Adoption Agencies Banned From Asking Parents About Guns

I'm sure the gun store owner/legislature and the NRA lobbyist ($$$) quoted above have children's best interests at heart (sarcasm). Pediatricians will always be able to ask about whether there are guns in the house, just as they ask about lead and other potential harms to children. If you as a parent are offended by the simple question, then you either need to decline to answer or find another doctor.

In reality, though, I think the key question is whether the guns are locked up, not simply whether there are guns in the house. I think life and home insurance companies also have a right to know that (again, if you don't like it, find another one or don't seek this insurance). Why not - for life insurance they take swabs from your mouth to make sure you don't smoke so why shouldn't they know if there are unsecured weapons in the house? This is a considered risk an insurance company has a right to know about in its underwriting.

Reply

"If just one child is saved by ..... then it will be worth it" is one of the stupidist, most illinformed, manipulative, coercive statements I have every heard. It it a sure sign that the speaker/writer has air between the ears. Try this "If just one mother/son/daughter/child/baby is saved by banning all adult beverages, then it will be worth it, right?" Or, ".... by banning automobiles, bicycles, skateboards, boats, airplanes, etc." Do you think that any of these stupid prohibitions ever have a snowballs chance of actully happening? Not that we don't mourn the loss of every life, but such a stupid statement never makes any sense.

Reply

Although I am against private gun ownership I do believe that it should not be asked. As long as the US law permits people to have a gun in their house it should not be an issue for adoption.

Reply

LS - I welcome ANY questions about the safety of my home. If you read what I wrote, you'd know I've already been asked about lead in my home, if I smoke, and many other questions. Our pediatricians are ONLY concerned about our child's welfare and I love that. My priorities are in line with our pediatrician's - to protect the life and health of our child and others who come into our house. These things don't offend me becaue I don't feel defensive in the least.

Many household items are dangerous to children (lighters, scissors, knives, medicines) so that's why we childproof and supervise carefully. This is just responsible parenting. No chainsaws and axes sitting out on the kitchen counters over here (maybe in your house; not ours).

Baseball bats, hammers and other tools are in the garage where children NEVER play. This is just responsible parenting.

You shoud respect and protect life by locking up weapons. You should also lock up weapons so criminals don't steal them and then use them in the commission of violent crimes. This is being a responsible citizen.

You can be as sarcastic, extreme and emotional as you want but here are the facts in case you care : "In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220.

This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (CDC, 2006)."

If kitchen knives and scissors are so deadly then why don't gun rights fanatics just use those to hunt and protect themselves?

Reply

SKL - I respect your perspective on the adoption application/homestudy process, which I understand is inherently intrusive and, you're right, it's not the same for individuals who don't choose to adopt; non adoptive parents aren't subjected to this kind of scrutiny. Adoption agencies should not be arbitrary or capricious, but I do not agree with your statement that "...limitations and requirements in adoption are best kept to a minimum..." and I'm sure glad that adoption agencies don't see it like you do. There should be appropriate requirements that are in the child's best interest and if prospective adoptive parents don't like that, they don't have to choose to pursue the adoption, or they may pursue it elsewhere.

Anyway, back to the point of my original coments, which were in response to LS on pediatricians and insurance companies asking me about what's in my house. As I said, pediatricians and insurance companies will (hopefully) ask ALL us parents (adoptive or not) what harmful stuff is in our house and I don't have a problem with that. This is their business, these are legitimate questions, and if parents (adoptive or not) don't like that, they need to rethink things.

Personally, I welcome laws that apply to ALL citizens (parents or not) requiring all of us to have guns locked up, whether children live or visit the house or not.

Reply

By the way, I have never been asked any of those kinds of questions by my kids' doctor nor by any insurance agent other than regarding whether I smoke (health and life insurance).

Of course I have potentially dangerous things in my house. Who doesn't? The insurance industry doesn't have time to tabulate the relative risks of having 2 baseball bats versus a chainsaw versus a jacuzzi. They just pick a few things that have a high correlation with above-average claims.

