You hear stories like this all the time. This woman, with a history of mental illness, had her son taken from her because she left him in a hot car by himself while she went to smoke PCP-laced marijuana and passed out in a park. She got him back thanks to the efforts of CPS. Now? He's dead. She stabbed him, cut off his head, put it in the fridge, called 911 to report it, admitting she did it, then stabbed herself in the neck.
There's also Andrea Yates, from Texas. Mother of 5 who suffered from postpartum depression. Everyone knew she did, including her husband, yet he left his children with her every day while he went to work. One day, she decided she had to save her children from the world and drowned them all, one by one, in a bathtub.
Why do women like this keep falling through the cracks of organizations like CPS? When will people realize that individuals with a history of mental illness should not be left alone with their children, under any circumstances?
It's my understanding that depression affects people differently. I haven't followed the stories closely but I'm not sure Yates gave any indication she was homicidal.
These stories are tragic, but there is a privacy issue and of course a financial issue suggesting that we should be doing a psych evaluation on every mom to see if she's stable enough to provide care.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Woah woah woah, first of all it's not just women like this.
And you need to specify what you mean by history of mental illness. Are you suggesting that individuals with PTSD or MDD not be allowed to raise their own children? That's a ludicrous sentiment.
I think the only failure here was what that CPS helped this women with a history of drug abuse earn custody of her child again. PCP is dangerous ****, yo.
Too many dysfunctional drug addict losers (and yes as a PCP user, her "mental health" issues are most likely more a result of her PCP habit.
Too few workers. You could triple the number of workers and it would no be enough to handle the endless stream of junkie, abusive moms and dads... Who are squirting out more abusive useless junkie moms and dads.
Why do women like this keep falling through the cracks of organizations like CPS? When will people realize that individuals with a history of mental illness should not be left alone with their children, under any circumstances?
It happens when the CPS has to deal with hundreds of thousands of cases.
The 1% tragic cases are what you always hear about. They're heart-wrenching and they make you question whether CPS is full of idiots.
But you can give CPS a billion USD/year and they'll still not be able to account for the 1%
Is it really the job of the government to protect anyone? I understand the armed forced to defend from invading forces, but with in the borders of the country, I dont believe the government is set up to protect everyone.
Too many dysfunctional drug addict losers (and yes as a PCP user, her "mental health" issues are most likely more a result of her PCP habit.
Too few workers. You could triple the number of workers and it would no be enough to handle the endless stream of junkie, abusive moms and dads... Who are squirting out more abusive useless junkie moms and dads.
Not to mention the lovely adoption system in the country, which is part of what makes it so hard on CPS to do anything. Without a place to take children there's not a ton that can be done, and people treat orphans like abandoned pets - they want them young and cute with few problems.
Don't forget there are tons of regulation on what exactly consists of child abuse wich ties up the hand of CPS even if they know the parent isn't suitable to raise children. Often it leads to cases where it's too late.
However in this particular case there was a clear precend that showed Thomas was an unfit mother. How she got her children back is beyond me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
There are hundreds of millions of people in this country. The idea that we can prevent every tragedy is ludicrous. We can, as a society, focus on better access to mental health care. But to think we can manage to take away every child from their parent that may be a threat is a pipe dream.
It always goes this way after a tragedy. Like all the recent shooting rampages we have seen. We need more gun control and screening for mental health problems, we can't somehow predict everyone who has the capacity to commit these crimes. Likewise in this case we should focus on broad goals of child protection, not the idea that we should catch each individual case.
The reason is becase only the tiniest percentage of people with mental illness will actually commit crimes like this. Not every depressed mother kills her children. It makes me feel more and more that these people that do should not hide behind their mental illness and should be punished to the fullest extend of the law.
Yes. Yes, it is. Otherwise we might as well not even bother with it. A society that doesn't aid the people who live in it is useless. You might as well just come out and say that only those who inherited power and wealth should be allowed to have a secure life. It's what you support will lead to and I'd appreciate a lil bit of honesty sometimes.
