should the children be removed from this womans custody?

Question

http://www.sheriffleefl.org/about/jaildetention/arrestBkDetail.aspx?id=156113&bk=470732

Answer 1

It truly depends on whether someone else was watching the children and the conditions they were living under.

Answer 2

Probably until she gets her act together her children would be better off with a relative. However, I don't know the circumstances. Some people live with bad pain and get hooked on substances. Easy to judge unless you are the one who is suffering.

Answer 3

It depends on the circumstances of her arrest.

Three children I removed were from a man in a van on an interstate doing almost 100 miles an hour while intoxicated and none of the kid's in a restraint!

The system is set up to remove children who are found in imminent danger, If she was not able to care for her children at the time of her arrest because she was intoxicated or doped up, that is Neglect! As she was arrested, generally a relative is called. Even if they are removed, a relative is the 1st choice as an option for placement, except in Child Sexual Abuse cases!

The system is also set up to get her the help she needs so she can regain custody of her children, but that is her choice whether to participate!

I don't believe in leaving children's lives at-risk because they have parents, and I would be willing to do almost anything to reunite them, except place them back in the same environment they left!

Generally in cases like this one, unless something very severe, we didn't usually pull the kids. However, we did often file a petition of neglect!

We have had experience with a lot of drug and alcohol abusers, and their prognosis is not great. They are more liable to die than to quit! Even those in 12- step programs, who want to stop using, it is estimated that 1/3 of them end up dieing, 1/3 go back to using, and 1/3 remain non-users.

I don't put kids back in a active drug abuser's custody! At least I would not recommend it. The court has the final word and I have lost a few! Very few!!

Anthony, it is regulated by the Child Protection Act in every state. Most are similar as all used the same federal guidelines to write theirs.

And the state does have a "right to intervene". It is callen parens patriae

[Latin, Parent of the country.] A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.

The parens patriae doctrine has its roots in English common law. In feudal times various obligations and powers, collectively referred to as the "royal prerogative," were reserved to the king. The king exercised these functions in his role of father of the country.

In the United States, the parens patriae doctrine has had its greatest application in the treatment of children, mentally ill persons, and other individuals who are legally incompetent to manage their affairs. The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent power to intervene to protect the best interests of children whose welfare is jeopardized by controversies between parents.

Answer 4

yes

Answer 5

NO...NO...NO...I NEVER SEEN ONE CHARGE OF CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT....EVERY BODY HAS PROBLEMS...E3VERY WOMAN CAN HAVE A BABY(MOST)....SHOULD THAT BE REGULATED TOO????????BY WHO?

Answer 6

YES!

Answer 7

Yea...for now anyway....

Answer 8

HELL YEAH