Child Services are Fucking Retards

[Terralthra]

You know someone who routinely speeds, rolls through stops, and doesn't know how to use their signal? Maybe they should fucking learn how to drive? Or at least learn how to stop.

And yes, if you don't show in court you get penalized. This applies to every violation of the law, not just traffic tickets. Maybe we should discuss how expensive it can get for poor or uneducated people who shoplift or break into vending machines.

Maybe California cops are jackbooted thugs, but in the five US states where I've lived you're not ticketed for a mile or two above the speed limit (generally, you're ignored until you're going at least five over) and I could only wish they'd penalize people for not using their turn signals. The rolling stop bullshit is just that - either you stop or you don't and it's a safety issue. Do you also think it's a minor thing to run a red light?

I don't know anyone who doesn't routinely go 70-75 mph on the freeway (ten miles over the speed limit), roll through stop signs if it's late at night and there's no cars coming the other ways, and turn signal usage (in California) is hilariously low. All of these are ticketable offenses, if a cop is watching and is low on their ticket quota.

As for running a red light, no, I don't generally think that's minor, though I see an awful lot of cars turning right on red (which is legal in CA) without coming to a full and complete stop first (as required) if the lane they'd be turning into is clear. The law says to turn right on red, stop at the light, then proceed when clear. I see a lot of cars slow, check the lane they'd be turning into to see if there is oncoming traffic, and if clear, go, without coming to a full and complete stop. Safe? Reasonably, so long as it isn't a blind intersection. Legal? Nope.

[Broomstick]

The problem is when the child was taken away when they were young enough to have no memories of any biological relative. At that point, it's hard to say it's in the child's best interest to take them away from the only family they've ever known.

Two wrongs hardly make one right. The Father also has rights. If the situation could still be reversed it should be. Still, any psychological aid the child needs should come out of the State's pocket.

In that case, how about we skip removing the kid from the environment in her best interests, which hopefully avoids damaging her in the first place, and give the counseling to biodad? Given his continuing problems with the law he might benefit greatly from some help in sorting his life out.

The core of her position is a critique of the idea that biological parents are given a "right" to "take back" children as though these children are their property, rather than the interests of the child being given full due regard and protection.

How then is she not going to criticize that mindset in her posts?

The Pater Familias was violated. One does have the right to raise one's children - and to fight for custody if they were wrongly taken away.

Under Tennessee law biodad's rights were NOT wrongly terminated – they were automatically terminated, as required by law, when he was sentenced to more than 10 years in prison. When his sentence was reduced that changed things, but it's a badly written law that does something like that, and allows take-backs from finalized legal adoptions. The problem is badly written laws, not poorly enforced laws.

Also, I have issues with the concept of “pater familias”, which in its original form essentially treats women and children as chattel, that is, property. It also mandated infanticide for deformed and defective children, are you in favor of that aspect of it as well?

Interestingly enough, under pater familias the head of the family had the right to raise his adopted children as well as his biological ones.

[Thanas]

Also, I have issues with the concept of “pater familias”, which in its original form essentially treats women and children as chattel, that is, property. It also mandated infanticide for deformed and defective children, are you in favor of that aspect of it as well?

Interestingly enough, under pater familias the head of the family had the right to raise his adopted children as well as his biological ones.

As was already explained a page ago, Spekio as a lawyer uses it in the civil law sense. Please don't go off on him when that is a misunderstanding based on your failure to read.

[Gaidin]

In that case, how about we skip removing the kid from the environment in her best interests, which hopefully avoids damaging her in the first place, and give the counseling to biodad? Given his continuing problems with the law he might benefit greatly from some help in sorting his life out.

I find that one amusing since from everything I've read he did everything regarding custody here within the law, and the adoptive parents are the ones plastering her face everywhere in a PR battle.

[Broomstick]

I don't know anyone who doesn't routinely go 70-75 mph on the freeway (ten miles over the speed limit), roll through stop signs if it's late at night and there's no cars coming the other ways, and turn signal usage (in California) is hilariously low. All of these are ticketable offenses, if a cop is watching and is low on their ticket quota.

So California is fucked up. Drive the Ohio Turnpike, people are remarkably well behaved in regards to the legal speed limit because - surprise! - Ohio has long been known to enforce the speed limit strictly. They never let it become the problem that it, apparently, is in California.

No, I don't exceed the speed limit on the freeway. Yay cruise control, but even without it I am capable of maintaining the proper speed limit. Passing (with a speed increase within reason) and avoidance of imminent accidents are exceptions. In fact, most of the people I know routinely follow the speed limit. Maybe you should hang out with a better quality of driver.

I also stop at a stop signs even late at night. Why shouldn't I? Are you so arrogant as to think you're the only one out driving late?

Frankly, "everyone else is doing it" is not a valid excuse for breaking the law.

[Broomstick]

In that case, how about we skip removing the kid from the environment in her best interests, which hopefully avoids damaging her in the first place, and give the counseling to biodad? Given his continuing problems with the law he might benefit greatly from some help in sorting his life out.

I find that one amusing since from everything I've read he did everything regarding custody here within the law, and the adoptive parents are the ones plastering her face everywhere in a PR battle.

I find it disgusting that someone suggests that we do something we know isn't in a child's best interests and try to bandage it with some sort of counseling. Why damage the kid in the first place? Why place the father ahead of the child?

[Gaidin]

I find that one amusing since from everything I've read he did everything regarding custody here within the law, and the adoptive parents are the ones plastering her face everywhere in a PR battle.
I find it disgusting that someone suggests that we do something we know isn't in a child's best interests and try to bandage it with some sort of counseling. Why damage the kid in the first place? Why place the father ahead of the child?

