|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 19 2019 22:45 Ryzel wrote:
I’m having trouble finding data on this, but intuitively I think that the overwhelming majority of people who favor state oversight of raising children are people who don’t have children themselves, and that those who do have children who support it are unable to fathom how that state oversight would be applied and how much more difficult it would make the already difficult task of raising children.
People raised by deeply inadequate parents also strongly favor this type of system. How do people go about getting approved for having children? License? Training? Classes? Compared to fishing, what are the legal barriers to raising a child? In what way do the pre-pregnancy tests and approvals ensure someone is capable of raising a child?
|
Norway28804 Posts
On August 19 2019 22:45 Ryzel wrote:
I’m having trouble finding data on this, but intuitively I think that the overwhelming majority of people who favor state oversight of raising children are people who don’t have children themselves, and that those who do have children who support it are unable to fathom how that state oversight would be applied and how much more difficult it would make the already difficult task of raising children.
Overall 62% of Norwegians report having a high level of trust to barnevernet, while 23% have a negative impression. This is a good number for a public institution, especially one with so much negative press as barnevernet. Based on my anecdotal experience, the opposite of your intuition is true; people who don't have kids are much more likely to answer 'no opinion', while most people who have kids are very positive.
Basically, most people who don't have kids don't care all that much. Most people who have kids love kids and think it's great that kids that struggle get help. Immigrant communities are much more skeptical (multitudes of reasons, bureaucracy works better for norwegians than immigrants, norwegians in general have a culture of accepting the caretaker-state, and behavior barnevernet strikes down on is much more common with immigrant parents than with norwegian ones. )
|
On August 19 2019 22:55 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2019 22:45 Ryzel wrote:
I’m having trouble finding data on this, but intuitively I think that the overwhelming majority of people who favor state oversight of raising children are people who don’t have children themselves, and that those who do have children who support it are unable to fathom how that state oversight would be applied and how much more difficult it would make the already difficult task of raising children. Overall 62% of Norwegians report having a high level of trust to barnevernet, while 23% have a negative impression. This is a good number for a public institution, especially one with so much negative press as barnevernet. Based on my anecdotal experience, the opposite of your intuition is true; people who don't have kids are much more likely to answer 'no opinion', while most people who have kids are very positive. Basically, most people who don't have kids don't care all that much. Most people who have kids love kids and think it's great that kids that struggle get help. Immigrant communities are much more skeptical (multitudes of reasons, bureaucracy works better for norwegians than immigrants, norwegians in general have a culture of accepting the caretaker-state, and behavior barnevernet strikes down on is much more common with immigrant parents than with norwegian ones. )
Fair enough, thanks for that. You raise an interesting point about cultural biases. I’d like to add on to the questions Mohdoo is raising...
How does one design a curriculum/licensing process that ensures better parenting? What is the planned success rate (e.g., how many potential parents should we expect to fail)? What method of ensuring compliance in the home can the state use? How do you eliminate corruption/cultural biases from tainting the system?
And KwarK, I don’t think it’s possible to simply say “how it affects the parents is meaningless” when they’re obviously a part of the equation; if it were truly meaningless this discussion wouldn’t be happening and removing kids from family situations with any risk would be seen as a near-universal good.
|
On August 19 2019 22:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2019 19:04 Belisarius wrote:It's useful to bring up the police, here, because the constraints that the police operate under, like presumption of innocence and an independent judiciary, are precisely the things that bureaucratic state organs like barnevernet lack. Over here the tax office has this problem, but it's a similar situation. For very serious punishments - which separation of children from their families certainly qualifies as - we usually work on the principle that an innocent person wrongfully convicted is a very bad thing, and we set the filters to allow a certain rate of guilty people slipping through, in order to minimise the number of bystanders who get crushed by the machine. That's a very different paradigm to "wanna make an omelet, gotta break some eggs". Even if you take the position that children's welfare is a unique case that justifies such an approach, there's still the very serious issue that the only real means of challenging a decision made by barnevernet is to go to barnevernet itself. Especially when the people most likely to run afoul of this will not have the skills or the resources to pursue other channels like the courts. To resort to a one-liner: On August 18 2019 19:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It's not even remotely close to a third. Over the past 15 years or so, I think there's 25+ cases that have been successfully appealed. Even if I say that the real number of wrongdoings is ten times as big, we'd be looking at 250 cases out of well above 10000, which would put it at 2.5%. Frankly I think the real number is less than 1%. And if the numbers are 9750 children saved from domestic abuse with 250 broken families, I think that is a preferable outcome to 0 broken families and 9750 abused children. Organisation with famously inadequate appeals process finds that few appeals are successful. More news at 11. I don't think anyone is arguing to abolish these agencies, but I think there's a strong case that there are major structural problems that warrant a serious rethink. Separation of children from parents isn’t a punishment of any kind, it’s a precaution. I’m absolutely in favour of not doling out punishments to the innocent, as is everyone, but that doesn’t apply to any part of this. The question is how tolerant of risk to children should the state be before stepping in. Erring on the side of caution there leads to a preference for removal when in doubt.
