posted
I'm a bit surprised no one picked up this story yet. Given some of the topics in the "surrogacy" thread, I think it might be of some interest.
quote:Dale and Leilani Neumann had not taken their daughter to a doctor since she was 3 years old, police said. Leilani Neumann has said the family does not belong to any organized religion or faith but believes in the Bible and that healing comes from God.
The girl died Sunday of diabetic ketoacidosis, a treatable though serious condition of type 1 diabetes in which acid builds up in the blood.
I'm mostly for not interfering with how parents raise their children. But I am incredibly relieved to know that their other children are no longer under their care.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes, when there is measurable physical harm.
For any other reason...I don't know. There is damage from emotional harm as well, but so much damage results from taking children from their parents that the parents would have to be straight out of V.C. Andrews to balance that out, I think.
I think intervention in emotionally-damaging homes is a great idea, but taking the kids away? It's burning down the house to get rid of termites. In the absence of physical or sexual abuse, it's possible (probable?) that it does more harm than good.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it ever okay to take children away from parents?
Yes. Definitely. Like I said in the first post in the surrogacy thread, our culture recognizes the need for society to have the power to remove children from their parents.
It's a hallmark of civilization, IMO. But we need to be very careful about how that power is applied.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think intervention in emotionally-damaging homes is a great idea, but taking the kids away? It's burning down the house to get rid of termites. In the absence of physical or sexual abuse, it's possible (probable?) that it does more harm than good.
In your point, I agree.
However, if you are suggesting that this case is only emotionally-damaging, then I disagree with you. (I don't think you're suggesting that, but you can't always tell.)
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: yes, when there is measurable physical harm.
For any other reason...I don't know. There is damage from emotional harm as well, but so much damage results from taking children from their parents that the parents would have to be straight out of V.C. Andrews to balance that out, I think.
I think intervention in emotionally-damaging homes is a great idea, but taking the kids away? It's burning down the house to get rid of termites. In the absence of physical or sexual abuse, it's possible (probable?) that it does more harm than good.
I'm not even sure how to measure physical harm. What "measure" would we use? I happen to think spanking is wrong, but I don't think most spanking is wrong enough to warrant taking children...but what about when the belt comes out? Or there become bruises on top of bruises? Or when a child is hit so hard they have to go to the hospital?
You'd think that when a child is placed into a pot of boiling water and receives multiple serious burn wounds over his body that never go away that this would be a removable offense, but apparently even this is too gray for certain child and family services people because that's exactly what happened to a child I know and it took his grandparents years to get him away from his parents.
As for emotional abuse...I don't think we're even close to understanding emotional scars but that they can be deeper than physical ones. Unfortunately, I agree that emotional abuse has to be pretty darn severe (by itself...it often accompanies other forms of abuse) to warrant removal on its own because it's just as likely they'll be abused emotionally by someone else and have to deal with that on top of dealing with being removed from their parents.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are some days when I fervently believe that the bar for becoming a parent is set waaaay too low.
I don't know that there is anything that society can do about restricting which couple gets to have babies that doesn't make my stomach churn, though. I think that, terrible as its reputation is, the model we have now is as good as we can make it.
For right now, anyway.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering my girlfriend was adopted by emotionally abusive parents, I tend to agree that it is okay (and also that the bar is set too low....though in reality, there likely is no bar). It's not like you can accidentally volunteer to adopt a baby and now you're gonna take out your misfortune on the poor kid. I'm not sure what bothers me more; unplanned children who are mistreated, or parents who definitely wanted a kid, who then make him or her miserable. Gah.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe so. Short of immediate life threatening abuse. And I don't count whackos who believe in prayer over science either. Their faith is their business. Even if it kills them.
Otherwise, these are their own families. Their own flesh and blood. It is their right and responsibility to raise their kids to the best of their ability in compliance with what they think is right.
As much as the rest of us want to interfere, it is not our place.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I don't believe so. Short of immediate life threatening abuse. And I don't count whackos who believe in prayer over science either. Their faith is their business. Even if it kills them.
The problem I have with this is that the child has not chosen their faith. At 18, yes, if yo want to pray rather then take drugs, fine. But at 3, the faith isn't your own.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think they should be left with the parents and have court-ordered checkups regularly and court-ordered medical care if necessary.