The American government was not set up to protect its people. It was set up to protect its boarders and let the cities and states take care of those who who lived with in the lines drawn on a map. Churches took care of welfare and orphans, not the government. Those that made a choice to live outside of those lines on the map were on their own, hence how wild everything west of the Mississippi was for a decade or so. It was considered lawless.
The government should be set up to protect its boarders, nothing more. People SHOULD find a way to take care of their own. The problem is people today have very little compassion for their fellow humans they dont know. Hell in some cases they dont care about family.
The American government was not set up to protect its people. It was set up to protect its boarders and let the cities and states take care of those who who lived with in the lines drawn on a map. Churches took care of welfare and orphans, not the government. Those that made a choice to live outside of those lines on the map were on their own, hence how wild everything west of the Mississippi was for a decade or so. It was considered lawless.
The government should be set up to protect its boarders, nothing more. People SHOULD find a way to take care of their own. The problem is people today have very little compassion for their fellow humans they dont know. Hell in some cases they dont care about family.
Those institutions also ran out of money quickly relative to denser population areas and during deeper financial crisis depressions, which was in part a big thrust of the socialist movement to get infrastructure spending and the like to "get people back to work."
Equally, as we've seen in more recent years since the post-Civil Rights Movement some churches have returned to their traditional attack dog role and using the government to control social policy. This was a long American Protestant tradition used against the Catholics and Jews, and today in part it's no different reason why the same game is being played against Muslims. This hostility to other religions, such as atheism, also creates animosity towards churches as charitable institutions.
Furthermore, when we consider institutional entrepreneurs such as Jane Addams who founded the modern social worker career. Since in part she saw needs not fulfilled by the church. Believers often forget that the church couldn't do everything, and seem to believe that the church and community people all took care of each other.. not really all the time. It was just easier to start a business since most jobs were low skilled, but if you read any writings by say Jack London and his struggles with alcohol there were social norms that were anti-intellectual and the social scene took place around the local pub and to be a "man" you had to drink.
The angry populism didn't culminate into better social policy during the Square Deal and New Deal without decades of institutional failure. This game again we're trying to shift the pendulum back to the church and local without understanding exactly that the failures aren't unique to our own time. Human need outstrips human resources, equally we often find ourselves with information cascade inaccurate ideas on "what is proper."
For instance today you see education as the "great equalizer" because of Horatio Alger stories and studies that do support that education is in part of the equalization equation. The issue we have is that we're trying to turn out teachers into social workers, and the teacher unions are fighting back in part asking for more paraprofessionals and the like. Whilst we're under investing into social workers and other sort of institutions.
The charity systems are connected to private capital, and the places with the best private capital tend to do the best. The redistribution mechanisms of the state has allowed things such as food stamps to be more efficiently done, but on the individual layer, to borrow one of you kids' hipster terms, "epic fail."
Federal does mass mobilization and mass redistribution well, when you have accountants and doctors and the like of the program like WIC. Where it fails is on the individual account to say help crazy people and the like, which is a state and local and family problem.
I feel that Schumpeter followed by Lasch got right, was that the capitalist system has done certain things to the family that has made them more susceptible to more new problems that they were not before. This is because the capitalist system is a selfish system that sets requirements and structures outside of the home dependent upon market based values more so than other periods in history. I'm an ardent capitalist, but I'm not going to be an apologist for it's problems that socialism and communalism solves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Those institutions also ran out of money quickly relative to denser population areas and during deeper financial crisis depressions, which was in part a big thrust of the socialist movement to get infrastructure spending and the like to "get people back to work."
Equally, as we've seen in more recent years since the post-Civil Rights Movement some churches have returned to their traditional attack dog role and using the government to control social policy. This was a long American Protestant tradition used against the Catholics and Jews, and today in part it's no different reason why the same game is being played against Muslims. This hostility to other religions, such as atheism, also creates animosity towards churches as charitable institutions.