You're the one suggesting he's got continuing problems with the law. Everything I've read regarding this case is suggesting otherwise. Did he just up and run off with her? Or did the court get tired of the shenanigans after he tried to play nice with the adoptive family and give him full custody first? Answer me that.

[Spekio]

Under Tennessee law biodad's rights were NOT wrongly terminated – they were automatically terminated, as required by law, when he was sentenced to more than 10 years in prison. When his sentence was reduced that changed things, but it's a badly written law that does something like that, and allows take-backs from finalized legal adoptions. The problem is badly written laws, not poorly enforced laws.

I'm not arguing that the law is just - far from that, actually.

If there is an axiological fault in the law, that is, the law is injust when applied to the case in particular, wich is what you are arguing, then yes, his rights were wrongly terminated. Am I wrong in assuming U.S. Judges can decide contra legis?

If when his sentence was reduced he regained those parental rights, and I'm not familiar with U.S. law in this case, and that new sentence had ex tunc properties ( it's effects need to be also applied to the past) then his rights were also wrongly terminated.

Also, I have issues with the concept of “pater familias”, which in its original form essentially treats women and children as chattel, that is, property. It also mandated infanticide for deformed and defective children, are you in favor of that aspect of it as well?

Interestingly enough, under pater familias the head of the family had the right to raise his adopted children as well as his biological ones.

Oh, yeah, give me them ol' time patriarchal rights.

No, but seriously, it means Family Rights in the conxtext I used it. That sense of the phrase seems not to be common in the anglo-saxon law, as I was told today by a colleague. My law degree alows me to use phrases from a dead language that I do not understand in order to look knowgeable. Just like I did above.

[Simon_Jester]

Remind me again how you lose your driver's license for running a stop sign or speeding?

Not show up for court, which isn't hard if you have to move after getting the ticket.

Ah. In that case your offense is "failure to show up in court" and "failure to pay a bill owed to the judicial system," since usually you can cover a ticket by just paying the fine.

I'm a lot less sympathetic to people who fail to show up in court than I am to people who speed. Yes, I get how a person might say they "can't make it," and even have it be true from their perspective. But the law cannot function unless we assume that on some level the citizens can be held accountable for following them, and complying with basic directions from the court system. If we don't have consequences in place for people who skip their court date and don't pay their traffic tickets, pretty soon nobody's going to bother paying traffic tickets at all and the tickets become grounds for routine, universal scofflaw-ism.

The problem is when the child was taken away when they were young enough to have no memories of any biological relative. At that point, it's hard to say it's in the child's best interest to take them away from the only family they've ever known.

Two wrongs hardly make one right. The Father also has rights. If the situation could still be reversed it should be. Still, any psychological aid the child needs should come out of the State's pocket.

I find it interesting that you capitalize "father" but not "child."

Are you that patriarchal? Your later references to 'paterfamilias' support the idea...

In fairness, some people are deadbeats in that they are irresponsible and don't make proper efforts to raise a child correctly... but still feel like they're entitled to special treatment, and that they have a right to control over their biological children. In other words, they want the rights but not the duties.

I think we are veering into a dangerous direction with "correctly", are we not?

No, we're not.

It's a brute fact that parents are responsible for ensuring their children grow up healthy, educated, and socialized well enough to function in society. Some parents do not do this. Their children can grow up grossly dysfunctional. In which case they have simply not raised the child correctly. Just as we can say that if a house falls down under its own weight, that house was not built correctly.

Parents' "right" to raise their child does not justify them in failing to raise their child, and then demanding that society submit to their whims and concede their absolute control over that child.

The Pater Familias was violated. One does have the right to raise one's children - and to fight for custody if they were wrongly taken away.

In this case, the problem is that reopening the case creates a situation that is at best a farce and at worst a form of child abuse.

I mean, think about the King Solomon approach to custody disputes- splitting the baby in half and giving half to each party isn't in the interests of anyone involved, least of all the child.

And, yes, I think I agree with Broomstick's recent position: the real problem is mandatory sentencing and restrictions, and judges that do not or cannot use common sense. In this case, Mr. McCaul should have been able to pursue his claim against the babysitter's family even while being convicted of the gun offense, rather than having the child become a ward of the state after being (by all appearances) unjustly kidnapped.

In California, at least, if one is cited for a moving violation (speeding, rolling through a stop sign at 3-5 mph, changing lanes without signalling, to name three that people do routinely, that they could be cited for any time they do), and does not pay the fine within the deadline or show up in court to contest the ticket, they're issued a $300+ failure to appear citation automatically. Not paying the now > $500 tickets will get their license suspended.

For someone who is poor or does not have the werewithal to contest the ticket (or believes they deserve it, or doesn't believe that a judge might give them extra time, or doesn't know how to get a payment plan), it's extremely easy for the spiral to continue to escalate.

If you are reasonable at navigating bureaucracy, or have a couple of hundred dollars to drop on paying the ticket immediately, it's simple and easy to deal with. I was simply pointing out this canard of "Poor people just need to FOLLOW THE LAW" is more than a little silly, since the typical driver commits several moving violations daily.

Sure, it's not totally simple. But there's a point beyond which, yes I expect people to either comply with the law or take reasonable steps to deal with the bureaucracy. Simply sitting on a ticket and refusing to either pay or appear in court and hoping the whole thing will blow over is intolerably irresponsible behavior in an adult, especially an adult who already has a criminal record.

I'm prepared to agree that society should extend due consideration to the poor and unfortunate and the bureaucracy-illiterate. But "due consideration" isn't a license to just ignore the rules when they're inconvenient.

This article mentions it, among many others. It's not in dispute that his babysitter took Sonya to Tennessee and refused to return her to her father, and in fact contacted police to arrest Mr. McCaul if he attempted to retrieve her. Both the babysitter's husband and McCaul's mother attempted to retrieve her on his behalf, and were rebuffed by the babysitter's parents who "felt threatened."

