What law states she has to tell the 'authority' about what is going on in her home? Nope she's fearful. Being fearful is not the same as knowing, or breaking a law. Not at all, she is poor and she is fearful something might happen. You are reading way to much into the statement, you seriously need to take a breath. What damage are her kids having done to them? You don't think being ripped away from their mother is 'damage'
Nothing you describe is a crime. Further, what if she mistakenly thought they would take her child? Is that thought somehow criminal? You improperly conclude that because she has fear of the government that she did something wrong. You talk about the miserable condition of her children and the damage to her children... these seem like your conclusions. I get that they might have been cold (although you indicate she dressed them in coats and such to prevent that) but aside from the cold, how is their condition damaged and miserable?
Why should she be fearful of? If the authority thinks that their condision is suitable they would let them live with whatever they are in but if they think that the children would be better off they would take the children. Mother must be happy and not fearfull. Guys, she herself says she cannot take care of her children.
What is wrong with me? I cannot be wiser than everybody else. Nobody sees this as abusing the child but it is so so obvious to me. Others see the mother but I can't help seeing the children. Am I getting mad? Do you think I need to apologies to sombody? .
You appear to think the 'state' is the cure for everything. You appear to think ripping a child away from a mother that loves them is better than the child simply having a hard life. You'd rather rip the child away than actually help the mother.. Many did not have 'heat' years ago, to say that is abuse is simply astonishing. If you feel so badly about this why don't you open your wallet up and pay for people who can not afford heat, it's a better solution and better for the child than ripping them away from their family. You preach abuse IMHO...
Up to now I was trying to convince you but now I am trying to convince my self. Problems that I cannot persuade myself Why can't they help the mother instead of taking away the child? I don't know, I am not the expert, I pay tax so government can employ experts and lawmen decide which is better. By the time they haven't find a better way these mothers must abide by it. - I don't live in US by the way - Years ago people didn't have heat as we have, that's right, but this is not an excuse. they also didn't see many other things that we consider abuse now as abuse. - and there wasn't help available. - I have already opened my wallet, how do you think they can provide a better life for the children? By the way, I know you are right but I don't know how. .
I respect that woman more than I could probably ever respect the OP. I know that certain "authorities" have totally abused their powers when it comes to children. We have been foster parents and know many others along with knowing a few people who grew up in the foster system. The woman has every right to fear the nuts out there that would demand they take her children away. Take California for example.. do I need to say any more? We know that many states want to make spanking a child a criminal offense. Why? because people beat their children or some social worker was abused as a child so they think all spanking is wrong because one person does it wrong? I personally don't trust the government to tell me how I can raise my children, shoot the government is full of people who are 'entitled' everything and can't even keep the books straight. If they can't add, subtract or multiply how would they even get a clue to raising a child? off my soapbox....
Thank you Grim, I absolutely agree. It is better to be poor and at least have love. The state will not love those children, they would just be a number. Is there any follow up, is that mom receiving help?
Absolutely disgusting the worst type of abuse to any child is separation from their mother/family, it’s obvious the mother was doing her best, if she was a child abuser she would not even try to keep her kids warm. If the authorities supported the mother & spent a little money on the family, then the problem would be solved, instead the authorities tend to like ripping children from their families at the drop of an hat for stupid reasons, only to stick the kids in foster care costing thousands of dollars. This is the Real face of child protection
OK, why didn't you say so? You guys believe that although those children are already not in good condition but the woman is right not to give them to care because they will certainly be treated worse, right? So why do they do it? Why do they take the children away but don't provide a better life? Do they sell the children to somebody? Do they take their blood and sell it? Are they just mad? By the way I repeat again: I absolutely believe that you guys are right. As I said I cannot be right and everybody else be wrong.
They were cared for, the mother is simply not a millionaire, it's not a crime to be poor. Are the poor people in Africa abusing their children, because they can't feed them? Here in the UK children are removed to meet adoption targets, when councils reach a target given to them by the government, they receive huge amounts of money from the government, it's that simple. So yes it is for money, I'm not sure what system is in place in the US but i suspect it's a similar system, since the problems are the same. Some children do get a better home, or a more wealthier family, but the fact of the matter is many do not & many end up as down & outs, prostitutes, drug addicts or even mentally ill for the experience. Just having more money is a poor substitute for a real family. Adoption targets are going to be scraped here in April so it seems.
Of course it is not a crime in Africa. I have already told that. In Africa there are not such a system. The problem is that this woman knowinlgly - as she confessed - denys the authority from having information that increases the standard of her childrens. Acutally I don't want to deter the argument but I am not much happy with the birth rate in Africa, perhaps another topic - haven't I have enought? -. And having no family is better than having a bad family.
You must be extremely rich, to class a family without much money as being bad. I'm sure you would agree with these; Madonna is undoubtedly better at parenting & providing for her children than you? Britney is undoubtedly better at parenting & providing for her children than you? (if you have kids)
I never said a rich family is better than a poor family. - well it does have the capacity to be better but... - I said sometime having no family is better than having a bad family. But you tell me, does having a family is better than not having one in any circumestance? .
Let me ask you, if when you were a child your mother couldn't afford heating would you rather be snatched away and sent to live in an orphanage?
Most - if not all - of the children who are abused would prefer to stay with their parents but this is not an excuse for parents and for the society. Repeating again: I undrestand that I am wrong because not even one person here backed me, I just don't know where I am wrong.
I will rephrase my question. if your mother sometimes couldn't afford heating would you concider yourself to be "abused as a child"? Where you went wrong was to equate living in a poor household and sometimes having to go without with being subjected to "child abuse".
Equating this situation to child abuse is irresponsible. Sure, these children have a rough childhood filled with many cold nights, but facing adversity is not the same as being abused. Abuse (both physical and emotional) causes scars that sometimes never heal. Those children might not be comfortable, but they know they have a mother who loves them and will do what she can to care for them. It's not like she said her children were starving and she prayed nobody would find out about it. I think the point Edwards was trying to make was that some Americans are struggling while others are thriving in an abudance of wealth. This is part of that "Two Americas" theme that he's been using, often as an attack on things like the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Charging the rich 1% more on their taxes does a lot more than charging the poor 50% more on theirs, and the poor, like this poor mother, feel the burden far more than the rich.
Equating this situation to child abuse is irresponsible. Sure, these children have a rough childhood filled with many cold nights, but facing adversity is not the same as being abused. PHP: Their mother is standing in their way to a better life, what do I call it, motherly love? How can a child have a good education or mental health while his/her standard of life is so below the standard that even ignorant members of child support feel they should be taken away. I don't know about US but in Europe a child would be taken from their family only when the situation is extremely disastrous. Sometimes they are litrary begging the family to help them finding an excuse to put on the report. Child support agencies are always short of money and they are always trying to find an excuse for the family. One would be astonished by the beautiful words and phrases they use not to simply say "Budget is not enough." .
Their mother is not 'standing in their way' of a better life. Being poor is not something to be ashamed of, yet you talk about it like it is. Her being fearful of the children being taken away is also not the same as them being taken away, even when children are taken away many times it does MORE harm than good. If we used this logic to claim abuse I bet 10% or more of children in certain cities would be being 'abused' and should be taken away. It is not uncommon to go without enough food, a warm dry place to sleep, etc, etc.