Furthermore, when we consider institutional entrepreneurs such as Jane Addams who founded the modern social worker career. Since in part she saw needs not fulfilled by the church. Believers often forget that the church couldn't do everything, and seem to believe that the church and community people all took care of each other.. not really all the time. It was just easier to start a business since most jobs were low skilled, but if you read any writings by say Jack London and his struggles with alcohol there were social norms that were anti-intellectual and the social scene took place around the local pub and to be a "man" you had to drink.
The angry populism didn't culminate into better social policy during the Square Deal and New Deal without decades of institutional failure. This game again we're trying to shift the pendulum back to the church and local without understanding exactly that the failures aren't unique to our own time. Human need outstrips human resources, equally we often find ourselves with information cascade inaccurate ideas on "what is proper."
For instance today you see education as the "great equalizer" because of Horatio Alger stories and studies that do support that education is in part of the equalization equation. The issue we have is that we're trying to turn out teachers into social workers, and the teacher unions are fighting back in part asking for more paraprofessionals and the like. Whilst we're under investing into social workers and other sort of institutions.
The charity systems are connected to private capital, and the places with the best private capital tend to do the best. The redistribution mechanisms of the state has allowed things such as food stamps to be more efficiently done, but on the individual layer, to borrow one of you kids' hipster terms, "epic fail."
Federal does mass mobilization and mass redistribution well, when you have accountants and doctors and the like of the program like WIC. Where it fails is on the individual account to say help crazy people and the like, which is a state and local and family problem.
I feel that Schumpeter followed by Lasch got right, was that the capitalist system has done certain things to the family that has made them more susceptible to more new problems that they were not before. This is because the capitalist system is a selfish system that sets requirements and structures outside of the home dependent upon market based values more so than other periods in history. I'm an ardent capitalist, but I'm not going to be an apologist for it's problems that socialism and communalism solves.
I dont deny anything you have written, but that doesnt change the fact, the American government wasnt set up to take care of its population.
By the way, capitalism unchecked is just as bad as any other system for the people who are trying to get by with in it. Socialism and Communism both were brought down by human nature and greed, no different then what unchecked capitalism is doing to America.
Then that is a fundamental failure of US government and should be rectified.
I disagree, I feel we need to go back to the beginning and force people to be responsible for themselves and not dependent on the government. I feel the biggest problem today is the nanny state we live in.
Anyone will tell you that the U.S. Government is failing our children when both Democrats and Republicans still refuse to work across the aisle to get things done in order to fix the Deficit and National Debt because it is a ticking time-bomb that gets "kicked down the road" when we hit the ceiling only to raise it more as our only way of fixing it with no real solution and we keep on repeating the cycle until we Default on our own Debt.
If there's no real solution to fixing the National Debt and Deficit then it would be a very terrible burden on our children and grandchildren especially for current generations of people that are still alive today. It's a terrible mess but apparently the U.S. Government doesn't care enough about their own people to fix the problem that they started but maybe they still do hopefully. Sure I may be a fool but I haven't given up hope, then again that's all you can live by anyway.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There's also Andrea Yates, from Texas. Mother of 5 who suffered from postpartum depression. Everyone knew she did, including her husband, yet he left his children with her every day while he went to work. One day, she decided she had to save her children from the world and drowned them all, one by one, in a bathtub.
Why do women like this keep falling through the cracks of organizations like CPS? When will people realize that individuals with a history of mental illness should not be left alone with their children, under any circumstances?
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
These stories are tragic, but there is a privacy issue and of course a financial issue suggesting that we should be doing a psych evaluation on every mom to see if she's stable enough to provide care.
And you need to specify what you mean by history of mental illness. Are you suggesting that individuals with PTSD or MDD not be allowed to raise their own children? That's a ludicrous sentiment.