The damage done by taking them away is enormous. There are other ways of protecting them without destroying their family.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think they should be left with the parents and have court-ordered checkups regularly and court-ordered medical care if necessary.
The damage done by taking them away is enormous. There are other ways of protecting them without destroying their family.
I'd probably be fine with that. But in my perfect world, the parents will be facing charges and possible prison sentences. Which I hope happens in the real world, but one never can tell these days.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: in my perfect world, the parents will be facing charges and possible prison sentences. Which I hope happens in the real world, but one never can tell these days.
Hmm... I'm not sure if that's the best response, Javert. I don't know that it accomplishes anything other than separating children from their parents.
I don't know that a further punishment is necessary-- this couple has already lost a daughter.
I guess I'd have to be able to evaluate how well the couple would comply with court-mandated doctor checkups for the remaining children; the remorse exhibited by the parents for the death of their daughter; and the willingness of the parents to comply with any court-mandated family counseling.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the problems in the children services system is that good people are hounded while those, like the parents of the kid boiled and wounded, don't get in trouble for their actions until serious harm is done. I know a good caring family who struggle like all of us but adopted a sibling group who had undergone serious abuse of all kinds who came under CPS guns when shortly after moving to a different county from the one they adopted in had one child removed because the father spanked the child - just one firm spank on the bottom no where near a beating (it literally was the last resort nothing else had gotten this kids attention). The ordeal this family suffered has caused so many more problems. If this family had been left alone many emotional problems would have been avoided.
Its hard. There is a need yet in so many instances CPS is not being used effectively.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the article I read, it said they still believed that if they prayed hard enough she would be ressurected, which does not lead me to believe they would willingly comply with court-ordered doctor visits.
The other kids are, however, staying with other family members, which is better than them being in a foster home as far as I'm concerned.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I don't believe so. Short of immediate life threatening abuse. And I don't count whackos who believe in prayer over science either. Their faith is their business. Even if it kills them.
Otherwise, these are their own families. Their own flesh and blood. It is their right and responsibility to raise their kids to the best of their ability in compliance with what they think is right.
As much as the rest of us want to interfere, it is not our place.
I can't say I agree. When I had cancer at the age of about 2 years old my mother insisted that I get treatment and surgery. My father's side of the family prefered to bathe my hand in golden seal and pray. If my father's side of the family had won, perhaps I'd be dead which would suck. So I definetly think if parents are endandering their children who have disorders that can be treated and they refuse to treat them, prehaps they should get their children removed because society really doesn't consider what is best for children nearly enough. It's always parental rights. The same mother who prevented me from dying of cancer also frequently used a belt to "discipline" me whenever I "misbehaved" Some things can be handled with children being removed, like if they are clearly being beaten like by all of these people who believe in the Rod and hitting children starting at 4 months of age. The best solution is removal. For minor neglect, young inexperienced parents, in home services. It's such a complicated issue that one solution just isn't enough. There must be a different solution for each situation. One that works.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't know that a further punishment is necessary-- this couple has already lost a daughter.
And they should be punished for being so horribly negligent that it lead to the death of their child.
It's the equivalent of leaving your child in a locked car on a hot day and then being surprised that the child dies of heat stroke.
Yes, they may not actually be heartless people. Yes, they have been punished by the death of their child.
But that is not punishment enough if they still hold to the idiocy that caused the problem in the first place. If you lock your child in a car and it kills them, and you show no signs of stopping such behavior, then your children are taken away and you're punished to the full extent of the law. If you show signs of learning from what you did, then maybe you're punished less.
The same applies to this case.
Which is why there should be charges, a trial, and a determination of any punishment (they shouldn't have me on any jury, as I'm obviously quite biased) and the best result for their surviving children.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know that a further punishment is necessary-- this couple has already lost a daughter.
The way I see it, the couple killed their daughter, much the same as if she had starved to death because they denied her food.
Further punishment is very much necessary to me.
I'm torn on this one. The thing is that if I lost a child, I'd want to die myself and I can't think of a "punishment" (assuming I'd done something wrong, on purpose or on accident, to precipitate the death) that could possibly be worse.
The trouble is that other people may not hurt that way. Who knows what this couple is feeling? Perhaps in their twisted faith, they've managed to make this all ok. In which case the death of their child is not a punishment (or at least not much of one).
So I guess the real question is this: WHAT DOES PUNISHMENT ACCOMPLISH?