And, reading further, Mr. McCaul was not arrested and convicted of the gun possession charge until after this happened. His attempt to get his daughter back from the babysitter's parents was brought to an end by his conviction, and he was unable to resume until his sentence was reduced.

Thank you, that clears things up.

[Spekio]

I find it interesting that you capitalize "father" but not "child."

More likely a typo than a freudian slip.

Are you that patriarchal? Your later references to 'paterfamilias' support the idea...

I'm assuming that you are the third person confusing what Pater Familias means historically and in legalese. The Pater Familias violated was the relative's rights. What I meant, and you can see in an recent example, is sinonimous with Power of/pertaining to the Family, so to speak.

So, had the father lost his rights, his relatives did not. That was what I affirmed.

No, we're not.

It's a brute fact that parents are responsible for ensuring their children grow up healthy, educated, and socialized well enough to function in society. Some parents do not do this. Their children can grow up grossly dysfunctional. In which case they have simply not raised the child correctly. Just as we can say that if a house falls down under its own weight, that house was not built correctly.

Parents' "right" to raise their child does not justify them in failing to raise their child, and then demanding that society submit to their whims and concede their absolute control over that child.

So... Bonus Pater Familias?

I agree with the above, I just find "correctly" to be grossly undefined.

In this case, the problem is that reopening the case creates a situation that is at best a farce and at worst a form of child abuse.

I mean, think about the King Solomon approach to custody disputes- splitting the baby in half and giving half to each party isn't in the interests of anyone involved, least of all the child.

And I am disagreeing where exactly?

And, yes, I think I agree with Broomstick's recent position: the real problem is mandatory sentencing and restrictions, and judges that do not or cannot use common sense. In this case, Mr. McCaul should have been able to pursue his claim against the babysitter's family even while being convicted of the gun offense, rather than having the child become a ward of the state after being (by all appearances) unjustly kidnapped.

Again, I'm not disagreeing. See my last post.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm assuming that you are the third person confusing what Pater Familias means historically and in legalese. The Pater Familias violated was the relative's rights. What I meant, and you can see in an recent example, is sinonimous with Power of/pertaining to the Family, so to speak.

So, had the father lost his rights, his relatives did not. That was what I affirmed.

Well, I think the crux of the problem here is that we're caught between at least two conflicting issues:

1) What does it mean to say various biological relatives have a "right to the child?" The interests of the child should trump any person's "right" to declare that they have control of the child.
2) How do we serve justice in cases where simple biology means that the situation is in flux? The other obvious example is any lawsuit involving an abortion; if it takes more than nine months to resolve the suit, then the baby's getting born no matter what the law says. When we reopen a custody case after a child has grown halfway from infancy to adulthood, we can't restore the situation to the way it was supposed to be. How does this impact the way we address the case?

Would the suggestion I heard recently, of allowing Mr. McCaul to sue in civil court, or of seriously penalizing the Hodges for obstructing Mr. McCaul's attempts to acquire joint custody, be more appropriate?

No, we're not.

It's a brute fact that parents are responsible for ensuring their children grow up healthy, educated, and socialized well enough to function in society. Some parents do not do this. Their children can grow up grossly dysfunctional. In which case they have simply not raised the child correctly. Just as we can say that if a house falls down under its own weight, that house was not built correctly.

Parents' "right" to raise their child does not justify them in failing to raise their child, and then demanding that society submit to their whims and concede their absolute control over that child.

So... Bonus Pater Familias?

I agree with the above, I just find "correctly" to be grossly undefined.

Put bluntly, if we don't have a concept of what it means for children to be raised "correctly," why even bother having child protective services at all? Why not just ignore the question of whether children are being treated well, if we don't have a concept of what good treatment means?

Your treatment may not be in perfect accord with mine, and there must be some amount of wiggle room for parents to find the approach that is best for their culture and individual child's needs. But in broad terms there has to be some meaningful way of saying "no, this is not a thing that we can justly allow you to do to a child in the name of your own "right" to control that child's fate."

Exactly how we define "correct" childrearing is up for debate. Whether we define such a term isn't up for debate, in my opinion.

In this case, the problem is that reopening the case creates a situation that is at best a farce and at worst a form of child abuse.

I mean, think about the King Solomon approach to custody disputes- splitting the baby in half and giving half to each party isn't in the interests of anyone involved, least of all the child.

And I am disagreeing where exactly?

The problem is that the interests of the child pretty clearly align with letting her stay with the Hodges, while Mr. McCaul pretty clearly has the law on his side, and is clearly the victim of at least some degree of injustice.

His daughter was allegedly kidnapped to another state and he was unable to get her back, because the court proceedings dragged out long enough that he was arrested over an unrelated offense and lost his standing to deal with the quasi-kidnapping. Clearly he has suffered, and clearly he has some right to a role in his daughter's upbringing and life.

But there's a huge conflict here, and I don't think it reduces to either RARGH TWO HOURS' NOTICE GET SHARON BACK or RARGH DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ADOPTIVE PARENTS.

[Terralthra]

I don't know anyone who doesn't routinely go 70-75 mph on the freeway (ten miles over the speed limit), roll through stop signs if it's late at night and there's no cars coming the other ways, and turn signal usage (in California) is hilariously low. All of these are ticketable offenses, if a cop is watching and is low on their ticket quota.

So California is fucked up. Drive the Ohio Turnpike, people are remarkably well behaved in regards to the legal speed limit because - surprise! - Ohio has long been known to enforce the speed limit strictly. They never let it become the problem that it, apparently, is in California.

