Sunday, January 29, 2006
Protecting Children
One of the stories that has been getting a lot of play over the past week from various sources is the story of Haliegh Poutre from Massachusetts. She was beaten almost to death by the adoptive mother and stepfather. The DSS of MA sought permission to remove the breathing tube from her and was granted that permission. The catch was that when they did, she kept breathing. Thank God for that.
A lot of the stories that I've seen about the case have been about how the DSS screwed up. They left her in the home. They didn't fully investigate. They didn't see the signs.
BULL SHIT.
The stories that I've read have given me plenty of cause for concern but to this point I have yet to see one which says that DSS screwed up. Yes, I know that the child is in her present condition implies that they did, but that doesn't mean that they did.
I do this on a daily basis for a living. I know that I miss things. I also know that when I have cause for concern that I have to be able to prove it to a judge, who doesn't get to see the things that I do, that there is clear and convincing evidence for my actions. People don't understand that just because I can sense that a parent is a slimey, sucky, piece of crap doesn't mean I can prove it in court.
The libertarian in me wouldn't have it any other way. I do believe that some of the scariest words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." The more the state gets into the home, the less secure the home is. I can't believe that anybody doubts that.
The problem is where the (suddenly) interested third party gets into the act and sees with the benefit of hindisght what "should" have been done. I wholly wish that some of the pundits that "know better" would spend a week with me. They would be able to see the dangerous line that I have to walk between the rights of parents to their children (which is enshrined in laws through the ages) and the rights of kids to not get the snot beat out of them (which until recently didn't exist).
Of all the stories I've seen on the case of Haliegh, I've yet to see one that looks at what the worker in that case is going through. That worker, who took the job knowing that he or she would never be esteemed, and likely vilified, failed in the primary task of the profession. To protect the child. My prayers are with Haliegh. More are with the worker who has to deal with the fallout.
A lot of the stories that I've seen about the case have been about how the DSS screwed up. They left her in the home. They didn't fully investigate. They didn't see the signs.
BULL SHIT.
The stories that I've read have given me plenty of cause for concern but to this point I have yet to see one which says that DSS screwed up. Yes, I know that the child is in her present condition implies that they did, but that doesn't mean that they did.
I do this on a daily basis for a living. I know that I miss things. I also know that when I have cause for concern that I have to be able to prove it to a judge, who doesn't get to see the things that I do, that there is clear and convincing evidence for my actions. People don't understand that just because I can sense that a parent is a slimey, sucky, piece of crap doesn't mean I can prove it in court.
The libertarian in me wouldn't have it any other way. I do believe that some of the scariest words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." The more the state gets into the home, the less secure the home is. I can't believe that anybody doubts that.
The problem is where the (suddenly) interested third party gets into the act and sees with the benefit of hindisght what "should" have been done. I wholly wish that some of the pundits that "know better" would spend a week with me. They would be able to see the dangerous line that I have to walk between the rights of parents to their children (which is enshrined in laws through the ages) and the rights of kids to not get the snot beat out of them (which until recently didn't exist).
Of all the stories I've seen on the case of Haliegh, I've yet to see one that looks at what the worker in that case is going through. That worker, who took the job knowing that he or she would never be esteemed, and likely vilified, failed in the primary task of the profession. To protect the child. My prayers are with Haliegh. More are with the worker who has to deal with the fallout.
