What's to be done about bad parents?

Great Debates
1

At first I thought I’d just do a Pit thread about this excuse for a parent, who got upset with her four-year-old child and put him out of the car on the should of DC’s beltway, four lanes of heavy, fast traffic in each direction. When the child tried to climb back in the car, the mother accelerated and hit him.

But as another thread indicates, such threads are predictable; they serve a great value in venting outrage, but not so much practical resolution.

So here we are in GD, where I have a serious question: why should a woman who would do something like that to a helpless four-year-old ever be permitted to have custody of her child again?

This is not something that a parenting class can solve. A 22-year-old woman does not need a parenting class to know that a four-year-old child should not be punished by shoving him out of the car next to a busy freeway. What possible reasoning would allow society to conclude that it was safe to permit this woman to raise a child?

The fact that her child is alive right now is some combination of luck, divine Mercy, and/or karma from his previous lives; she is not a murderer only by the intervention of Dame Fortune.

I contend that in a case like this, it would be appropriate for the state to terminate the woman’s parental rights to the child.

2

I agree completely. Gods, unbelievable.

The problem though is determining when society should involve itself into a private family. Certainly after demonstrating her complete inability not only to be a good mother but to be allowed to claim she is a human being this is a cut and dried case. However, where do we draw the line on when to step in and when not too…especially when things aren’t as cut and dried? How does one test for the ability to be proper parents…and where is that line drawn between whats a private matter and having the state tromp in with its big clumsy boots?

-XT

3

An absolutely valid question.

I don’t know the answer. I merely contend that wherever that line is drawn… this woman’s conduct puts her on the losing side of it.

4

At the very least, it’s grounds for an adjudication of neglect. As someone who’s currently cranking out a first draft of a judicial opinion in a termination of parental rights case in D.C., I’ll say that – under the law of this jurisdiction, at least – termination of parental rights is first and foremost about seeking an adoptive placement for a child, and that TPR procedures wouldn’t be instituted, even in a case such as this, until the child has spent a bit of time in the foster care system.

Although the termination of parental rights is a “drastic remedy,” it may be ordered when the judge determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that “continuing the parent-child relationship would be contrary to the best interests of the child.” In re J.L. and R.L., 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 260, 11 (D.C. 2005) (internal citations omitted); D.C. Code Ann. § 16-2353 (2004); D.C. Super. Ct. Neg. R. 38(d). A determination of the child’s best interests requires the weighing of the statutory factors found in D.C. Code Ann. § 16-2353(b) (2004).

The first of these factors is “the child’s need for continuity of care and caretakers and for timely integration into a stable and permanent home, taking into account the differences in the development and concept of time for children of different ages.” D.C. Code Ann. § 16-2353(b)(1) (2004). A potential adoptive home need not already be in place for the termination of parental rights to promote timely integration into a stable and permanent home. “[A] TPR may properly be entered even where no specific adoptive parents have been identified, where the child is adoptable and termination would enhance the child’s prospects for an appropriate adoptive placement.” In re A.R., 679 A.2d 470, 479 n.14 (D.C. 1996); see also In re Ja.J., 814 A.2d 923, 925 (D.C. 2002); In re T.W., 756 A.2d 402, 411 (D.C. 2000); In re P.D., 664 A.2d 337, 339 (D.C. 1995); In re A.W., 569 A.2d 168, 172 (D.C. 1990).

The second of the statutory factors to be weighed is “the physical, mental, and emotional health of all individuals involved to the degree that such affects the welfare of the child, the decisive consideration being the physical, mental, and emotional needs of the child.” D.C. Code Ann. § 16-2353(b)(2) (2004).

The third factor is “the quality of the interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parent, siblings, relative, and/or caretakers, including the foster parent.” D.C. Code Ann. § 16-2353(b)(3) (2004).

The fourth statutory factor to be weighed in deciding a motion to terminate parental rights is, “to the extent feasible, the child’s opinion of his or her own best interests in the matter.” D.C. Code Ann. § 16-2353(b)(4) (2004).

The final statutory factor is “evidence that drug-related activity continues to exist in a child’s home environment after intervention and services have been provided.” D.C. Code Ann. § 16-2353(b)(5) (2004).

That’s a descriptive response to your OP. A prescriptive thought would be: In egregious cases like this, would the state be justified not only in terminating a parent’s rights to that child, but to (at least for a fixed period of time, or until the woman could meet certain conditions) future children as well?

5

Would it be unreasonable to also terminate the parents right to ever have more children after such a case?

6

I don’t think it would be unreasonable (me, personally that is…I doubt everyone would agree with me on this point), but I doubt it would be practical from a legal standpoint. I can see the howls from both right and left in trying to (I assume) steralize this woman or otherwise prevent her from getting pregnant again.

Luckily there are lawyers on this board that could answer that question from a more reality based legal position…two in this thread I believe. :slight_smile:

-XT

7

Yes.