No, I don't exceed the speed limit on the freeway. Yay cruise control, but even without it I am capable of maintaining the proper speed limit. Passing (with a speed increase within reason) and avoidance of imminent accidents are exceptions. In fact, most of the people I know routinely follow the speed limit. Maybe you should hang out with a better quality of driver.

As an experiment, I went 65 (the speed limit) on the freeway just now on the errands I had to run. I had to stay in the right (slowest) lane the entire time, as there was not a single car going as slow as I was for the entire 6 mile stretch of freeways I was on, barring the cloverleaf junction underpass during which people slowed to ~50 (the sign for the turn said 40). So, if I should hang out with a better quality of driver, I'd apparently have to move out of state to do so. Notably, it seems that despite our massively unsafe driving, California has less traffic fatalities per capita (7.5) and per 100 million miles driven (0.89) than Ohio (9.7 per capita, 1.00 per 100 million miles). California is, in fact, among the safer states in the nation to drive in, by both statistics. Interesting.

I also stop at a stop signs even late at night. Why shouldn't I? Are you so arrogant as to think you're the only one out driving late?

Frankly, "everyone else is doing it" is not a valid excuse for breaking the law.

No, and neither is anyone else who rolls through. To clarify, rolling through does not mean ignoring it and blowing through at 25 mph, it means slowing to 5 or so mph (generally referred to as a "second-gear stop" because the person slows to the slowest speed from which one can still get into second gear), checking for cars or pedestrians, and if clear, rolling through.

Notably, this is a situation only encountered in America because in most European countries, stop signs aren't used with the same frequency as they are in the US, and it is more frequent to encounter an intersection such as would be a 4-way stop in the US instead having yield signs at all sides, with varying degrees of priority assigned to each for intersections of major and minor thoroughfares. This essentially means that the behavior in question (rolling stops) is more or less what everyone does at many EU intersections, because it's exactly what the law mandates, and what research has shown is in many ways safer and more efficient than 4-way complete stops.

[Broomstick]

If there is an axiological fault in the law, that is, the law is injust when applied to the case in particular, wich is what you are arguing, then yes, his rights were wrongly terminated. Am I wrong in assuming U.S. Judges can decide contra legis?

If you can tell me what "contra legis" means in standard English maybe I can answer that question. I don't speak either Latin or Lawyer.

Assuming it means "contrary to the law" or some such, the ability of a judge to do that in the US would be limited, and in some cases forbidden. There used to be more leeway but legislatures got upset when judges actually used judgement and made decisions they didn't like.

I will also remind readers that since child custody is considered a state matter there are 50 different jurisdictions in the US so the details will vary from state to state.

Nor do I think this law is unjust in this particular case, I suspect that with some searching one would be able to find additional examples of the automatic nature of this law causing problems.

If when his sentence was reduced he regained those parental rights, and I'm not familiar with U.S. law in this case, and that new sentence had ex tunc properties ( it's effects need to be also applied to the past) then his rights were also wrongly terminated.

I'm not enough of a lawyer to sort through that as a lawyer would. I just think there is something very wrong with a situation were a reduced sentence for one person voids the legal adoption of two other people and results in a child being sent off to live with complete strangers, even if they are biologically related. A final adoption is supposed to be that, final.

This is somewhat, though not completely, analogous to wrongful convictions being overturned - there's no way to turn back the clock for someone incarcerated for 10 or 20 years.

No, but seriously, it means Family Rights in the conxtext I used it. That sense of the phrase seems not to be common in the anglo-saxon law, as I was told today by a colleague. My law degree alows me to use phrases from a dead language that I do not understand in order to look knowgeable. Just like I did above.

Just curious, where are you located?

We tend to refer to it as "family law" in the US, say pater familias to an American and if they don't go "whut?" they'll look it up on the internet and probably get the old Roman definition.

[Broomstick]

Put bluntly, if we don't have a concept of what it means for children to be raised "correctly," why even bother having child protective services at all? Why not just ignore the question of whether children are being treated well, if we don't have a concept of what good treatment means?

Your treatment may not be in perfect accord with mine, and there must be some amount of wiggle room for parents to find the approach that is best for their culture and individual child's needs. But in broad terms there has to be some meaningful way of saying "no, this is not a thing that we can justly allow you to do to a child in the name of your own "right" to control that child's fate."

There are some practical rules of thumb in regarding to, let us say, adequate child raising in the US (based on general observations and also working in a clinic where we were told to look for signs of neglect and abuse).

- The child must receive adequate food to allow growth and avoid malnutrition.
- The child must have adequate shelter
- The child must be adequately clean to maintain health (which, it should be noted, is not as obsessively clean as many Americans would think)
- The child must have adequate clothing for the climate/weather
- If the child is ill or injured the parents need to seek medical care (note that such care is not guaranteed to anyone, but there must be some effort to help the child and not ignore problems)
- The child must not be subject to abuse (sometimes this is limited to physical abuse and parents can get away with psychological abuse)
- The child must be educated (this gets messy at times, between home schoolers, problems with the disabled, and so forth but a general rule of thumb is "in school until 14". The Amish fought that one to the US Supreme Court and set a lot of precedent)
- The child must be protected/not exposed to highly dangerous situations

Granted, this really isn't a high bar. One could meet all those points and still not be providing a great upbringing for a kid. On the other hand, a competent adult should be able to manage all of the above for a child.

[Broomstick]

As an experiment, I went 65 (the speed limit) on the freeway just now on the errands I had to run. I had to stay in the right (slowest) lane the entire time, as there was not a single car going as slow as I was for the entire 6 mile stretch of freeways I was on, barring the cloverleaf junction underpass during which people slowed to ~50 (the sign for the turn said 40).

And staying in the slow lane is a problem... how?

