parental licenses

[even_sven]

*Originally posted by BlackKnight *
Personally, I see a large difference between denying the right to have more kids to someone who have proven they cannot provide for them, and only giving the right to have kids to someone who can prove they can provide for them. **

So what is this standard for “provide”. People can live on next to nothing. People can even raise kids with very limited resources. Heck, the third world is booming, and some of those kids even survive and become gasp, valued members of humanity.

Almost every mother can “provide” for a child for a rather signifigant amount of time. Her body produces a neat thing called “breast milk”, which provides nutrition for a signifigant amount of time. Are we going to assume people breast feed for a certain amount of time (which can be quite long) or require people to prove they can fork over enough money to the baby formula industry?

Most people have at least somewhere to live, even if it is simply crashing on a couch at a friends house. Is it okay for a parent and a child to share a room? Are we going to require a seperate room in a house for each child? Will the “houseing” standards change in areas where real estate is more expensive? Can a given couple have kids in Sacramento but not San Francisco? Will we prohibit the poor breeders from moving to new houseing markets?

And poverty can hit anytime. What do we do if a parent loses their job six months after giving birth? Take their kids away and send them to our abaomonal foster care system?

This all seems to boil to “lets ban the poor from having kids, because they are poor and they don’t deserve one of the most basic joys of humanity.” Heck, while we are at lit, lets force people to show pay stubs before they can buy beer, because the poor certainly shouldn’t be drinking. And let’s restrict the poor to a certain section of the grocery store, because they sure shouldn’t be able to buy brie. Heck, why doesn’t the government just distribute a mass-produced uniform for the poor (who should not be spending money on clothes), and make them wear it. Then shopowners could easily identify them prevent them from making any frivolous perchases, venturing into parts of town that they have no reason to be in, or disrespecting the non-poor (who should be treated with utter deference by the poor).

Don’t you guys see that the poor have it bad enough already? Let me say that again. WE DO NOT NEED TO PUNISH THE POOR. Even if they are on public assistance, they have not forfeited their lives over to the public. Poor people are human, with the same hopes, strengths, faults and capacity for love as the rich have. They are not stupid people that pop out kids by the dozen because they are to dense to get birth control. In fact, they are not even bad people. And, they are not even bad parents. There are other versions of a good childhood than Leave it to Beaver. Sure, growing up poor has its bad parts, but so do a lot of other things. All the same, a poor child is capable of having a happy life and becomeing of useful member of society.

And, as I might have noted before, we might do well to examine why there is so much poverty (and why that poverty is so often tied to our concept of race) before we go around condemning the poor. You may not be poor, but I will wager to bet that you have helped to make the poor.

[madcowmccoy]

*Originally posted by spooje *
I understand the idea of parental licensing. I don’t agree with it, and it will never work, but I understand the frustration of seeing people creating children they have no intention of caring for.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. However, some further thoughts…

But there’s no way we force people to use contraception. And there’s no way in hell we can keep paople from having sex.

I imagine enforcement of parent licenses would be like enforcement of homicide laws - you can’t prevent violations, but you can certainly punish them (i.e., relocation). Kinda harsh, but there it is.
I’m wondering if there could be a correlation between this and marriage licenses. In the case of incest, the government steps in because it is clear that such a union would result in children with birth defects, is just gross, etc. That is, only in extreme cases. Otherwise, most people don’t have a world of trouble getting a marriage license.
Perhaps something similar for parent licenses - pretty easy to get one, but in extreme cases (drugs, lack of finances), the government steps in. Perhaps in the case of the poor single already-expecting teen mom (and similar cases), government financial assistance is administered for a period of time during which the mother is to find a job and demonstrate at least some ability to care for her child; otherwise, Plan B: revocation of temporary parent license and relocation of child to foster home, visiting rights granted to parent as well as ability to regain parent license once financial means become available. (If the single teen were to try to apply for a license before she were already pregnant, she would be quickly rejected, I imagine. Although by simply getting pregnant without say-so, the mother hasn’t really circumvented the law, as she’s still under the gun to get everything together.) If you wanted to, you could even call it “temporary housing.” Hell, if I’d lost my job some time ago and were on the verge of being homeless, I might be okay with the government watching my kids for a while - I might die on the streets tomorrow, but I give my kids a fighting chance. If the door’s always open to get them back once I get some money, I’ll be motivated to find some way to survive and flourish (or whatever).
Once again, you can read the first paragraph to see where my official stance is on this, but as a mental exercise, I’m trying to see if it could somehow work.

[even_sven]

Ummmm…Do you know anything about our foster care system?

I’ll put it simply- it does not work. It is a miserable failure. Putting kids in a foster home does not give kids “a fighting chance”. It basically dooms them. It puts them in home where they are not loved, where they are seen as “cash cows”, and where they will never really belong. It is not the sort of situation that is condusive to raiseing productive members of society. Except in cases of extreme abuse, it is certainly not better than a loving but poor parent.

