child development. Sure, these children may be made (though I personally don’t entirely discount Nature in this), but they may not be made by the parents, not entirely.
I would hope that not a lot of people start out as raging child-beating assholes, personally.
Like I said upthread, you can qualify anything to death but it doesn’t make the other >99% of cases any less true. And if I lived in the middle of a war zone a la Boyz-in-tha-Hood or Menace II Society then I would take it upon myself as a parent to get the hell out of there.
Uhh, yeah, me too. You still don’t seem to get that I’m not talking about people or parents in general. I’m talking about parents of bad kids.
And I would take it upon myself to go - or stay - where I could find work. But this is becoming tiresome. Cite on less than 1% of severely bad kids, as in murdering-type bad, growing up in gang-type environments, please? I find that hard to believe.
Let’s just blame my reading comprehension and not the clarity level of your writing then.
And you presume that the parents are at fault.
My grandparents were loving and dedicated parents. When their oldest son, who was a bit on the wild side, become too much of a handful he was enlisted into the army… underage.
My aunt also had a streak of wildness and was sent to a Convent!
Granted, they weren’t abadoned by todays definition - but their care was out of the parents hands once they entered the Army/Convent. Does this make my grandparents lowlifes? And if you answered no, that’s different - what if you knew my uncle was enlisted during time of war? Ah, so maybe my grandparents are lowlifes because they endangered their son’s life… nevermind he was already endangering his own and others with his behavior.
There was no abuse in the family and my mom nd her siblings spoke highly of their parents and other family members.
BTW, my uncle grew up really fast in the army and he returned a much different man - respectful, loving, and kind.
IMO your lumping of these “lowlife parents” is unjustified without more information, without knowing first hand what these parents are and have gone through.
And my statement previously was not a personal attack. You admitted these parents are condemned (lowlifes) UNTIL they could prove otherwise, a far cry from a jury member who is supposed to take the side of “innocent until proven guilty” concept.
What I see out of this whole story is - What help is available to parents in difficult situations with children and what can be done to help the family (BEFORE it comes down to something as extreme as what is happening).
I don’t understand. If a man fathers a child, he must pay for it until he or she is 18, right? And sometimes even longer?
Have fathers suddenly gained the right to drop off their kids and stop paying child support? Or is it just mothers?
Do the parents still have to pay child support?
Why should I have to cite it? You brought up the gangland thing. Go find a cite yourself if you’re genuinely interested. If you’re just trying to argue, well, you already know I made up the 99% figure, so you win. Whoop.
Yeah, yeah. I’m much more curious about the point levdrakon brought up - is this the new semi-truck sized loophole in child support?
I wonder what happens if you’re divorced and have joint custody and you dump off the kid when it’s your week - without telling the other parent? (I presume it would be a kidnapping, or…something?)
At least here, Children Services will go after parents for child support when a child is in the foster system.
I would assume that if either parent wants custody of the child, they may retain custody, with the non-custodial parent owing support per usual. If neither parent wants custody, that’s when this kicks in.
Cisco, there’s evidence that antisocial personality disorder (aka “sociopath”) has genetic causes in addition to environmental causes. I’ve read scary estimates (in Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate, hardly a fringe work) that as many as 2% of people may have APD. If it turns out that some of these folks are sociopathic and that the genetic causes are primary–if it turns out that in some cases, kids with good parents have a mutation that means they cannot feel empathy–would you consider them “rotten to the core”?
I’m not sure I would. However, I’m not quick to blame parents in all cases.
Daniel
As many as 2% . . . extremely close to the 1% figure I estimated. Yeah, I’d say that still fits within everything I’ve said here, and I still stand by everything I’ve said.
I’m not the one who used the term rotten to the core. Ask Pixillated if he or she would consider them rotten to the core.
I never said there were never genetic or other causes for antisocial behavior. Quite the opposite I said sometimes there is - note my reference to John Wayne Gacy upthread. But if you’re telling me that the vast majority of people who would dump their kid off at ANY age, for ANY reason, are not lowlifes, I’ve got to strongly disagree with you, and I’ll go ahead and admit right now that this is something you are very unlikely to change my mind about. This is something I believe very deeply.
Sometimes they are. We can share stories 'til the cows come home. I’ve been itching to, because there’s a nice case of parental sucking going on in my family. (Not my parents.) In most cases I think Cisco is probably right, and it’s not a slam against all parents.