Vengeance? Justice? (Also ill-defined) Discouragement for others who would do the same thing?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a couple deliberately starved their child to the point that she died, would them being sorry about it later make it something they shouldn't be punished for?
I'm not seeing where the parents here should get off from their crime. Is it because they thought they were doing the right thing? Because it was "religiously" based? Because they can do whatever they want to their child?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is a huge difference between knowingly and deliberately harming a child and being tragically mistaken about what's best for them, yes.
I'm not sure that gets them off punishment, but IMHO, different intents make for different crimes.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I guess the real question is this: WHAT DOES PUNISHMENT ACCOMPLISH?
Vengeance? Justice? (Also ill-defined) Discouragement for others who would do the same thing?
Justice and discouragement, certainly.
Vengeance? No. Nor should vengeance and justice be looked at in the same way. Justice is locking them up and protecting their living children.
Vengeance would be locking them up, protecting their living children, infecting the parents with some slow working disease and then refusing them medical treatment.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I think there is a huge difference between knowingly and deliberately harming a child and being tragically mistaken about what's best for them, yes.
I'm not sure that gets them off punishment, but IMHO, different intents make for different crimes.
What if they starved them because they thought it was for their own good? What if their religion told them to starve their children?
---
edit: Alternatively, what if they beat their children with rods because they took the Bible literally on that point? Should they not be punished for their child abuse in this case?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think there is a huge difference between knowingly and deliberately harming a child and being tragically mistaken about what's best for them, yes.
Intent does make for different crimes. And there are mechanisms within the homicide statutes for making that determination. If the evidence shows that they intended the child to die and purposely withheld care to accomplish that, then they could be convicted of murder 1. If they demonstrated "depraved indifference to human life," murder 2. If they disregarded a known (to them) risk of death, manslaughter. If they genuinely made a mistake about whether care was needed, but that mistake was not reasonable, then involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think there is a huge difference between knowingly and deliberately harming a child and being tragically mistaken about what's best for them, yes.
Intent does make for different crimes. And there are mechanisms within the homicide statutes for making that determination. If the evidence shows that they intended the child to die and purposely withheld care to accomplish that, then they could be convicted of murder 1. If they demonstrated "depraved indifference to human life," murder 2. If they disregarded a known (to them) risk of death, manslaughter. If they genuinely made a mistake about whether care was needed, but that mistake was not reasonable, then involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide.
Thanks for the breakdown!
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I think there is a huge difference between knowingly and deliberately harming a child and being tragically mistaken about what's best for them, yes.
I'm not sure that gets them off punishment, but IMHO, different intents make for different crimes.
What if they starved them because they thought it was for their own good? What if their religion told them to starve their children?
---
edit: Alternatively, what if they beat their children with rods because they took the Bible literally on that point? Should they not be punished for their child abuse in this case?
I'm not even sure if this is a question of whether they should be punished -- it's more a matter of degree and if the fact that they lost their child is "punishment enough" or not. The truth is that I've heard of situations in which parents did things that were clearly poor judgment and led to the death of their child. For example, I recently heard of a mom getting so distracted by American Idol that she left her 2-year-old and 9-month-old in the tub and the baby drowned. Another time I heard of a woman who wasn't paying enough attention to her 10-month-old on her bed, the baby fell between the bed and the headboard and strangled to death. I think these are pretty obvious oversights -- even negligent -- that led to the death of a child but what punishment is justified for that or is the loss of a baby punishment enough?
The whole "God told me" thing is confusing to me on a lot of levels. There are some extents people take it to that I feel are insane, but again, where do we draw the line? The question of whether or not parents should be required to get medical care for sick kids has been around for a long time and doesn't seem any closer to being resolved. It seems that we basically leave these parents alone as long as their kids don't actually die. When they do die, we get outraged. Well, then it's too late. So what do we do? Punish them? What does that do? We're the ones who didn't act.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Don't be so quick to take children away from their parents, even if it seems clear cut.
One of their children is dead. In this case, at least, any action that is taken is anything but 'quick'.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert: Should fundementalist parents have their kids taken away if one of their gay ones swallows a bottle of pills?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand the connections you seem to be drawing there, Pix. Because there are other ways to abuse their children that may be more ambiguous, we shouldn't punish parents when they clearly, unambiguously abuse their kids? That seems to me to be what you are saying and it doesn't make any sense to me.