What a weird way to frame that. Taking someones kids away is surely one of the most brutal things that can happen to a person, it's a most definitely a punishment.
|
Norway28804 Posts
Also, 94% of Norwegians state that they would issue a message of concern to barnevernet if they thought a kid in their vicinity was subject to parental neglect, so even a large majority of the 23% with a negative impression would still issue one.
There's a correlation between people with higher education being more positive than people with lower education, and there's a correlation between social media being your primary news feed and having negative impressions towards barnevernet. Out of the 6% of people who got help from barnevernet, about half said that the help they got was good or very good, while a third said it was bad. (Taking into consideration how most people have a very negative gut-reflex to knowing that barnevernet is involving themselves in their life, as this is fairly insulting towards their parental ability, I think this number is a good one, too. )
norwegian pdf that you guys won't understand, but I still like giving the source for my data. 
|
On August 19 2019 23:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2019 22:46 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2019 19:04 Belisarius wrote:It's useful to bring up the police, here, because the constraints that the police operate under, like presumption of innocence and an independent judiciary, are precisely the things that bureaucratic state organs like barnevernet lack. Over here the tax office has this problem, but it's a similar situation. For very serious punishments - which separation of children from their families certainly qualifies as - we usually work on the principle that an innocent person wrongfully convicted is a very bad thing, and we set the filters to allow a certain rate of guilty people slipping through, in order to minimise the number of bystanders who get crushed by the machine. That's a very different paradigm to "wanna make an omelet, gotta break some eggs". Even if you take the position that children's welfare is a unique case that justifies such an approach, there's still the very serious issue that the only real means of challenging a decision made by barnevernet is to go to barnevernet itself. Especially when the people most likely to run afoul of this will not have the skills or the resources to pursue other channels like the courts. To resort to a one-liner: On August 18 2019 19:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It's not even remotely close to a third. Over the past 15 years or so, I think there's 25+ cases that have been successfully appealed. Even if I say that the real number of wrongdoings is ten times as big, we'd be looking at 250 cases out of well above 10000, which would put it at 2.5%. Frankly I think the real number is less than 1%. And if the numbers are 9750 children saved from domestic abuse with 250 broken families, I think that is a preferable outcome to 0 broken families and 9750 abused children. Organisation with famously inadequate appeals process finds that few appeals are successful. More news at 11. I don't think anyone is arguing to abolish these agencies, but I think there's a strong case that there are major structural problems that warrant a serious rethink. Separation of children from parents isn’t a punishment of any kind, it’s a precaution. I’m absolutely in favour of not doling out punishments to the innocent, as is everyone, but that doesn’t apply to any part of this. The question is how tolerant of risk to children should the state be before stepping in. Erring on the side of caution there leads to a preference for removal when in doubt. What a weird way to frame that. Taking someones kids away is surely one of the most brutal things that can happen to a person, it's a most definitely a punishment.
Perspective, my guy. This boils down to what perspective you take.
Imagine talking to an abused person and telling them what a harsh punishment it is for their abuser to have them set free.
What a strange thing to say.
|
While I do appreciate the data, I was hoping I could find something like survey data on state oversight of parenting methods, such as mandatory parenting exams, parenting licenses with necessity of renewal, and/or random government audits on families to ensure compliance. Or alternatively, if someone could present a better system of the state ensuring better parenting, I’d love to hear it.
|
Norway28804 Posts
We do not have parental licenses or anything resembling that and we do not have random government audits. It's a system based around the reporting of people who interact with the children, most commonly pedagogues (be it in school or kindergarten) or other parents.
|
Oh yeah sorry, didn’t mean to imply Barnevernet does those things. My query was more related to your previous topic on ”what degree parents should be allowed to use whatever parental methods of their choosing”.
