Flash Mobs Prompt Curfews and Invoke Child Welfare

I remember the campaign when I was much younger, at 10 p.m. on television, "Parents, do you know where your children are?" In this child-centric society we don't even dare ask that, until it gets violent.

In a schizophrenic response to unsupervised children causing public mayhem at night, committing assaults and roaming the streets in flash mobs, Philadelphia has instituted a curfew for children under 18, complete with fines and penalties upon the parents and threats of putting the naughty kiddies into foster care.


This response is schizophrenic because parents are afraid to discipline their children for fear of child welfare agencies intruding into the privacy of the family after the brat hotlines his parents for exercising parental responsibility by daring to discipline or correct their child. Now, parents are going to be punished for doing as the child welfare agencies have demanded for decades, not spanking the brats.

Face it, far more children are placed in foster care for purported abuse allegedly arising out of discipline than for not being disciplined. Child welfare agencies have tied mommy and daddy's hands, and now the kids are running amok.

Contrary to popular, bleeding heart liberalism, this issue  is much less about poverty or lack of education than it is about the well-intentioned nanny state punishing parents for controlling their kiddies, for  instilling a sense of responsibility and a work ethic, for building character, and for punishing bad behavior. Kids are protected by child welfare agencies from having chores, family responsibilities, structure to guide them and are insured parents impose no consequences for wrongdoing.

Now, we are reaping what the child savers have sowed.

Flash mobs of kids who have no sense of right and wrong, only a sense of entitlement. Kids hooked in to social media to coordinate their violence. Kids who have been taught by the schools and the government that the world revolves around them and owes them a living, unfettered happiness and no consequences, complete with child welfare agencies to insure that none of these ideals are infringed by their parents.

This is not to say the all of the parents are blameless. Some of these parents are lousy parents. They don't supervise their kids because they don't want to, because their priorities place these kiddies lower than their own desires.

And haven't we as a society been conditioned to that? Schools are free day care for working parents. Having abdicated responsibility for the care of the kiddies during the day, it's only reasonable to extend that into the night. Or, parents have been convinced by the "experts" of the cop-out fallacy that by the teenage years, a child is going to do what he wants and there is nothing mommy and daddy can do to stop them, we may as well resign ourselves to that fact. As long as the law give parents permission to abdicate their parental duties under threat of a child welfare intervention, you will have kids running amok.

Before social media, it was pretty much one kid and a few friends who ran amok. Social media connected youths are now more powerful, much like collective bargaining, have become a force to be reckoned with. An undisciplined, narcissistic, immature, emotionally charged force, with raging hormones, unreasoned anger, and rebellious of authority. These are the predictable fruits of thirty years of child welfare laws.



Mr. Mayor, unless the legislature ties the hands of child welfare when they intrude into families who are at least trying to control their kiddies, your sanctions against the parents of bratty teens and threats of foster care are futile. Child welfare agencies are far scarier than your puny little sanctions. As for the threats of foster care, any attorney who represents responsible parents who get lassoed into this dragnet can simply argue that the parents are damned if they do discipline and damned if they don't.

Child Welfare Case Analysis #1-Newborn born at home.

This is the first of our regular columns analyzing an actual child welfare case. We will present the background and development of the case in this blog. The analyses of the case will be conducted on two web sites. The first analysis will be from the perspective of the legal professionals representing the parents and children and the judge on our Legal Resources Web site. The other analysis will be from the perspective of the parent on the American Family Advocacy Center web site.

Case Background:
County child welfare agency (CPS) receives a hotline call from a mandated reporter that Mr. & Mrs. Smith have a newborn who is severely dehydrated and has not gained any weight since being born a week ago. The reporter states the child was born at home and this is the mother's first birth.

CPS sends an intake caseworker 36 hours after the report is received. The parents permit the caseworker entry into the family home after the caseworker threatens to get a court order. The caseworker's report observes that the home is in disarray. The caseworker reports the mother (aged 19) appears tired and overwhelmed and that the child is listless and unhealthy looking. Mother says she is breastfeeding, but she has a difficult time getting the baby to nurse very long. Mother reports the baby was born at home, but the child was taken to the pediatrician within hours of the home birth, and was seen again by the pediatrician yesterday. She admits the baby has lost some weight but she is working on getting the baby to nurse better. Caseworker determines that the child is in immediate danger and takes physical custody of the child. She leaves the parents a notice of hearing in five days. The child is placed in foster care. The caseworker makes no arrangements for the mother to provide breast milk for the infant.