---
Christine, I don't see this ambivilence to requiring medical care for sick kids that you do. From my perspective, if a parent is depriving their kids of necessary medical treatment, this is considered by a majority of people as wrong and something the state should step in for. Though I'm not sure about this, my impression is that the legal issue is somewhat settled as well, that the state can force necessary medical treatment over parents' objections.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Javert: Should fundementalist parents have their kids taken away if one of their gay ones swallows a bottle of pills?
Not necessarily.
But that is nothing like the case of the Neumann family. What's your point?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Both are cases of abusing a child to death.
One is much more active than the other.
If the parents of the gay child told him that god would prefer he be dead than gay and then gave him the pills, it would be equivalent.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I think there is a huge difference between knowingly and deliberately harming a child and being tragically mistaken about what's best for them, yes.
I'm not sure that gets them off punishment, but IMHO, different intents make for different crimes.
What if they starved them because they thought it was for their own good? What if their religion told them to starve their children?
---
edit: Alternatively, what if they beat their children with rods because they took the Bible literally on that point? Should they not be punished for their child abuse in this case?
Hell yeah, they should be punished for child abuse in cases like that. Especially when it's infants and toddlers. If folks don't act as soon as possible, what happens to the kids? Parental rights are all well and good, but not at the expense of a child's health and wellbeing.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't know about active. Denying medical care is much, much more direct than holding and expressing bad opinions of gay people being a possible contributing factor in someone's suicide.
I still don't understand the logic of using the weaker case to argue against the stronger. This seems nonsensical to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It makes sense only because in Pix's worldview homophobia is the central condition to which everything else gets related.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
What if parents don't use a child seat? Is it ok to take their kids away after one goes through the windshield? Heck, we used to ride around in the back of my dad's pick up truck. Next thing ya know kids are going to have to be wrapped head to toe in bubble wrap before you can put them in a moving vehicle.
How about Vegans? If their child dies from malnourishment, is it ok to take the rest of their kids away?
What if the parents are Environmentalists and refuse to heat the house? Then their child dies from pneumonia because of it. Shall we take the rest of the kids away then?
When you make it ok to interfere in other people's lives due to their wacky beliefs, eventually it's going to come home to roost due to your own wacky beliefs.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: ... infecting the parents with some slow working disease and then refusing them medical treatment.
Is it truly vengeance if the target doesn't think you're doing anything bad to them? Presumably, they'd think they get resurrected anyways if they die in accordance to God's will.
No, you'd need to infect them with a disease. And if they think that God's will is for them to die, you'd have to *brutally* perform medicine on them thwarting God's will. If they think that God's will is for them to live, *then* you have to refuse them medical treatment
Theoretically anyways. If I was planning vengeance, which I'm not. I'm just saying, if you plan vengeance you have to do it right.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is illegal in most (all?) states for kids under certain weight/height limits to ride in a car without a child seat. I expect violators to be prosecuted, whether it's found due to an accident or a traffic stop.
If a child dies from malnourishment, I'd subject it to the same intent scale Dag listed above for this case, whether it's from not feeding them at all or intentionally feeding them an inadaquate diet. (Veganism by itself is not an inadaquate diet, and is not going to kill someone.)
If a child catches pneumonia and is not treated, it's the same as this case. If it is promptly taken to the hospital and dies anyway, and it's determined that the rest of the kids are in an unsafe living condition, I'd actually expect the house to be condemed.
People have the right to follow whatever wacky beliefs they want. They don't have the right to inflict ones that a reasonable person would consider dangerous on their kids.
-----
As for this case, if the parents don't end up in jail, I don't actually want to see the rest of their kids taken away from them permenantly. What I'd like to see is a court-appointed non-cusdotial guardian (There's a term for guardians who just have the right to make decisions about medical issues in the interests of the child's welfare, but I can't remember what it is), preferably a local member of the extended family, who has the authority to take them to regular doctor's visits and check up on them on demand, preferably once a week or so. That way the kids get to stay with their parents, and a concerned party makes sure they get annual check-ups and any ongoing treatment they need. It wouldn't necessarily get them timely treatment in the even of, say, a broken arm from falling out of a tree, but it would probably catch most issues.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the children had been injured several times from not riding in a car seat, if the Vegan child had shown obvious, visible signs of malnourishment for some time, if the Environmentalist's children had suffered lots of illnesses and injuries from lack of heat, THEN the situation would be parallel.
