Without proof nothing happens. And the kid’s say-so isn’t proof. And even if it was, it puts the kid in the position of having to rat out their parent.
So, you aren’t familiar with DHR, are you?
2 Likes
Department of Human Resources?
In all seriousness no, not familiar with whatever that is. Just repeating what friend says her lawyer told her.
I’m not sure what that particular acronym means either, but based on the context I assume it is something like what I would call Child Protective Services (CPS).
2 Likes
My understanding, from talking to several foster parents, is that the bar for taking kids away is pretty extreme. As in, it takes a lot more than just breaking the law.
That might vary from one jurisdiction to the next.
Yeah, I can’t say that would get kids taken away, but it wouldn’t be a cake walk for the parent either.
We have had six foster children. Two of them were taken away for not very good reasons at all - we had a boy for more than a year because his mother died and dad wasn’t on the birth certificate, so the state had to establish paternity. And the father had to get a lawyer before they even STARTED that process, a whole year later.
The other child was taken away because he had a medical condition and he was with us for MONTHS before the state realized that he needed an emergency seizure medication at all times - the state didn’t even know what his medical condition WAS, and by him being placed with us, he was more at harm than had he stayed with his mother.
The bar really isn’t that high. Especially if you’re poor, and definitely if you’re poor and dark skinned.
1 Like
Ok.
In the first case I would argue that the state didn’t take the boy away from his mother. She died and they had to do something. And while it took them an unreasonable amount of time to get him to the right place, it’s not like they took him for no reason. (My relatives went through something similar with a foster where Mom was incarcerated and it took way too long to get the kid placed with Dad.)
The second case I don’t quite follow. Was the boy’s medical condition the reason that they took him? Or did they have another (potentially valid) reason for taking him and then f***ed up his medical care after the fact in a way that ended up doing more harm than leaving him with his mother would have done?
Regardless, friend has been advised that “kid reports unlocked gun in the home” is not a situation that CPS will intervene in unless someone has been shot.
Ironically, they took him because his mother had demonstrated to a hospital social worker that she didn’t understand his condition. There was a lot going on with that situation - but she undoubtedly loved her son and the state COULD have at least learned what his condition was before taking him from her, but they chose not to. I believe he did eventually go back to her, he was with us for a few months and then went to a relative while she was working on her case plan. At least he ended up with family.
1 Like
We got to have a lockdown today. It was a “soft” lockdown, not an “active shooter-hide in the corner and pray for your life” lockdown.
There apparently was an altercation with gunfire within a couple of miles of the school, so we were told to lock our doors and stay in the rooms until further notice. I was mostly able to keep the lesson going, but 6th period didn’t end until more than half-way through what should have been seventh period.
The kids were obviously stressed about it, but there was never any danger in our immediate area.
3 Likes
Nope. We only say we identify them after they shoot up a club, school, church, theater, etc.
In reality, most of these people seem just as crazy as everyone else.
You can always find crazy aspects in people.
Jon Stewart is awesome
Video at link
https://twitter.com/theproblem/status/1631610370887491584?s=46&t=cXHA6hVIwh6BsFziebrq_A
3 Likes
What about John Stuart
1 Like
Or Stuart Little?
Teen girl in Tennessee latest shooter at elementary school. 6 dead including shooter.
Yet another school shooting.
Private Presbyterian school. Girl shooter. Quite unusual.
But no price is too great to preserve the 2nd amendment.
They corrected the article, 28 year woman, not a teen. But still unusual.
2 Likes
Just spitballing here.
A lot of parents are quite concerned about these random acts. It makes them worried and anxious.
So maybe we should get this under control. How about just picking 30 or 40 kids and sacrifice them each year to the Gun God? At least most parents will be less worried, and we can actually manage the number of deaths. We can choose the firing squad from a list of well trained militia.
1 Like