If a person had his or her child removed because of abuse in the form of subjecting said child to unhealthy living conditions and negligence, but not including physical or direct emotional abuse, would it be considered unlawfully reckless to put another child in the care of the same person whose biological child was removed do to the aforementioned type of abuse?
Does there need need to be an actual abuse conviction against a person for it to be considered reckless to place a child in that person's care, or can a court have removed the first child, acting in the child's interest, and have its action have the weight of a conviction of abuse, thereby making the placement of another child in the unconvicted abuser's care still reckless?
2006-12-13 00:37:23 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Being reported to child welfare is serious enough. In my younger years, a parent had to show up with kid in tow and state they wanted to face their accusers. This put the state in a quandary because the truth was at hand by someone-either the parent now present or the accuser. It saved a lot of time and protected the accuser but...it also gave the accuser a black mark for repeat false accusations. The accused parent got a letter of unfounded.
Ok, today kids need protected physically, verbally and emotionally. There have been cases of putting a child back in the care of reckless providers with the outcome of disaster. In my opinion, it is not a healthy situation if recklessness is founded by the authorities.
2006-12-13 00:53:30 · answer #1 · answered by Patches6 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, depend on the state that you live in, no wonder why a lot of kids are screwed in the head, junkies, mental you why and who is to blame? it is the state government not the parents, also you see these things among single parents, boyfriend and girl friend crab.
2006-12-13 00:41:56 · answer #2 · answered by Wael 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