These parents refused to call on outside help, even when their child had suffered a serious illness for a long time. she was IN A COMA, and her parents still did nothing but pray. The definition of stupidity. They continued to do the same thing that had led to her illness.
Are they bad, horrible, terrible humans? Not necessarily. Are they severely lacking in judgment? Obviously. Will this experience give them the judgment skills they need to raise their other children in a safe way? Sadly, probably no.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
What about people who don't provide adaquate care for their child not because of what they belive but because they can't? Homeless families, families with no insurance, who have trouble affording good food and so forth?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: When you make it ok to interfere in other people's lives due to their wacky beliefs, eventually it's going to come home to roost due to your own wacky beliefs.
If your wacky beliefs, whatever they may be, cause the death of a child and have the potential to do it to more children, then we're morally obligated to take your children from you.
The level of 'taking them away' changes based on the severity of the initial problem. Maybe it means taking the children away physically. Maybe it only means taking away the parents' ability to inflict the negative effects of their wacky beliefs on their children.
If my wacky beliefs caused the death of my children, I would hope someone would step in to protect them. As it is, I don't think I have any wacky beliefs at all, let alone ones that could lead to death. Here's hoping, anyway.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe this was said but I didn't catch it as I glossed over the thread.
I sure hope somebody can explain to these parents what a terrible mistake they have made and where they went wrong.
I don't think tossing the parents into jail and dispersing the children around is the best our society can do in these instances.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think it's worth noting that the children are with extended family. And, since it was their grandmother who eventually alerted the authorities, it's probable that their family is more reasonable than the parents.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do the child's wishes factor into this? We generally don't let children make all the same decisions we allow adults to make, especially when their lives are threatened. If the child knew (confirmed in whatever manner you wish to use) that she would likely die without the treatment yet chose to refuse it, should we let her refuse?
Some hypotheticals to explore the boundaries:
1.) How do likelihood of success and side effects factor in? Do we force a child to undergo chemo that doubles the chance to live from 25% to 50%? From 10% to 20%?
2.) How about a situation where a 12-year old girl will face a 40% chance of death if she doesn't have an abortion?
3.) If embryonic stem cells form the basis for a viable treatment for a likely fatal disease, can the child refuse the treatment? How about if the disease isn't fatal, but is crippling (assume the treatment won't work once the child is 18)?
Let's assume that the state of the law on abortion and personhood is the same as it is now.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see any argument for the defense of depriving a diabetic of insulin to the point of ketoacidosis, whatever your god tells you to do. It's stupid to throw away a perfectly acceptable kid's life by depriving him or her of drugs that you need to live. While some could say it's god's will, I, in this case, would say screw god, common sense says we should help this person in the same way we would help someone unknowingly walking in front of a bus, maybe yell at them, offer our aid. No amount of faith and no amount of pleading can justify the knowledgeable maltreatment of a child who died for apparently one specific reason, the withholding of medicine particular and necessary to her disease.
I think this is at least partially a case of uninformed parents relying on the superstition that either their child will get better magically, or otherwise it's not gods will (but then by the same reasoning, one shouldn't yell to people walking in front of buses, for obviously they should have figured out their own way to avoid that catastrophe, in the same way they seem to expect this diabetic to avoid being killed by it) The drugs exist that would have saved this life. The parents chose not to yell out and save her from the bus of diabetes, here, and that is criminal.
I can see, maybe, if the parents did not recognize symptoms of diabetes, but they had to know something was wrong, and therefore not taking the child to the doctor is still on par with not yelling to the bus-walker, and is criminal.
I agree that for other cases of neglect and child endangerment and abuse there is a gradient of responses necessary, but this seems a very sad and clear-cut case of the combination of beliefs those parents hold and the lack of understanding they have for healthcare make them dangerously unfit parents.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read that 75% of the children that are currently uninsured in the US are eligible for medicaid or chip (so free or nearly free medical care). I found this fairly upsetting. I am not sure how I would fix it, but it does make me think a lot of parents aren't providing medical care for more reasons then just religion. The one person I know who's kids are not covered just doesn't feel like doing the paperwork (or calling the help number and asking them to do it for her).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
