When Do You Think A Single Mother Should Have Her Kids Taken Away???
  • There is a problem in America with incapable women having children and trying to raise them. The problem is actually that they are not raising them right. There are many youths in trouble. When would they benefit from being taken away from their mothers?
    There is a poll above please use it.
  • I'm not sure. I think children should be taken from birth and trained by strong men!

    EDIT: And women!
  • Theres a place for that sunny.. It's called Sparta!
  • The only two poll options I would disagree with are "If The Mother Has Promiscuous Sex In The Same House" and "A Mother Should Always Have Her Child"
  • @MissScooter
    A single mother should teach by example proper honor to her children and if she is having promiscuous sex, or, sex with a man who doesn't know at least five katas with his katana (a man who can provide for his family must know how to fight and the only way to fight with honor is with an honorable weapon like the katana) and does not intend to marry him or at least be his concubine, is not living an honorable life. Even though a woman should not on a whole learn the arts of a samurai and should spend her time tending to the household, she should at least follow the laws set for us by bushido and live a honorable life like they do in Japan.
  • MissScooter said:
    The only two poll options I would disagree with are "If The Mother Has Promiscuous Sex In The Same House"

    I think it depends on the amount. If it's a different dude every day, then that's really bad.
  • I do not think that a child should be taken away just because she is not able to give clothing and food to the child. That is like saying that a mother that is homeless should not be able to have her kids either. There are allways reasons that they end up there and if the mother has custody then there is a good reason that the father did not get it.

    As far as having sex goes.... I marked that one as well but like Chip said it would just depend. If the kids do not see it and do not know about it then it is fine. If the kids see men coming and going all the time then there is a issue.

    If the mother is seeing someone that is abusing her in front of the kid(s) then she either needs to leave the man or loose the kid(s). There are also many levels of abuse and some are harder to spot than others. Saying that all forms if abuse should cause a mother to loose her kid(s) is right as long as first the mother is advised that ________ is abuse when it doesn't involve hitting and she takes no action or if it is plain as day what is occurring such as bruises and what have you. At the same time the way that I look at it is if the kids do not see it and do not hear it then it has nothing to do with if she should have her kids or not.

    If the mother beats the child they should loose them forever but unfortunately that is not the way that it works same thing with if the mother is on drugs.

    What this pole and thread should really be about is not just mothers but fathers as well. When should a father/mother loose the right to have contact with their child. You are so fast to place all the blame on the mothers Grey but it takes two to make a baby. Most fathers don't want to have anything to do with their child and so that places the mother on a bad spot. Sometimes it is the father that is beating the woman that choose to leave to protect that same child from that and is living in a homeless shelter or the street. Are you then saying that the child should be taken away and placed in a home with no one that the child knows while the mother is doing what she can... or would it be more okay with you if it was the father that was escaping the abusive wife.

    I say leave it to Child Welfare to decide who should have their kids and who should not. You may not like it but it is always best for a child to be with a family member then in a group home or foster care until it gets to a certain point that is. I may not agree with what Child Welfare does all the time but they have to do what seems right to them and sometimes all it takes to whip a mother/father into shape is some education on how things should be done and how to correct what they are doing wrong.
  • @Maxim
    Do I have to shower under a waterfall too? :C

    It definitely does depend on the circumstances. But to me, that can be hidden from the child fairly easily. Additionally, if a mother constantly has sex with the father, does this affect whether she should have her child taken away from her? Yes these are random men not the father in this case, but it wouldn't be the sex part of it, I assume it would be because of the random guys. And to me, that's honestly not that terrible of a thing that a child should be taken away.

    For the drug one, the mother is definitely neglecting her child, getting high constantly. She is not able to care for the child in that time.

    The dating someone who abuses the kid and the one where she abuses the kid directly just speak for themselves. Obviously that is neglect and definitely going to affect the kid in the future.

    And the last one I forgot, not providing food and clothing might be just because their are money issues, but this child is being neglected anyway, even if there are good intentions. Starving or freezing to death are not things that should be happening to children, or really anyone for that matter.
  • My kids always have food. I make sure of that but I am not always able to get them new clothing as they outgrow their old ones. Does that mean that I am not fit to take care of my kids? If so where should I send them? To their fathers who are abusive men... or to the state where they can be placed with people that they have never met?

    Does that also mean that a mother that has left an abusive man should loose her kids because there was no room at the shelter and she has no money or access to money because the abusive man never let her have access to that money?

