When is it OK to take children away from their parents?
Categories: In The News, Media, That's Entertainment
I've been following the story of the removal of 416 children from an extremist religious compound in Texas with a mixture of shock, horror, and sympathy. And the more I read, the more conflicted I become. In the end, the anguish is with the children, and that's what makes all of this so much more horrifying.I picked up this week's People magazine with a picture of a young Mother walking with her two children, the weight of the world in her frown lines. 416 children were separated from their Moms because of a cloud of suspicion about the sexual abuse of young girl's.
Well, evidently it was a lot more serious than suspicion. I cannot imagine that a State would take such drastic measures if they did not have solid proof of abuse. But as I read the article in the magazine -- and the allegations by the grieving Mothers that their children were taken in a sweeping motion as a protest of the polygamist lifestyle rather than actual abuse -- I began feeling really awful for them. No matter their lifestyle, they miss their children. No matter what, there are hundreds of young children confused and missing their parents. Should authorities really have taken all of the children away, or did these Moms and their babies deserve to be evaluated on a case by case basis? Was that even possible, given the communal way this religious sect lives?
I just finished watching a video (below) of Meredith Viera interviewing three of the sect's women, accompanied by their lawyer. The deadness in these women's eyes, and the strangeness of their words and actions dully affirms for me that the authorities did the right thing. This is not a normal situation that can be assessed on an individual family basis, because these families are all in it together. I don't think the authorities had any choice but to remove all of the children in light of the hesitancy and strangeness about providing forthright information.
I am so sad for them all.
Recent Posts
- Adoption Agencies Banned From Asking Parents About Guns (3/19/2010)
- Opinion: Proms Should Not Include Dates (3/19/2010)
- Stroller Review: BOB Revolution Duallie (3/19/2010)
- Opinion: Is Being a Wimpy Kid Better Than Being Cool? (3/19/2010)
- Mom and Baby Rattle and Roll at SXSW (3/19/2010)
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 2)
eugene 4-23-2008 @ 4:20AM
@ Amy:
Yes, I've read up on eugenics and you're comparing apples to oranges. This isn't the government deciding who gets to breed based on some half cocked notion of breeding a better human, this is about society protecting children from nut jobs and people who confuse systemic abuse with "religion".
As for the who gets to decide question... again, we live in a society where nearly every aspect of your life is graded and judged. Want to buy a house? Get a good job, adopt a dog, rent an apartment? In all these things, someone looks at your life, your credit history, calls and gets references, does a background check. And yet any two idiots with functional reproductive organs can pop out as many human beings as they want. There is something fundamentally wrong with this society when the welfare of a dog or a cat warrants more thought and consideration than a human being.
Reply
Jess 4-23-2008 @ 9:16AM
This country was founded on the principal of religious freedom and while I greatly disagree with the practice of allowing young girls (or insisting) to marry at such a young age, I think it's frightening that the government forced itself into a community, separated hundreds of children from their parents and is set to prosecute a group of individuals for practicing their religion. Where do you draw the line?
Reply
Denise 4-24-2008 @ 6:33PM
I volunteer as a Court Appointed Special Advocate for foster children - in other words, kids who've been removed from their families. I look at the situation thusly: if a father or mother in San Diego (where I live) GAVE their 13, 14, or 15 year old daughter to their adult neighbor to become his wife, I'd have to report it to the Child Abuse Hotline because I'm a required reporter and that is statutory rape as well as a failure to protect. The fact that this is wrapped up in a religious context shouldn't change the way the facts of the case are evaluated. We have very clear laws on how and when children can be removed from their parents and - believe me - the standard is VERY high and the courts always err on the side of keeping families together. (That's part of the law, too.)
My two cents.
Reply