![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
*headdesk*
Aug. 18th, 2011 02:19 am
No Cause for Marijuana Case, but Enough for Child Neglect
The comments are all going "Oh, well, it's illegal, of course, so what did they expect???" but that seems to be to be absurd. Lots of things are illegal, and many of them really are dangerous and harmful to others, but we don't expect for people to lose their children just because they ran a red light or cheated on their taxes! And while I'm not about to claim that the marijuana laws are so unjust that nobody in good conscience could uphold them, neither do I think they have as much merit as, say, laws against shoplifting. Or, I don't know, laws against child abuse, you know, that thing you normally have to do to your kids to get them removed from you?
“Drug use itself is not child abuse or neglect, but it can put children in danger of neglect or abuse,” Mr. Fagan said. “We think the argument that use of cocaine, heroin or marijuana by a parent of young children should not be looked into or should simply be ignored is just plain wrong.”
Well, poverty or drinking can put a child in danger of neglect or abuse, but we don't go around arresting people or taking away their children* just because they happen to be poor or drunk!
*At least, we're not supposed to. Wasn't there a case about taking away children of homeless families where the Supreme Court decided in favor of the families? Because it was stupid?
( Read more... )
But here, read this comment, which is marked out specially in the comments:
I have 15+ years of experience in working the NYS child welfare system.
Firstly "Simply admitting past use to a caseworker is grounds for a neglect case." is contradictory to the foundations of child welfare law in NY which require that whatever the condition or concern there must be a demonstrated effect on a child, that effect being harm or a substantial risk of harm to warrant any intervention.
Admitting past use of any drug, in and of itself, is insufficient to meet this standard. The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) seemingly far exceeded the limits of the law in removing the son in this case (based on the reported facts). The standard for removal in NYS is evidence of imminent danger to a child. This standard is not met by the mere presence of marijuana in the home. If the parent in question in the article was truly a licensed foster parent, caring for her niece, then the standards for her in that role are understandably significantly higher. I would not be surprised if ACS' action in this case was in part motivated by anger at this parent's failure to to meet the higher standards required of a licensed foster parent. If this is the case, punishing this parent by removing both of these children from her care indisputably caused more harm to the children than was posed by the presence of a drug in this home.
For comparison, consider the danger posed by the cleaners under most people's sink, or perhaps the legally prescribed drugs in many people's medicine cabinets. Is the presence of these substances in a home mutually exclusive with the safety of children in that same home? This type of assessment is what child welfare workers are taught in the first weeks of their employment. It is not complicated.
The comments are all going "Oh, well, it's illegal, of course, so what did they expect???" but that seems to be to be absurd. Lots of things are illegal, and many of them really are dangerous and harmful to others, but we don't expect for people to lose their children just because they ran a red light or cheated on their taxes! And while I'm not about to claim that the marijuana laws are so unjust that nobody in good conscience could uphold them, neither do I think they have as much merit as, say, laws against shoplifting. Or, I don't know, laws against child abuse, you know, that thing you normally have to do to your kids to get them removed from you?
“Drug use itself is not child abuse or neglect, but it can put children in danger of neglect or abuse,” Mr. Fagan said. “We think the argument that use of cocaine, heroin or marijuana by a parent of young children should not be looked into or should simply be ignored is just plain wrong.”
Well, poverty or drinking can put a child in danger of neglect or abuse, but we don't go around arresting people or taking away their children* just because they happen to be poor or drunk!
*At least, we're not supposed to. Wasn't there a case about taking away children of homeless families where the Supreme Court decided in favor of the families? Because it was stupid?
( Read more... )
But here, read this comment, which is marked out specially in the comments:
I have 15+ years of experience in working the NYS child welfare system.
Firstly "Simply admitting past use to a caseworker is grounds for a neglect case." is contradictory to the foundations of child welfare law in NY which require that whatever the condition or concern there must be a demonstrated effect on a child, that effect being harm or a substantial risk of harm to warrant any intervention.
Admitting past use of any drug, in and of itself, is insufficient to meet this standard. The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) seemingly far exceeded the limits of the law in removing the son in this case (based on the reported facts). The standard for removal in NYS is evidence of imminent danger to a child. This standard is not met by the mere presence of marijuana in the home. If the parent in question in the article was truly a licensed foster parent, caring for her niece, then the standards for her in that role are understandably significantly higher. I would not be surprised if ACS' action in this case was in part motivated by anger at this parent's failure to to meet the higher standards required of a licensed foster parent. If this is the case, punishing this parent by removing both of these children from her care indisputably caused more harm to the children than was posed by the presence of a drug in this home.
For comparison, consider the danger posed by the cleaners under most people's sink, or perhaps the legally prescribed drugs in many people's medicine cabinets. Is the presence of these substances in a home mutually exclusive with the safety of children in that same home? This type of assessment is what child welfare workers are taught in the first weeks of their employment. It is not complicated.