Now, granted, if you're traveling in bumper-to-bumper traffic at 80 mph (a hideously and inherently unsafe situation but shit happens, you can't control the other drivers) no, don't slow down. That comes under the "accident avoidance" exception I mentioned. But if that IS the case, unless the state troopers are planning a mass arrest, you aren't going to be singled out for a ticket. If this is a common situation on your commute, though, you might look for an alternative route. Or ask to work from home. Or something.

So, if I should hang out with a better quality of driver, I'd apparently have to move out of state to do so.

So?

Notably, it seems that despite our massively unsafe driving, California has less traffic fatalities per capita (7.5) and per 100 million miles driven (0.89) than Ohio (9.7 per capita, 1.00 per 100 million miles). California is, in fact, among the safer states in the nation to drive in, by both statistics. Interesting.

Gee, wonder if that has anything to do with fewer blizzards and less winter driving on slick roads? A significant number of accidents in my area are due to weather/road conditions and not just human stupidity. By the way, in case you ever are driving in the Midwest in winter, if road conditions are poor you can get a ticket even if you're driving at the speed limit, it's called "driving in an unsafe manner for conditions" or some variant.

I also stop at a stop signs even late at night. Why shouldn't I? Are you so arrogant as to think you're the only one out driving late?

Frankly, "everyone else is doing it" is not a valid excuse for breaking the law.

No, and neither is anyone else who rolls through. To clarify, rolling through does not mean ignoring it and blowing through at 25 mph, it means slowing to 5 or so mph (generally referred to as a "second-gear stop" because the person slows to the slowest speed from which one can still get into second gear), checking for cars or pedestrians, and if clear, rolling through.

It's still illegal to blow through a stop sign, even if it's at a slow speed. What the hell is wrong with people in your state that they can't bring themselves to stop for two seconds? Maybe they need to try leaving a few minutes earlier so they aren't so pressed for time?

Notably, this is a situation only encountered in America because in most European countries, stop signs aren't used with the same frequency as they are in the US, and it is more frequent to encounter an intersection such as would be a 4-way stop in the US instead having yield signs at all sides, with varying degrees of priority assigned to each for intersections of major and minor thoroughfares. This essentially means that the behavior in question (rolling stops) is more or less what everyone does at many EU intersections, because it's exactly what the law mandates, and what research has shown is in many ways safer and more efficient than 4-way complete stops.

You know what else Europe does (other than roundabouts being more common)? They actually require a demonstration of competence prior to issuing a license. Maybe if Americans were held to the same standards as European drivers we could allow them to use their judgement a bit more but the fact is American driving training sucks donkey dick and thus we can't trust the average American driver to have a crumb of sense. Just look at all the idiots still drinking and driving, still texting and driving, and likewise doing dumb shit that maims and kills people every day. Fucking hell, I stop at stop signs as much to make sure some coffee-swilling texter isn't about to barrel through the intersection as to obey the law.

[Irbis]

After a certain point the kid should stay with the parents he or she knows. Now, I'd be willing to discuss visitation rights for the bio-parents, perhaps we should consider some sort of joint custody in a limited number of cases, but all too often these kids are yanked from the only home they can remember and ALL contact is completely cut off with the people who had been raising them. And that can not be good for the kid. At all. And even if we could arrange things in that manner you'd still have problems with non-custodial parents kidnapping kids and so forth.

While I agree it's not good for the kid, what would you do if kid was kidnapped and lived with kidnappers for several years not knowing the truth? Would you leave it with them? And accordingly, not jail them for kidnapping since that would be separation, too? At which point staying with who the kid thought to be the parents becomes more important that repairing the issue, which, while painful, might make the rest of the child's life better?

Would it kill you to not turn every topic into a soapbox for your own pet causes? The real issue here is with adoption and parental rights, not firearms ownership.

Which was directly caused by firearm ownership. And sorry, this was about the only thing that you could discuss in this case with any certainty at that stage.

All I can say is I feel for the child, which, you know, wouldn't be likely needed if father was in almost literally every other country, where running a security firm doesn't require driving around with unholstered weapons (or even weapons at all)

I don't know who to side with here, but I sure as hell am not going to side with a hoplophobe whose knee-jerking comes off as a bizarro-world version of Zardoz.

I am sorry sane, bigger part of the world where you don't risk Paragraph 22 entrapment looks like Zardoz to you. Are you sure you are not living in the warped part? Did you entertain that thought before knee-jerking back?

I even did ask what exactly possible benefit is on pro side it was worth harming this family for as side effect, and all 3 angry replies provided exactly zero answer, just butthurt. Just like republicans asked what exactly war on drugs did it was worth tens of thousands of destroyed lives on 'con' side.

Nice way to overreact.

Even if he was doing something bad with the gun, the fact is, he had it (and possibly needed it to work) in the first place. Yeah, I am sorry I am pointing out the cause, instead of defending golden idol by shifting blame to everything but the sick (to me) system that caused it.

Go die in a fire. This has nothing to do with the case.

Wow, I can do nothing but capitulate before such intelligently put, flowery argument that totally doesn't look like knee jerk of about every fundie whose poor, unshakable feelings have been hurt?

[Terralthra]

Notably, this is a situation only encountered in America because in most European countries, stop signs aren't used with the same frequency as they are in the US, and it is more frequent to encounter an intersection such as would be a 4-way stop in the US instead having yield signs at all sides, with varying degrees of priority assigned to each for intersections of major and minor thoroughfares. This essentially means that the behavior in question (rolling stops) is more or less what everyone does at many EU intersections, because it's exactly what the law mandates, and what research has shown is in many ways safer and more efficient than 4-way complete stops.