In court, five days later, the parents are each appointed an attorney at the preliminary placement hearing. The parents have not seen their baby since it was seized. Their attorneys meet with them for the first time a few minutes in the hall before returning to the hearing. The parents each receive a copy of the petition which states the child is suffering from failure to thrive and was near death when the caseworker took custody. CPS cites the home birth as being medical neglect, and fails to report that the parents took the infant to see the pediatrician immediately after the birth and a week later. Each attorney advises each parent just to agree with keeping the child in foster care pending the adjudication.

The parents advise their attorneys that they have called the father's mother, who has come from out-of-state to their home. They want the attorney to ask the agency to return the child and offer the grandmother in the home as a supervisor until this can be resolved. The mother expresses concerns about breastfeeding the baby and her absence from the infant during this critical bonding period.

Mother's attorney agrees to present this option to the court. Father's attorney doesn't show much enthusiasm for this as it deviates from the normal procedure, saying "That's not the way it is done."

When the case is called, the caseworker paints a dire picture, mom is depressed and unable to care for the child, and states that the child is thriving in foster care. That the parents have medically neglected the child by having a home birth. She offers one hour a week supervised visitations upon the condition that the parents sign releases and have psychological evaluations.

The Guardian ad litem concurs. (He's never spoken to the parents and never seen the infant, or the infant's medical records. He has only seen the caseworker's report).

Mom's attorney objects and offers the alternative that grandmother stays in the home and the child can be returned home. Father's attorney concurs, but only under pressure from his client.

Magistrate Judge interrogates grandma about her role and insists she agree on certain conditions before the child can be returned to the parents. She can never have the infant out of her site, not even when she has to use the bathroom or shower. She must never leave the infant alone with mom or dad. She must immediately call the caseworker if the mother or father do anything that presents a risk to the child. Caseworker must be allowed entry into the family home upon demand, and a home health nurse will weigh the child weekly. If there is any weight loss, so much as an ounce, the baby will be placed back in foster care. The court reluctantly orders the child home with these conditions in place over the objection of the caseworker and the GAL.

The court also finds that it was contrary to the welfare of the child to remain in the family home at the time of the removal and that reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal. The county attorney representing the agency presented no evidence supporting the caseworker's statement that she had made reasonable efforts or in support of the contrary to the welfare finding. The GAL, and respondent parents attorneys did not object to those findings nor the lack of evidence supporting them.

After the hearing, the respondent parent attorneys advise the parents to admit to the petition, under the no-fault provision in the state statutes. The treatment plan is ordered and includes parenting classes, infant massage classes, psychological evaluations for both parents, and grandma must live in the small apartment with the parents (never letting the child out of sight) until the case is closed. It takes nine months for this case to close.

The baby was returned to the home the day of the first hearing, still weighing less than when he was born. Mother was never able to successfully resume nursing the baby. Parents report that the infant was fussy and resistant for months after being returned from foster care and he suffered ongoing digestive problems from the formula, resulting in continued problems gaining weight. They expressed frustration at the level of scrutiny to which they were subjected as being invasive and demeaning. Dad's job was jeopardized due to the services he was force to comply with which were always scheduled during his work hours.

The agency's reports indicated that they had successfully rehabilitated the parents and they counted the outcome from this case as positive.

Exclusive: Florida DCF approved daycare raided by police

This story has not even been picked up by news organizations yet. 

A daycare center approved by DCF and used by parents accused of child abuse/neglect has been exposed as the source of abuse and neglect of children. The only reason parents weren't accused was because one of the parents was a client of Family Rights Advocacy Institute, whose advocacy exposed this abusive daycare facility.

Reports of child abuse reported against a parent (whose identity is protected for confidentiality) reveals that the abuse suffered by the children was perpetrated by Mrs. Beasleys's Daycare in Lakeland, Florida. Their own website declares:

We are a fully licensed and accredited day care center providing a safe and nurturing environment where children thrive and flourish.

False advertising:
    Reports from children in that daycare indicate that they are not fed, and that they arrive at home in the evening filthy. According to one parent who move their children to another daycare, "My son's socks were white in the morning when he was delivered, and white in the evening when I picked him up.