As for pediatricians, we have many to choose from. If I don't like one, I choose another. But I don't think it's typical in this country for pediatricians to ask those sorts of lifestyle-oriented questions. Maybe if they are working with populations that have a high incidence of a particular problem - I don't know - but I haven't seen it.

Reply

Most state ""Child Protection"" agencies through
consortiums or companies or through plagiarism
have adopted a form called a "risk assessment"
but to the general public they are IDIOT sheets.

They came up with these to pretend that they
were doing child abuse investigations of parents
objectively and uniformly, rather than based
on personality, politics or ATTITUDE.

One of these risk assessment "instruments"
was concocted by a consortium called
Structured Decision Making, and those people
swore that only competent and trained caseworkers
should be using them.

I pointed out to SDM that caseworkers are
notoriously UNQUALIFIED and commonly
pretend at qualifications they do not have.

I pointed out the absurdity of a place called
"Structured Decision Making" posting a disclaimer
that their idiot form is not to be used for decision making.

Family Rights groups have obtained several of
these risk assessment forms and reviewed
them.

The Michigan one for example was discussed and
it was realized that based on the stupid "points"
system and the questions, certain parents were
determined to be guilty of child abuse before the
caseworker even began the investigation.

An example, of a single mother with two kids
running a farm.

Under the points system she is considered to
be "at risk" of abuse or neglect because:

Live more than 2 miles outside of a city -1
Kill and Butcher animals -1
Single Mom -1
Two or more kids -1
Own a shotgun or rifle -1

Similar "risk assessment" (idiot checklist) forms
are used by ""Child Protective"" caseworkers
in most states in the USA now.

These forms are SUPPOSED to be used after
it has been decided that the parents are guilty
of abuse or neglect, to decide what ""services""
they need, but in fact they are NOT used that way.

These bureaucratic idiot check off forms
also fail to be objective, on purpose.

Scattered throughout the form are places
where the caseworker using it can make
exceptions, in essence overriding any
objectivity and allowing personal feelings
and personality clashes or affinities to
overrule any objectivity.

A caseworker investigating an old personal
friend or somebody whose personality she
clashes with can steer the results either
for or against the person based on their
personal attitude toward the accused parent.

Some caseworkers hate "suck ups" or
"brown nosers" but more of them actually
WANT the parents to be obsequious and
in AWE of their power and officious ego.

Just about every aspect of the
""Child Protection"" INDUSTRY is similarly currupt.

It's MUCH more than being anti-gun.
It's more like the agency culture is dominated
by man hating vegetarian city slickers who
never actually got their hands dirty in the real world.

Much of what they write when they try to make
cases reads like a twisted version of Chicken Little.

All they need to say is "at risk of" this or that and
the next thing you know they are removing children
from their homes over trivia.

The REMOVE way too many kids from homes
and their stupid "scatter gun" solution does
not save the kids who genuinely SHOULD be
removed because they are opverloaded with
all of these bogus cases trying to get their
SCORECARD up to get more Federal Funding
for their agency.

By the way, if you want to foster kids, please
do not forget that you are a CONTRACTOR and
as such you are bound by contractual restrictions
whereas the blood parent is NOT.

Fancier egress windows and fire extinguishers
are required to because you have made your home
into a bureaucratic INSTITUTIONAL facility.

It's not just that when you become a foster
you're a business, a PAID CONTRACTOR,
it's also that you are connected with the corrupt
""Child Protection"" INDUSTRY and the scandals
are killing them!

Because you are a Foster CONTRACTOR,
your situation changes similarly to the way
it would if you started a DAY CARE CENTER.

If you start one of those in or attached to
your home, you'd probably not expect to
have firearms around there either.

In BEAR country, however, I would hope
that even DAY CARE centers have firearms.

Reply

IMHO, if you're so damn proud to own the thing, then you should be ok with other people knowing about it too.

Reply