You know what else Europe does (other than roundabouts being more common)? They actually require a demonstration of competence prior to issuing a license. Maybe if Americans were held to the same standards as European drivers we could allow them to use their judgement a bit more but the fact is American driving training sucks donkey dick and thus we can't trust the average American driver to have a crumb of sense. Just look at all the idiots still drinking and driving, still texting and driving, and likewise doing dumb shit that maims and kills people every day. Fucking hell, I stop at stop signs as much to make sure some coffee-swilling texter isn't about to barrel through the intersection as to obey the law.

Research in the US has shown the same thing: multi-way stops don't control speed, don't reduce accidents, and removing unwarranted multi-way stops increases compliance at warranted stops[/url].

Wait, wait wait wait. Ohio doesn't do some sort of driving skill assessment before handing over a driver's license? That's....horrifying. I'll stick to a state with 70 mph freeway drivers over a state that doesn't train or assess competence in driving.

[Spekio]

Well, I think the crux of the problem here is that we're caught between at least two conflicting issues:

1) What does it mean to say various biological relatives have a "right to the child?" The interests of the child should trump any person's "right" to declare that they have control of the child.

Are you affirming that the child's best interests include being taken away from her family? Most places default custody to the next of kin, because, well, society says so, and law is a product of the society it stems from.

Socio-culturaly, we, in the western world put a great importance to the concept of family, and, concerning brazilian law family is a constitutional right (art. 266 CFRB/1988).

Now, I'm not a lawyer in the U.S, and I could be talking out of my ass, but I did some research and Google shows me this is also the case in the U.S.

The decision I found the most pertinent to the discussion at hand is this one:

"If a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children's best interest, I should have little doubt that the State would have intruded impermissibly on 'the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter."' Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 862-63 (1977) (Justice Stewart concurring), cited with approval in Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978).
...

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality). Unlike the liberty interest in property, which derives from early statutory law, these liberties spring instead from natural law traditions, as they are "intrinsic human rights". Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 845 (1977). These rights, however, do not extend to all close relationships. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) (same sex relationships).

Therefore, it is in the State's interest to keep families togheter - your opinion that the child's best interest should trump the rights of the family altogheter is not the one the State follows.

2) How do we serve justice in cases where simple biology means that the situation is in flux? The other obvious example is any lawsuit involving an abortion; if it takes more than nine months to resolve the suit, then the baby's getting born no matter what the law says. When we reopen a custody case after a child has grown halfway from infancy to adulthood, we can't restore the situation to the way it was supposed to be. How does this impact the way we address the case?

Would the suggestion I heard recently, of allowing Mr. McCaul to sue in civil court, or of seriously penalizing the Hodges for obstructing Mr. McCaul's attempts to acquire joint custody, be more appropriate?

Indeed, justice is an ideal, and while the judicial system should strive to the closest thing possible, it sometimes can fall short. There are no cookie cutter answer I could give you that would fit every single situation presented.

I would have to say that my decisions would always be based on the circumstances present, the law of the land, jurisprudence and custom.

As for you second question,I could not say. I could not fault the Hodges for defending themselves in court - assuming they were in good faith - but I could fault Child Services for negligence, and were this in Brazil, as McCaul's lawyer, I would sue them in civil court in addition to trying to regain custody.

But instead of regaining custody? I would find it to be an axiological fault in the law, to be honest.

Put bluntly, if we don't have a concept of what it means for children to be raised "correctly," why even bother having child protective services at all? Why not just ignore the question of whether children are being treated well, if we don't have a concept of what good treatment means?

Your treatment may not be in perfect accord with mine, and there must be some amount of wiggle room for parents to find the approach that is best for their culture and individual child's needs. But in broad terms there has to be some meaningful way of saying "no, this is not a thing that we can justly allow you to do to a child in the name of your own "right" to control that child's fate."

Exactly how we define "correct" childrearing is up for debate. Whether we define such a term isn't up for debate, in my opinion.

My objection was to "correct". I would choose something along the lines of reasonable standarts of the common man, myself.

The problem is that the interests of the child pretty clearly align with letting her stay with the Hodges, while Mr. McCaul pretty clearly has the law on his side, and is clearly the victim of at least some degree of injustice.

His daughter was allegedly kidnapped to another state and he was unable to get her back, because the court proceedings dragged out long enough that he was arrested over an unrelated offense and lost his standing to deal with the quasi-kidnapping. Clearly he has suffered, and clearly he has some right to a role in his daughter's upbringing and life.

But there's a huge conflict here, and I don't think it reduces to either RARGH TWO HOURS' NOTICE GET SHARON BACK or RARGH DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ADOPTIVE PARENTS.

See above. I would defer to the jurisprudence.

[Spekio]

If you can tell me what "contra legis" means in standard English maybe I can answer that question. I don't speak either Latin or Lawyer.

Assuming it means "contrary to the law" or some such, the ability of a judge to do that in the US would be limited, and in some cases forbidden. There used to be more leeway but legislatures got upset when judges actually used judgement and made decisions they didn't like.

It means that.

Nor do I think this law is unjust in this particular case, I suspect that with some searching one would be able to find additional examples of the automatic nature of this law causing problems.

I'm not enough of a lawyer to sort through that as a lawyer would. I just think there is something very wrong with a situation were a reduced sentence for one person voids the legal adoption of two other people and results in a child being sent off to live with complete strangers, even if they are biologically related. A final adoption is supposed to be that, final.

You just said one thing and seemingly changed opinions on the next paragraph.

Just curious, where are you located?

Brazil.

We tend to refer to it as "family law" in the US, say pater familias to an American and if they don't go "whut?" they'll look it up on the internet and probably get the old Roman definition.

To clarify, I mean the right to family, one part of family law. And like I stated before, is an archaic term even here, but, having to tranlate technical terms I was under the impression it would be known in it's legal sense.

[The Vortex Empire]

I can't actually recall ever seeing someone come to a complete stop at a stop sign, barring four way intersections with them, but that's the Rhode Island Roll for you.

