Consider some of the examples in this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=327581
These are people who, by blanket solutions, may have their kids taken away or be sterilized by the state (under some of the suggestions we’ve seen). Yet, they did their time, rehabilitated, and are leading good, productive lives. I hate to give up hope on the human spirit. Yes, it’s a crapshoot, but sometimes it really does work out positively.
Agreed.
And just to head off things at the pass, I would say that the discovery of a brain tumor or other physical malady that can affect behavior or personality would be grounds to hold off on a TPR, assuming the removal of the tumor or the cure of the malady would return behavior to normal.
Investigation is warranted, I agree.
But… call me crazy… I’m going to guess no such factor is at play here.
Bricker: I’m not sure whether you’re arguing in the ideal or the actual, but to repeat: Under D.C. law, there is no question of TPR being the appropriate legal remedy at this time. It’s simply not.
(And thanks, Nature’s Call!)
That’s interesting, but the woman in question is a Virginia resident, so I would humbly suggest we look to Virginia law to see what remedies are available.
Va. Code § 16.1-283(A) provides in relevant part: “No petition seeking termination of residual parental rights shall be accepted by the court prior to the filing of a foster care plan, pursuant to § 16.1-281, which documents termination of residual parental rights as being in the best interests of the child.”
Turning our attention to § 16.1-281, we discover, inter alia, the following: “The local board or other child welfare agency having custody of the child shall not be required by the court to make reasonable efforts to reunite the child with a parent if the court finds that … (2) the parent has been convicted of an offense under the laws of this Commonwealth or a substantially similar law of any other state, the United States or any foreign jurisdiction that constitutes murder or voluntary manslaughter, or a felony attempt, conspiracy or solicitation to commit any such offense, if the victim of the offense was a child of the parent, a child with whom the parent resided at the time such offense occurred or the other parent of the child…”
Conclusion: a petition for termination of resdiual parental rights in Virginia is possible under these circumstances if the conduct in abandoning the boy by the side of the road, and hitting him with her car as he tried to get back in, lead to conviction for “murder or voluntary manslaughter, or a felony attempt, conspiracy or solicitation to commit any such offense.”
The record here will support a charge of attempted murder. Intent may be inferred by behavior. Leaving the child on the side of a very busy highway, where adults have been known to be hit and killed by traffic, would easily permit a jury to infer her intent to have to child killed by traffic. Moreover, her attempt to hit the child with her car when he tried to climb back in clearly would support a charge of attempted murder.
Thanks for clarifying that she’s a Virginia resident; I’d missed that. 
Still, the state has to file a foster care plan first. TPR is not meant to be a punitive measure. It’s supposed to be directed (as mentioned above) at the best interests of the child. If the child has already been removed from the neglectful parent, I don’t see that it’s self-evident that having zero legal parents is in the best interests of the child, unless it facilitates the child’s eventual adoption. (Which, of course, caselaw has held that it does, unless the child is not adoptable.)
Or at a bare minimum, revoke her driver’s license.
Nor am I offering it as a punitive measure. “Why,” I asked in the OP, “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?” The focus of that question is making sure that this woman never again has the opportunity to do something so terrible, so … mean… to her child. She should also be punished, of course, under abuse and neglect laws (and, yes, pravnik, traffic laws too). That’s the punitive. The TPR action is protective of her child’s future safety.
How does it protect her child’s future safety in a way that adjudicating the child neglected, committing him to the care of the state, placing him in a foster home, and searching for adoptive placements does not?
Because as long as her parental rights are not terminated, the general proposition of family law (at least in Virginia) is that the goal of foster care is reunification with the natural family.
cough
Unfortunately, this would not work in most cases because of the fact that the vast majority of parents learn their parenting skills (as well as other social skills) from their own parents. Children who grow up with abusive parents are much more likely to be abusive themselves, and never stop to consider that their behavior may not be acceptable by other standards. By the time a child is in middle school, even, most of their idea of “right” and “wrong” is already set in mental concrete.
That’s not to say that people can’t learn other methods, but they have to have a reason to see why their parents’ methods were wrong. This takes a lot more than simple parenting classes can provide, since it involves actually thinking through their own experiences, and placing judgment on their parents (which is not psychologically possible for many people because of the way they were raised).
My own mother did often threaten to throw us out on the side of the road when I was growing up, and she actually did put one of my brothers out of the car when he was about 5 or 6. However, it was not a major expressway, and she stopped to let him back in the car about five feet from where she made him get out of the car. The point was “to teach him (and the rest of us) a lesson.”
My mother had a lot of other psychological problems, and when I left home, I resolved to myself that I would not use her methods of parenting–which included a lot of shouting, throwing, breaking things, threatening, and spanking (never with any bruises)–when I had kids of my own. While I think I am a lot more in control of my emotions as a parent than she ever was, I have sometimes found myself falling into her patterns, especially with my son who has ADHD. I hate myself afterwards, and have made a lot of progress toward controlling that behavior. But I also have a high level of intelligence, a doctorate-level education, and the ability to judge my own behavior (as well as my parents’ behavior) critically.
Parenting classes should be given to adults, not to children, since adults are more likely to understand how their own parents’ behavior was unacceptable. They should also be widely available, if not free, and offered to parents either during pregnancy or immediately after birth of the child. Ideally, pregnant parents should get information about parenting during pregnancy, but that would not reach the parents who are not already willing to take “parenthood” into their own hands, by attending birthing classes. Pediatrician offices would be a good starting point, but that assumes that parents will actually get healthy baby checkups for their kids.
I remember a line that I either read in a book or heard in a movie (I think it was Parenthood) along the lines of “People are required to get a license to own a dog, but any idiot can have a baby.” And the reality is that we are a LONG way from requiring parents to legally get a “Parent License” before they have kids.
I suppose it could be different in Virginia, but when I worked CPS in NY, a child wasn’t generally placed in an adoptive home until he or she was eligible for adoption- meaning that parental rights had already been terminated or surrendered.(with a few exceptions for infants surrrendered at birth). The child certainly couldn’t actually **be*adopted until after the parental rights were terminated or surrendered. There was always a time lag between the surrender or termination and the adoption proceeding, during which the child was in the custody of the commissioner of social services
[/quote]
It’s very different in D.C. Lemme look up Virginia law this weekend and see what’s what there (and, when I have more time, tell you the score in the District).
Bricker
Others (including yourself) have supplied examples of mitigating factors. I assume that question is closed (didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you).
I am unqualified to argue the case law, so I will rely upon you and gadarene to interpret the appropriate statutes. As a simple matter of ethical conduct, I see no reason to reach immediately for a TPS. The overriding factor needs to be the continued well-being of the child. Part of that well-being involves the emotional attachments that a 4 year old forms to his mother. from direct experience I know how powerul that attachment can be. If the risk to the child can be controlled without severing the familial bond, then that would appear to be a better solution than enforcing a TPR.
Remarkable.
A significant part of the rest of my post addressed this. There’s a pretty big leap from "I’d hesitate to remove a kid without knowing more about the situation " (which I believe is a fair paraphrase of what you quoted from me), to saying I think the best solution to safeguard his health is to leave him in his home no matter what.
Come on, now.