|
United States44012 Posts
On August 19 2019 23:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2019 22:46 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2019 19:04 Belisarius wrote:It's useful to bring up the police, here, because the constraints that the police operate under, like presumption of innocence and an independent judiciary, are precisely the things that bureaucratic state organs like barnevernet lack. Over here the tax office has this problem, but it's a similar situation. For very serious punishments - which separation of children from their families certainly qualifies as - we usually work on the principle that an innocent person wrongfully convicted is a very bad thing, and we set the filters to allow a certain rate of guilty people slipping through, in order to minimise the number of bystanders who get crushed by the machine. That's a very different paradigm to "wanna make an omelet, gotta break some eggs". Even if you take the position that children's welfare is a unique case that justifies such an approach, there's still the very serious issue that the only real means of challenging a decision made by barnevernet is to go to barnevernet itself. Especially when the people most likely to run afoul of this will not have the skills or the resources to pursue other channels like the courts. To resort to a one-liner: On August 18 2019 19:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It's not even remotely close to a third. Over the past 15 years or so, I think there's 25+ cases that have been successfully appealed. Even if I say that the real number of wrongdoings is ten times as big, we'd be looking at 250 cases out of well above 10000, which would put it at 2.5%. Frankly I think the real number is less than 1%. And if the numbers are 9750 children saved from domestic abuse with 250 broken families, I think that is a preferable outcome to 0 broken families and 9750 abused children. Organisation with famously inadequate appeals process finds that few appeals are successful. More news at 11. I don't think anyone is arguing to abolish these agencies, but I think there's a strong case that there are major structural problems that warrant a serious rethink. Separation of children from parents isn’t a punishment of any kind, it’s a precaution. I’m absolutely in favour of not doling out punishments to the innocent, as is everyone, but that doesn’t apply to any part of this. The question is how tolerant of risk to children should the state be before stepping in. Erring on the side of caution there leads to a preference for removal when in doubt. What a weird way to frame that. Taking someones kids away is surely one of the most brutal things that can happen to a person, it's a most definitely a punishment.
No it’s not. Having dick cancer is surely pretty brutal but brutality alone does not equal punishment.
If I take kids from you because you’re neglecting you I’m not doing it to punish you, I’m doing it to protect the kids from you. How you feel about it is completely irrelevant to the intent and justification for the action. It’s not to deter or to injure you in any way, I’d do the exact same thing if they were orphans and the parent were dead. The parent is irrelevant to the equation which is simply to put the kids somewhere where they are cared for.
|
On August 19 2019 23:06 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2019 23:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On August 19 2019 22:46 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2019 19:04 Belisarius wrote:It's useful to bring up the police, here, because the constraints that the police operate under, like presumption of innocence and an independent judiciary, are precisely the things that bureaucratic state organs like barnevernet lack. Over here the tax office has this problem, but it's a similar situation. For very serious punishments - which separation of children from their families certainly qualifies as - we usually work on the principle that an innocent person wrongfully convicted is a very bad thing, and we set the filters to allow a certain rate of guilty people slipping through, in order to minimise the number of bystanders who get crushed by the machine. That's a very different paradigm to "wanna make an omelet, gotta break some eggs". Even if you take the position that children's welfare is a unique case that justifies such an approach, there's still the very serious issue that the only real means of challenging a decision made by barnevernet is to go to barnevernet itself. Especially when the people most likely to run afoul of this will not have the skills or the resources to pursue other channels like the courts. To resort to a one-liner: On August 18 2019 19:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It's not even remotely close to a third. Over the past 15 years or so, I think there's 25+ cases that have been successfully appealed. Even if I say that the real number of wrongdoings is ten times as big, we'd be looking at 250 cases out of well above 10000, which would put it at 2.5%. Frankly I think the real number is less than 1%. And if the numbers are 9750 children saved from domestic abuse with 250 broken families, I think that is a preferable outcome to 0 broken families and 9750 abused children. Organisation with famously inadequate appeals process finds that few appeals are successful. More news at 11. I don't think anyone is arguing to abolish these agencies, but I think there's a strong case that there are major structural problems that warrant a serious rethink. Separation of children from parents isn’t a punishment of any kind, it’s a precaution. I’m absolutely in favour of not doling out punishments to the innocent, as is everyone, but that doesn’t apply to any part of this. The question is how tolerant of risk to children should the state be before stepping in. Erring on the side of caution there leads to a preference for removal when in doubt. What a weird way to frame that. Taking someones kids away is surely one of the most brutal things that can happen to a person, it's a most definitely a punishment. Perspective, my guy. This boils down to what perspective you take. Imagine talking to an abused person and telling them what a harsh punishment it is for their abuser to have them set free. What a strange thing to say.