[Spoonist]

Notably, it seems that despite our massively unsafe driving, California has less traffic fatalities per capita (7.5) and per 100 million miles driven (0.89) than Ohio (9.7 per capita, 1.00 per 100 million miles). California is, in fact, among the safer states in the nation to drive in, by both statistics. Interesting..

The EU average is about 5.7, the countries who have made an effort like UK and Sweden are around 3 and that is with risky winter wheather as well. Since the EU as a total started to make somewhat of an effort the average reduction is about 5% per year which is seen as too low. The problem EU states like Portugal and Romania are about 9.

Notably, this is a situation only encountered in America because in most European countries, stop signs aren't used with the same frequency as they are in the US, and it is more frequent to encounter an intersection such as would be a 4-way stop in the US instead having yield signs at all sides, with varying degrees of priority assigned to each for intersections of major and minor thoroughfares. This essentially means that the behavior in question (rolling stops) is more or less what everyone does at many EU intersections, because it's exactly what the law mandates, and what research has shown is in many ways safer and more efficient than 4-way complete stops.

Not really. Most densily populated EU states like benelux etc (ie the majority of EU) have plenty of stop signs, much more so than US. Traffic lights are the same, more in densily populated EU states than US. There is simply less straight roads, and lots more old pathways converted to one way streets everywhere since most of EU population areas where designed for horse driven carts. What you might be thinking of is that the EU standard is to replace 4-way stops with roundabouts since it a) reduces traffic congestion and b) is much safer.
The behavior of rolling stops is then quite common in EU as well, but here you see a clear difference between northern europe like germany and above, vs meditteranean europe. Those who during some/most winters have snow simply follow the rules more often. While when driving through southern france you wouldn't find any car that does a full stop. Spain is crazy, but its roadnetwork generally makes up for it by dividing traffic so that you don't meet. etc.
My more limited experience of US says about the same, worse driving in warmer states, while more follow the rules in the northern ones.

[Broomstick]

After a certain point the kid should stay with the parents he or she knows. Now, I'd be willing to discuss visitation rights for the bio-parents, perhaps we should consider some sort of joint custody in a limited number of cases, but all too often these kids are yanked from the only home they can remember and ALL contact is completely cut off with the people who had been raising them. And that can not be good for the kid. At all. And even if we could arrange things in that manner you'd still have problems with non-custodial parents kidnapping kids and so forth.

While I agree it's not good for the kid, what would you do if kid was kidnapped and lived with kidnappers for several years not knowing the truth? Would you leave it with them? And accordingly, not jail them for kidnapping since that would be separation, too? At which point staying with who the kid thought to be the parents becomes more important that repairing the issue, which, while painful, might make the rest of the child's life better?

I am not convinced that snatching a child away from a family that legally adopted her will, under any possible scenario, down the road “make the rest of the child's life better”. HOW would that work? Do you have any studies showing that there is a net benefit? That it is even neutral regarding outcome?

Keep in mind, the adoptive family did not commit a crime and did not kidnap anyone – that is a separate issue (and there have been instances where someone kidnapped and raised a child to adulthood but that is tangential to this case).

All I can say is I feel for the child, which, you know, wouldn't be likely needed if father was in almost literally every other country, where running a security firm doesn't require driving around with unholstered weapons (or even weapons at all)

There are plenty of security firms that specialized in unarmed security and do not require weapons. Heck, the freaking TSA which does all that airport security has unarmed employees. I'm sorry if you have this mistaken notion that everyone in the US is running around armed like Rambo or the Terminator but that is not the case. Security work does not require weapons. Even if the firm does provide weaponed employees that doesn't mean the OWNER has to go around armed, and employees (like any other firearm holder) are responsible for keeping their weapons secured. In other words, it's a shit excuse.

Nice way to overreact.

Even if he was doing something bad with the gun, the fact is, he had it (and possibly needed it to work) in the first place. Yeah, I am sorry I am pointing out the cause, instead of defending golden idol by shifting blame to everything but the sick (to me) system that caused it.

No, he did not need the gun to do security work or own a security firm.

As someone with a felony record he should not have had a weapon on his person (which apparently he didn't) or in his vehicle (which apparently he did).

Wait, wait wait wait. Ohio doesn't do some sort of driving skill assessment before handing over a driver's license? That's....horrifying. I'll stick to a state with 70 mph freeway drivers over a state that doesn't train or assess competence in driving.

I don't consider any of the driver's license “tests” in the US worth the toilet paper they're written on until you get at least to CDL. Most driver training in the US is laughable. Compared to Europe, no, no one in the US is training or assessing the average driver in a competent manner.

Are you affirming that the child's best interests include being taken away from her family? Most places default custody to the next of kin, because, well, society says so, and law is a product of the society it stems from.

Socio-culturaly, we, in the western world put a great importance to the concept of family, and, concerning brazilian law family is a constitutional right (art. 266 CFRB/1988).

Now, I'm not a lawyer in the U.S, and I could be talking out of my ass, but I did some research and Google shows me this is also the case in the U.S.

The decision I found the most pertinent to the discussion at hand is this one:

"If a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children's best interest, I should have little doubt that the State would have intruded impermissibly on 'the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter."' Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 862-63 (1977) (Justice Stewart concurring), cited with approval in Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978).

There is a definite distinction between foster parents and adoptive parents. Foster parents are not next of kin by default even if they are legal guardians for a period of time. After an adoption is finalized adoptive family are legally next of kin.

The 1970's were also 40 years ago. Thinking has changed somewhat regarding the rights of adults vs. the rights of children since then.

Therefore, it is in the State's interest to keep families togheter - your opinion that the child's best interest should trump the rights of the family altogheter is not the one the State follows.