While there are the occasional decent foster homes, many leave much to be desired. Many people are in it for the money, and they are often just above poverty level themselves. Even for the best intentioned, it is hard to love someone you hardly know, especially if that someone comes from a sketchy background and is emotionally wack. Foster families are not families. Kids are moved around too much for real bonds to form. The kids lie cheat and steal because they have no ties to anything. They don’t know family, all they know is “the system”. They are really on their own in this world. There is a lot of mutual suspicion. And, when the kids turn 18, they are out. They will most likely never see their foster parents again. No returning for Christmas dinner. No help through college. Heck, half the time kids get kicked out when they are smack in the middle of their senior year of high school. It is an abominable situation.

I highly reccomend Somebody Else’s Children, the portion on Olivia in And Still We Rise and the novel Oliander.

And you do relize that foster parents are given money that is supposed to be used to raise the kid, right? The government is still paying out. Foster homes are not a free ride. There is no difference between giving money to a foster parent instead of a parent, except in this case the money is being given to strangers who have no love or investment in the kid, as opposed to a real parent.

[MeCorva]

First of all, even though I’m generally a fan of government protection and of zero population growth, I’m REALLY not happy about the government trying to legislate who should have children. But, if we look at the stink that people raised over corporal punishment, it’s pretty clear that the vast majority of americans aren’t thrilled about government intervention either! So, I’d be terrified of a government that tried to legislate procreation ( it’s bad enough that they sometimes try to legislate morality! ), but the rioting in the streets would happen way before I found out.

But, what I am more concerned about is the state Supreme Court seems to be confusing “not providing support” and “not providing support to the extent of your abilities”. Looking at the law as stated ( Of course, you can never trust anything on the web, but:

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/99Stat0948.pdf

)
it seems to give very little leeway for people who want to provide, but don’t have the resources. I mean, not giving your children money you have is greedy and should be punished – but not giving your children money you don’t have is just life, sometimes. After all, according to the notes on the case, the father was already sentenced to 3 years in jail. So, really, they have punished him already for being poor and procreating.

I hope the supreme court jumps in and rules this unconstitutional – I agree entirely with the minority that says having children is a basic constitutional right.

And, as for the defense that this is not limiting sex, merely procreating, that is the biggest bunk I’ve heard for a long time. After all, as the Moral Majority always tells us, no form of birth control is 100%.

But, finally, a few thought experiments for those who think the government should step in:

If this had been a woman with 9 children, could the government argue that she couldn’t have children or face imprisonment? Why should gender matter?

If the judge ruled that the father couldn’t have sex, would that be constitutional? Would people agree with that ruling? How is sex more of a constitutional right than having children?

Me’Corva ( who never did learn to summarize )

[madcowmccoy]

*Originally posted by MeCorva *
So, really, they have punished him already for being poor and procreating.

Yikes.

And, as for the defense that this is not limiting sex, merely procreating, that is the biggest bunk I’ve heard for a long time. After all, as the Moral Majority always tells us, no form of birth control is 100%.

Once again, in this alternate universe, it’d be impossible to prevent unlicensed births. One could only punish them and hope the punishment acts as a sufficient deterrent. Not in favor of that, but logistically, it seems to be the only way to get such a job done.

If this had been a woman with 9 children, could the government argue that she couldn’t have children or face imprisonment? Why should gender matter?

It shouldn’t, really. But I imagine people would defend a woman’s ability to procreate more zealously than a man’s out of natural human tendency rather than principle. Easier to see a man as a “dog,” and for understandable reasons. Just one of those things. The law is a system of “objective” rules managed by inherently subjective creatures.

If the judge ruled that the father couldn’t have sex, would that be constitutional?

I don’t really see this one happening, even in a hypothetical world. Kinda like ruling that one can’t think bad thoughts. There’s no way to prevent it or even discover/enforce it. The judge would be laughed at, and the decision would be overturned on appeal.

[BlackKnight]

Holy righteous indignation Batman!

even sven, take a deep breath and repeat after me: BlackKnight doesn’t hate the poor. He is not an elitist bastard.

Usually.

*Originally posted by even sven *
So what is this standard for “provide”.

Why not use the same standard that is used by social workers for removing children from homes? At least, it is my understanding that such things happen when a family is entirely unable to support those children.

Look, I’m not talking about someone being unable to pay their kid’s college education or purchase a new car. I’m talking about not being able to afford food, shelter, or clothing for one’s children.

Also, I think that there is nothing wrong with restricting someone’s right to children if they prove to be an unfit parent by abusing their children or something like that.

I do not support the creation of such laws now, though, because I don’t think there is any way to enforce them fairly and justly. Perhaps sometime in the future there will be some way. I don’t know.

[doreen]

it seems to give very little leeway for people who want to provide, but don’t have the resources. I mean, not giving your children money you have is greedy and should be punished – but not giving your children money you don’t have is just life, sometimes. After all, according to the notes on the case, the father was already sentenced to 3 years in jail. So, really, they have punished him already for being poor and procreating.

That law does allow inability to provide support as a defense, but inability caused by a failure to look for work, by quitting a job or reducing income (all without a reasonable excuse) will not qualify as a defense. I don’t know that I want to excuse someone from paying support based on an inability that they have control over. If you can’t pay support because there aren’t any jobs to be found, that’s a different situation that being unable to pay because you don’t want to work.

BTW do you have a link about the 3 year sentence? My understanding was that the “no more children until you’re able and willing to support them all” was part of the probation he was sentenced to instead of prison.