A very young child reports having lunch set in front of him in the new daycare, and when he was encouraged to eat, he remarked, "You mean this food is for me?" In Mrs. Beasleys's daycare, he was not permitted to eat his lunch and he arrived at home in the evening starving.

This is notable because Mr. Beasleys daycare was licensed by Florida DCF as an approved daycare. Many parents placing their children in this daycare did so as a part of their case plans under DCF child welfare cases. DCF vouched for this daycare.

On Friday, law enforcement and DCF workers was observed raiding Mrs. Beasley's and shut it down. Reports include allegations of unsafe driving causing injury to children in the Mrs. Beasley's vehicle and reported sexual assault of children by other children.

Here we go again. . .DCF demonstrates the inability to judge who is qualified to care for children. . .and permits children to be place with inappropriate and abusive caregivers upon pain of termination of parental rights.

Way to go, Lakeland, Florida.

When CPS Claim Parents are "Enmeshed" With Their Children. . .and it's Bad

. . .they are wrong.

I know, it sounds strange. . .CPS tells the court mom is "enmeshed" with her child. She dotes on him, pays too much attention to him, praises him, smothers him. They express concerns that the child is not permitted to be his own person. This is unhealthy, they say. The child must be protected from this sick parent. They ask the court to limit the parents's contact with this poor, unfortunate child so that the close bonds between the parent and child may be weakened, or broken. It is, after all, in the best interests of the child to disrupt this relationship.

According to a recent Health.com article, it is not bad for mothers to be affectionate or attentive to the kiddies. It seems there was a study done, following children from eight months to thirty years old. Researchers observed the mothers interacting with the kiddies and followed the effects of the various parenting style into adulthood. According to the article,

The psychologists rated the mother's affection and attention level on a five-point scale ranging from "negative" to "extravagant." The vast majority of the interactions (85 percent) were considered "warm," or normal.

In what is sure to be an ugly shocker to those know-it-all, micromanaging caseworkers--and the pompous judges who rely on them--researchers found that children whose mother's affection and attention were "extravagant" turned out to be the most well-adjusted adults:

The adults whose mothers had displayed "extravagant" or "caressing" affection (the two top ratings) were much less likely than their less-doted-on peers to be anxious. They were also less likely to report hostility, distressing social interactions, and psychosomatic symptoms.

Evidently, it is NEVER in the best interests of the child to interfere with the parent-child relationship simply because they are enmeshed. It seems a degree of enmeshment is healthy and beneficial for a child, and creates "a more stable mental health picture, a more stable individual."

So, if the child welfare agencies are really concerned about outcomes, leave the unharmed kiddies with their loving parents, even if you find that kind of attachment too disgusting. You should be more concerned about the disastrous outcomes associated with placing children in foster care.

Parental Rights Amendment

Parentalrights.org is forwarding a parental rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 
This has been tried and failed before in various states. Repeatedly. Right concept, wrong way to do it. In 1996, Colorado lost this attempt, and I immediately saw why it failed. In response to this failure, I reframed the issue from children's rights vs. parents rights to family rights. That concept has caught on with grassroots activists, but evidently the merits of eliminating the competition between parents and children have escaped the monied activists. 


This should not be handled at a Federal level. The states pass the laws governing child welfare, the states administer the laws governing child welfare, the Feds maintain a "hands off" policy regarding child welfare to the point that they don't even exercise oversight over the federal funding they give the states to pass and administer their child welfare laws. A  family rights amendment  to the state constitutions is easier to pass and will be much more effective in reigning in child welfare abuses. Even better is an amendment which closes all the existing loopholes in the parental rights amendment. 

A Parental Rights Amendment is not going to work. In analyzing the tension of rights between parental rights and children's rights, the children's rights will win every time.  It is a waste of time and resources. Furthermore, it does not remedy the problems families face under our current scheme.


Notice the language "Neither shall the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served." Loophole. All the judge needs to do is recite the incantation, "The court finds the state's interest is of the highest order and not otherwise served," whether or not the evidence supports that finding. Just like they do with Reasonable Efforts now. It feels good but lacks substance. We must be smarter than this. . .duh.


more links on failed attempts:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/october96/parents_10-28.html
other states and analysis http://parentalrightslegislation.blogspot.com/2006/04/brief-history-of-parental-rights.html


Previous commentary