    Personally I am a little shocked that Grey did not add mothers that are homeless deserve to loose their kids because there is no suck thing as unemployment that could cause something like that so any parent that falls on hard times and looses everything that they had and has to start over should loose the one thing that they have left... Their kids. Anyone that has not had kids of their own can not understand the bond that a parent has with a child or the love that a child has for their parents other than when abuse comes into play. Who are you to judge who is fit or unfit because of hard times when you have no clue how much a child needs their mother/father. The older that they get (until they are teens that is) the more they need their mother/father that has always been there for them.
  • I'm not talking about kids not getting new clothes, or not getting the best meals, but skipping multiple meals constantly or wearing clothes so ratty they're falling apart out in the cold is where I would definitely draw the line. Especially if the kid is living on the streets with his parents, even if they are just homeless because of misfortunes. If the kids health is at major risk, I believe it should be placed somewhere it can be safer.

    In my eyes, this is just as bad as the parent beating the child. The child is physically and mentally abused here, but growing up homeless the child goes through both of these things as well.
  • A single (and non-single) mother should always have their kids taken away a couple months before birth. Clothes hangers and what have you.
  • i know MANY cases of foster kids that are neglected, beaten, starved, or just the opposite...allowed to do whatever they want. so taking kids away isnt a step up in any cases, its just a step sidways. the only answer is if the kids are in danger from the parents.
  • Let me get this correct someone in this thread thinks if they can't clothe their child they still deserve to have it???
  • GreyAcumen said:
    Let me get this correct someone in this thread thinks if they can't clothe their child they still deserve to have it???

    Yes. Because they are better off with me than with their father or in foster care that do not know how to deal with their Autism. Besides I did not say I can not cloth them said that I can not afford to get them new clothing right away when they outgrow them.
  • clothing yes because it is easy to get clothes from thrift shops or good will.
    food is completely different, although i am not aware of the soup kitchen situation in all areas.
  • I get alot of help from a church in my area when things get really tight. Sometimes it takes a few weeks but my kids always have what they need. I was never in a foster home or a group home that was good. I am sure that there are some out there but I have not seen one and they are not equipped to deal with kids that have special needs. What would they do for instance when my daughter has one of her fits. Would they know how to restrain her so that she doesn't hurt her self or others in the process? Would they know how to calm her so that it doesn't go on for longer than needed? The answer is no.
  • if a child cannot be clothed and the reason why is because with the father instead it will be worse, the child should be taken and taken care of by someone who can actually provide basic human needs. whats next??? no food this week??? would have been worse last week, the father wouldnt have even given them water!!! come on people
  • Grey, people lack common sense. That's why we have parents who can't afford to provide for their kids and continue to have more.
  • You seem to want to say that you are the only one who can handle your kids Jaded, I find this not really an accurate statement.

    Also, I don't think anyone is specifically saying you should have your kids taken away from you, but you seem to be defending yourself like they are. Yes you said your kids don't have new clothes. You're still clothing your kids. Clothes doesn't need to be the best quality, it just has to do its job. Keep you warm when its cold and cover you up.

    Food on the other hand it a whole different story though.
  • wtrswoopes said:
    Grey, people lack common sense. That's why we have parents who can't afford to provide for their kids and continue to have more.

    some people continue to have more on purpose just for welfare or food stamps. I work at a liquor store and it is disheartening to see someone come in the story with 3-5 children trailing behind them and as they go to pay for their stuff I see that Georgia food stamps card sticking out of their wallet. Meanwhile you have Jr. over here with no shirt on, why? so momma can get herself a half gallon of Lord Calvert. theres another lady who comes into the liquor store who does not work at all and jsut makes money off of child support and welfare.

    @jaded I dont think he means not able to clothe children sometimes so much as not being able to clothe them at all. You can clothe your kids, and when times are tough you still try to. But if one can not clothe them at all, such as wearing 6 year old clothes when they are 11, i think yes they should have their kids taken away. If i saw a mother walking with her son who his well above the toddler stage and hes only clothed in diapers i would think take the kid away. If their is illnesses or something a foster parent should be aware of make sure the foster home knows. Its selfish for anyone to keep their kid to themselves knowing they will have a better life in someone else's care.
  • Why dont more mothers just use condoms??? These poor kids shouldn't be forced into this world
  • GreyAcumen said:
    Why dont more mothers just use condoms??? These poor kids shouldn't be forced into this world

    Condoms = Birth Control = Ending of a Life

  • Birth control doesn't always work. All my kids are a good example of that.
  • jaded_sapphire said:
    Birth control doesn't always work. All my kids are a good example of that.

    Er...user error?
  • not with depo unless the dr's don't know how to give a shot every 3 months.
  • jaded_sapphire said:
    not with depo unless the dr's don't know how to give a shot every 3 months.

    Don't you think the first two times it didn't work that you'd look for something else?

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Most Popular This Week