Legally, adoptive families are supposed to enjoy the same rights as biological families. Your stance forever declares adoptive families to be inherently inferior. That is not a viewpoint I agree with.

As for you second question,I could not say. I could not fault the Hodges for defending themselves in court - assuming they were in good faith - but I could fault Child Services for negligence, and were this in Brazil, as McCaul's lawyer, I would sue them in civil court in addition to trying to regain custody.

I think CPS were possibly negligent in several ways – why was a babysitter given precedence over the biological and legal father? Why didn't the Tennessee CPS send Sonya to biological relatives? There might be good reasons for that which we simply don't know, or maybe simple lazy incompetence.

[Spekio]

There is a definite distinction between foster parents and adoptive parents. Foster parents are not next of kin by default even if they are legal guardians for a period of time. After an adoption is finalized adoptive family are legally next of kin.

The 1970's were also 40 years ago. Thinking has changed somewhat regarding the rights of adults vs. the rights of children since then.

The link I posted seemed pretty up to date about U.S's constitutional right to family relations.

None the less the distinction is irrelevant, because his relatives were next of kin before the adoptive family, and seemingly the State removed the child from her family in a unlawful form.

Corroborate your statements, please. I hardly see a massive cultural shift pertaining to family rights when we have Amish children and ACE-style homeschooled children.

Legally, adoptive families are supposed to enjoy the same rights as biological families. Your stance forever declares adoptive families to be inherently inferior. That is not a viewpoint I agree with.

Don't put words in my mouth, please.

I did not state my opinion on the subject, I stated that the State wants, has decided to, sees as his mission, to keep natural families togheter, as the jurisprudence demonstrates. Consider that your Supreme Court said that.

I think CPS were possibly negligent in several ways – why was a babysitter given precedence over the biological and legal father? Why didn't the Tennessee CPS send Sonya to biological relatives? There might be good reasons for that which we simply don't know, or maybe simple lazy incompetence.

Maybe earth's core is made out of cheese. Broomstick, please understand that I made my conclusions out of the facts that I am aware of.

[Broomstick]

There is a definite distinction between foster parents and adoptive parents. Foster parents are not next of kin by default even if they are legal guardians for a period of time. After an adoption is finalized adoptive family are legally next of kin.

The 1970's were also 40 years ago. Thinking has changed somewhat regarding the rights of adults vs. the rights of children since then.

None the less the distinction is irrelevant, because his relatives were next of kin before the adoptive family, and seemingly the State removed the child from her family in a unlawful form.

No, it didn't. Under Tennessee law the father's parental rights were automatically terminated when he was sentenced to more than 10 years in prison. Under the law of that state the termination of his rights was legal and proper.

Extended family does not automatically get custody, it's quite common for children removed from a home to be temporarily placed with an unrelated foster family until a judge sorts out where the child should be placed permanently.

Corroborate your statements, please. I hardly see a massive cultural shift pertaining to family rights when we have Amish children and ACE-style homeschooled children.

Um... what relevance do Amish children have to this case? They are adequately fed, housed, the Amish community pools resources to cover medical expenses, and per a US Surpreme Court decision they keep their children in school until the age of 14 and are also required to make sure those children meet certain competency standards. This has been extended to other groups, like Hasidic Jews in New York City who likewise run their own parallel educational system. One quarter of the Amish children move into the mainstream and as a general rule they don't have a problem obtaining a GED and even moving on to higher education if they are so inclined, others apprentice into trades. Per the SCotUS, their education and care is considered adequate and not grounds for removal of children.

The homeschoolers ARE an issue - that is still be worked out in the courts. A lot of jurisdictions are accepting homeschooling that results in a GED certificate, others are requiring periodic testing of homeschooled children, yet others are a free-for-all, true. The states require that children be educated, they don't prescribe exactly how that education must take place.

I did not state my opinion on the subject, I stated that the State wants, has decided to, sees as his mission, to keep natural families togheter, as the jurisprudence demonstrates. Consider that your Supreme Court said that.

Please understand, when it comes it comes to family law in the US there is NOT one state. There are fifty states, all with slightly differing laws (in the one case, Louisiana, it's even based on the Napoleonic Code rather than English Common Law like the other 49 states).

Now, the last time I had any sort of regular concern with CPS I was working at a clinic in Chicago, in Illinois. There were a bunch of cases involving child custody, and it's not as cut and dried as you present the issue, at least not in Illinois. Sure, there was an ideal of restoring families but there were families where it was just too fucking dangerous to leave with children. The state is not just responsible for finding a place to put a kid, that place has to meet at least minimal standards. Blood relatives that are drug dealers and prostituting themselves to random strangers or committing crimes to feed a drug habit (or, as often happens, doing both those things) are not usually considered fit parents, as just one example. Unemployed and homeless relatives are not likely to gain custody. The state prefers biological relatives but the decision is by no means as automatic as you imply. Even in the SCotUS case you quote the point was that the decision is not solely based on one factor (the best interests of the child) implying the court recognizes that there may well be multiple factors at work.

In reality, the bio-family does not always wind up with custody.

[Lagmonster]

I fully expect that the adoptive parents will get her back on the basis of a 'best interests' hearing. Certainly popular opinion is against the biological dad - he's ruined his chances of re-integrating into society because his actions resonate extremely negatively with anyone who has raised children. The contrast between the loving parents with their clean house, obvious financial means, and the child's own testimony - with the ramshackle residence of the felon dad, the fact that he lost the kid when a babysitter decided he was unfit, the fact that the mom was never around, and the kid's description of the place as moldy, litter-filled, dirty, and with no clean water? Yeah, people will notice that.

McCaul doesn't stand a chance of keeping her long-term. If by some twist she is forced to stay with him, I bet she leaves him the moment she's old enough and never goes back.