? The discussion is about how fringe cases get their kids taken away for difference in parenting choice, not clear neglect or abuse. Nobody cares about abusers. It's about the false positives. And for those its surely a punishment
|
|
|
|
|
I thought we were talking in generalities to be honest.
Fringe or not, a very valid point which should be addressed nonetheless. which could be done in part by asking the kid in a safe environment what it actually wants.
Not as single determinating factor but additional evidence.
Which, as far as I'm aware of, is taken into account here in germany in divorce cases. Not entirely sure if that applies to the question of inability related cases.
Nonetheless, in my opinion, if there isn't enough conclusive evidence and consulting the child doesn't reward more evidence or isn't possible, a temporary housing or further evaluation is warranted.
We will never obtain 100% accuracy without total surveillance.
|
Everyone always ignores the social cleansing aspects of these discussions.
Ask yourselves which people are most likely to have their children taken away from them. What is their quality of life? How many of their problems are due to extreme poverty, or previous abuse? How many of them could feasibly be helped to care for their child instead of separation, but don't get the chance?
Also, I read a report recently that said something along the lines of "The lifelong trauma of separation and the child's well being in terms of the fundamental relationship between mother and child is not even a factor in court decisions about separation."
That's terrifying to me, that a system that is able to remove a child from its parents is also blind to the fact that there is a basic need for a parent child relationship.
*I'm not a parent
|
United States44012 Posts
On August 20 2019 00:15 Jockmcplop wrote:
Everyone always ignores the social cleansing aspects of these discussions.
Ask yourselves which people are most likely to have their children taken away from them. What is their quality of life? How many of their problems are due to extreme poverty, or previous abuse? How many of them could feasibly be helped to care for their child instead of separation, but don't get the chance?
Also, I read a report recently that said something along the lines of "The lifelong trauma of separation and the child's well being in terms of the fundamental relationship between mother and child is not even a factor in court decisions about separation."
That's terrifying to me, that a system that is able to remove a child from its parents is also blind to the fact that there is a basic need for a parent child relationship.
*I'm not a parent
In the UK the system will do all it can and go to any lengths to place the child with family and keep parental relationships going with the long term plan of returning the child. Source: I have six foster siblings, I’ve seen how hard they’ve tried to find anyone to pass the kids to because the system is overwhelmed. How many times they’ve tried to give kids to family members who can’t take care of them to get them off their books. The idea that they want to have kids in care is completely at odds with my experience.
|
In most US states, the standard for determining many parental rights issues is some form of the “best interests of the child” test, which is basically a child-centric totality of the circumstances test that usually should address the harms inherent to severing a parent-child bond. The problem is that family courts are basically the Wild West and outcomes can turn on a host of extraneous issues, the biggest one being the predilections of the judge handling the case. There’s definitely a lot of room for reform, but that said, the system is still desperately needed based on my experiences.
|
there are even studies that show how infants can recognize/identify their mothers' face and scent and how they prefer it to other faces then i read how Barnevernet is taking infants from their mothers ... i don't know men, i can't do collateral damage here like L`Drone does.
there should be some oversight from a 3rd party.
|
United States44012 Posts
On August 20 2019 00:25 xM(Z wrote:
there are even studies that show how infants can recognize/identify their mothers' face and scent and how they prefer it to other faces then i read how Barnevernet is taking infants from their mothers ... i don't know men, i can't do collateral damage here like L`Drone does.
You’d prefer the known damage from leaving neglected kids than the risk of collateral damage? Nobody here is seeking damage to kids, the goal is to reduce the damage. Your fear of one kind is allowing another.
|
On August 20 2019 00:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2019 00:25 xM(Z wrote:
there are even studies that show how infants can recognize/identify their mothers' face and scent and how they prefer it to other faces then i read how Barnevernet is taking infants from their mothers ... i don't know men, i can't do collateral damage here like L`Drone does. You’d prefer the known damage from leaving neglected kids than the risk of collateral damage? Nobody here is seeking damage to kids, the goal is to reduce the damage. Your fear of one kind is allowing another. why should there be a choice?. when abuse it's obvious, you take the kid; when it's not, you go for arbitration from the 3rd party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