I agree with the OP that the womans rights to this child should be irrevocably terminated; I think this not because I think she should be punished but because it’s in the best interests of the child. Clearly the child neads to be isolated from her in the short term for reasons of physical safety. In the long term, even if the mother recovers, allowing her “rights” to the child in his adoptive home would only serve to complicate his life, especially because he’s young enough that he wouldn’t necessarily remember her. His new parents should be the only ones who determine how much interaction, if any, he has with his biological mother.

However, I believe that many people have the capacity for change, and that we can’t say with any certainty who is and isn’t capable of changing. I think it’s possible that the mother will turn her life around and become a better person, and I don’t think it’s just to perpetually punish her for this one (admitedly horrible) act.

8

You might not be able to prevent the woman from getting pregnant again- but you could prevent her from having custody. When I worked in CPS, there was a concept called " derivative neglect", meaning that a parent who, for example, beat one child but not the other three neglected those other three by beating their sibling. ln at least some cases , this also applied to “afterborn” children.

9

I have long thought that a program for teaching parenting, maybe starting in middle school, should be considered. I think such a program is doable and would go a long way toward improving parenting.

One big problem is the outrage of some parents about the schools “sticking their noses in” even though many of those same parents are not good parents and will raise bad parents.

Of course no parent likes to face the possibility of their children camparing their parenting to good example of parenting.

10

At first blush, I understand the desire to terminate parental rights. I find her behavior unthinkable. How could any parent take a chance like that with her kid’s life? And subject him to that kind of fear and uncertainty? It’s tempting to say lock her up and move him 1000 miles away.

However, by the age of four, this boy may feel a real bond with his mother. I don’t know what happens to a kid’s psyche who is removed like that. So I’d hesitate to terminate that without looking into their situation further–not because I care one iota about how the mom feels, but because I care how the boy feels.

Also, I worry that the alternatives aren’t great for the child. What kind of system is in place to help a kid like this who is removed from his family? Aren’t there many kids in foster care already? Getting moved from house to house to house? Aren’t older children unlikely candidates for adoption into permanent homes? Especially children of color? So we might be pulling a kid out of the frying pan and into the fire.

For these reasons, I’d want to explore whether or not this woman’s parenting skills are fixable. Was this a one-time, freaky event? Or has she regularly abused him? Maybe fixing her is impossible; maybe she’s really damaged, inherently cruel, or stupid, and maybe she couldn’t ever develop the love and responsiblity required to raise him safely. But before I yanked this kid from his home and thrust him into “the system,” I’d take the time to find out.

The thing is, this isn’t an isolated case. We’ve hear too many examples of horrible parenting–and imagine the cases we don’t hear about. Enough so that “removing the kid” isn’t a feasible option in all these cases. We need to think longer term about pre-emptively addressing the very real problems of people becoming parents before they are ready, and people going into parenthood with too few parenting skills and little knowledge of child development. How, I dunno. Or, we need to have a much better system in place for raising these children once removed from their parents. I dunno how to solve that one, either.

11

Another vote for “yes.”

12

I think we should go Dogert on them, and make all prospective parents take a test before giving birth, or else it is time for youth in Asia. euthanasia. But really, I know this is is not viable, nor is it defendable, but really, the correct answers to this question are already found in the pit.

13

What happens to a kid’s psyche when this mother, whom he assumedly trusts (although that depends upon whether or not they’ve really bonded properly), abandons him on the side of the goddamn D.C. Beltway and then almost runs over him trying to get away from his attempts to regain the safety she’s supposed to be providing? We’re supposed to let it happen again? How does that not screw a kid up?

Yeah, I’m sure a lot of abused and neglected kids have strong emotional bonds to their parents, but that does not mean that they should be left in a situation that threatens their health or, as was clearly the case in this situation, deliberately threatens their lives. You say you’re concerned about the kid’s psychological health, but leaving him in an abusive situation is not the way to safeguard it.

14

TPR? I’m not certain. removal of custody, absolutely. Without undersanding more context I cannot judge whether there were external factors contributung to this abominable act.

The child should absolutely be protected from any possible recurrence. The woman should be prosecuted to the fullest extent that the circumstances and local laws permit. But I am not so certain that it si in the child’s best interest to terminate all parental rights. My son is four and I shudder to think of the emotional pain it would cause him to be severed from all contact with his mother.

The act was despicable and should be punished accordingly. The child must be protected. Determination of the child’s best ongoing interest requires more than a 200 word account of a single incident.

The calls for forced sterilization, BTW, serve as potent reminders why “passion” and “justice” so seldom appear in the same sentence.

15

I am glad that you realize that parental licensing is neither viable or “defendable.” We already have licensed parents; in many states foster parents need to pass tests and take courses on how to be a good parent. And still we find cases like a year or so ago, an award winning foster parent duct taping the children in their care like mummies to better control them.

Licensing parents would be disasterous. What happens when a woman gets pregnant and has no license? Do we really want to put people in the position of having to fear the law just because of an untimely pregnancy? Do we put some people in the position of making their children live shadow lives, aways avoiding the authorities, because they fear rejection for a license? We already know that some states have decided being gay means that you are not a good parent. I have seen no evidence that gays make better or worse parents than straight people. I think licensing parents would be a legal avenue for the expression of bigotry in the name of the good of the many.

Child protection services have in the past for nefarious purposes, whether it is to get good adoptable babies to those who want them, or just to better channel federal dollars to the state, or to harrass those who are different. There have been legal reforms to attempt address the latter two. Laws passed in the 1990s that say that the state may receive no more aid than it actually spends on the child. Reporting a parent to child protective services with the intent to harrass is a crime in most states. Also, the child protective services are often effectively unanswerable even to the courts, and so there is no recourse if they are corrupt and vindictive.

Yes, bad parents are a problem. Let’s not make the problem bigger by doing things that affect all who would be parents.

16

I have a difficult time saying her child should be taken based on this one incident. I know she made a bad decision but maybe there are other solutions that can be tried before a family is broken apart.

Marc

17

How’s your little one, by the way? Haven’t seen a picture in a while. (She’s sooo cute!) Sorry for the hijack.

I believe, as it has been proven time and again, that bad parents can become good parents. Obviously, this woman needs more than a couple parenting classes after work, but there are many possible variables as to why she made this horrible decision, and some broken people can be fixed.

Long term? I think the kid will probably remember what happened. How that pans out in the future is anyone’s guess. I’ve heard plenty of people’s accounts of horrible childhoods that were forgiven because they are able to develop an understanding of the pressure or problems involved in their parents’ lives. We don’t know the circumstances surrounding this case. We can only hope everyone comes through it with half their shit together, and that the system handles it correctly for all involved.

18

Give me an example of external factors that would mitigate this act.

19

Gadarene: What a glimpse you provided into the law books! I was impressed with the reasonableness and humanity encoded in your cites, and it elevated my trust in the system just that little bit more.

Spiritus Mundi, CrankyAsAnOldMan, lee, MGibson (and others) have expressed the moderate views I would have better than I would have. It’s easy to leap to the easy answers which sometimes destroy the village in order to save it.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that this incident was a one-time occurrence and that there is no evidence this was preceded by any escalating series of less serious incidents.

Raise your hand if every you were 22 years old (the age of the mother in this case). When I was about 20 years old my girlfriend at the time and I were fighting while I was driving. I was being unreasonable, she was getting excited. In the heat of the exchange she demanded I stop the car and let her out. I refused and she grabbed the floor mounted shifter and slammed the car into reverse. This was on an isolated northern Ontario road with no traffic, late at night.

Consider how your reaction to this anecdote would be outside of the context of this mother’s horrendous actions. You would probably nod knowingly about the immaturity of early 20s, recall spats of your own that didn’t go so well, etc. I’m not sure anyone would consider legal ramifications or revoke anyone’s right to drive a car.

To complete the story: I drove her home in silence. The car was all right, no one was hurt (besides feelings). My girlfriend and I made up later, continued the relationship for another year, carried on with our lives. Last time I saw her she was happily married with a young family, and I am enjoying my life with Mrs. Call and the Callettes.

If there had been any state intervention it likely would have had a very damaging effect.

I know the bad mother case is different. But think about how it is different. Two significant differences are 1) it involved a child 2) it occurred in a dangerous setting (would we be reading about it if it happened on a dirt road in the middle of farming country?).

This not to dismiss how serious the case is, nor to defend mom’s actions in any way. Those two differences place a much higher onus on her to behave more responsibly. This is only to consider what to do about it. Action must be taken, but the action (if possible) should be of a nature as to allow this family to thrive, introducing as little damage as possible to the family’s chances to do so.

(emphasis mine)

It’s too easy to take the “decisive consideration being the…needs of the child” to mean to consider only the needs of the child. This would be wrong. There may be extended family members who could be called on to provide assistance while the mom gets her shit together. This could be monitored by CPS, with a view to get out of this family’s life if it can be demonstrated that all is well. Maybe she deserves jail, with son visiting frequently. Kids are tougher than we often give them credit for. They can all get through something like that and maybe mom will have indelibly learned her lesson.

The foregoing is predicated on this being a one-time lapse into stupidity - the kind we’re all capable of especially at that age. If, though, the judge in the case finds clear and convincing evidence to do so, then I’m all in favour of TPR.

20

I could imagine a scenario involving psychiatric treatment and a bad reaction to a prescribed drug that would suggest this would be a one time event for an otherwise fit parent.

Barring some sort of severe, short term, emotional/psychological problems, I think this sort of act would suggest a person is an unfit parent. Even if you just can’t take the little kid anymore, a reasonable person of child bearing age should be able to get out of that situation without resorting to abandonment on a highway. A person of 22 (or even 16 for that matter) should have enough coping skills to at least get off the road and to a police station or hospital.

I do think this sort of situation bears investigation before you take away parental rights. Sometimes things that appear cut and dried on the surface, are more complicated underneath. At least be sure it’s a simple as it appears before taking action.