I think the only failure here was what that CPS helped this women with a history of drug abuse earn custody of her child again. PCP is dangerous ****, yo.
Too few workers. You could triple the number of workers and it would no be enough to handle the endless stream of junkie, abusive moms and dads... Who are squirting out more abusive useless junkie moms and dads.
It is. They are after all killing their own children.
It happens when the CPS has to deal with hundreds of thousands of cases.
The 1% tragic cases are what you always hear about. They're heart-wrenching and they make you question whether CPS is full of idiots.
But you can give CPS a billion USD/year and they'll still not be able to account for the 1%
They should not have been selected by other people to breed in the first place.
I mean can you imagine going on a date with this kind of person let alone....
However in this particular case there was a clear precend that showed Thomas was an unfit mother. How she got her children back is beyond me.
It always goes this way after a tragedy. Like all the recent shooting rampages we have seen. We need more gun control and screening for mental health problems, we can't somehow predict everyone who has the capacity to commit these crimes. Likewise in this case we should focus on broad goals of child protection, not the idea that we should catch each individual case.
The American government was not set up to protect its people. It was set up to protect its boarders and let the cities and states take care of those who who lived with in the lines drawn on a map. Churches took care of welfare and orphans, not the government. Those that made a choice to live outside of those lines on the map were on their own, hence how wild everything west of the Mississippi was for a decade or so. It was considered lawless.
The government should be set up to protect its boarders, nothing more. People SHOULD find a way to take care of their own. The problem is people today have very little compassion for their fellow humans they dont know. Hell in some cases they dont care about family.
Those institutions also ran out of money quickly relative to denser population areas and during deeper financial crisis depressions, which was in part a big thrust of the socialist movement to get infrastructure spending and the like to "get people back to work."
Equally, as we've seen in more recent years since the post-Civil Rights Movement some churches have returned to their traditional attack dog role and using the government to control social policy. This was a long American Protestant tradition used against the Catholics and Jews, and today in part it's no different reason why the same game is being played against Muslims. This hostility to other religions, such as atheism, also creates animosity towards churches as charitable institutions.
Furthermore, when we consider institutional entrepreneurs such as Jane Addams who founded the modern social worker career. Since in part she saw needs not fulfilled by the church. Believers often forget that the church couldn't do everything, and seem to believe that the church and community people all took care of each other.. not really all the time. It was just easier to start a business since most jobs were low skilled, but if you read any writings by say Jack London and his struggles with alcohol there were social norms that were anti-intellectual and the social scene took place around the local pub and to be a "man" you had to drink.
The angry populism didn't culminate into better social policy during the Square Deal and New Deal without decades of institutional failure. This game again we're trying to shift the pendulum back to the church and local without understanding exactly that the failures aren't unique to our own time. Human need outstrips human resources, equally we often find ourselves with information cascade inaccurate ideas on "what is proper."
For instance today you see education as the "great equalizer" because of Horatio Alger stories and studies that do support that education is in part of the equalization equation. The issue we have is that we're trying to turn out teachers into social workers, and the teacher unions are fighting back in part asking for more paraprofessionals and the like. Whilst we're under investing into social workers and other sort of institutions.
The charity systems are connected to private capital, and the places with the best private capital tend to do the best. The redistribution mechanisms of the state has allowed things such as food stamps to be more efficiently done, but on the individual layer, to borrow one of you kids' hipster terms, "epic fail."
Federal does mass mobilization and mass redistribution well, when you have accountants and doctors and the like of the program like WIC. Where it fails is on the individual account to say help crazy people and the like, which is a state and local and family problem.
I feel that Schumpeter followed by Lasch got right, was that the capitalist system has done certain things to the family that has made them more susceptible to more new problems that they were not before. This is because the capitalist system is a selfish system that sets requirements and structures outside of the home dependent upon market based values more so than other periods in history. I'm an ardent capitalist, but I'm not going to be an apologist for it's problems that socialism and communalism solves.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I dont deny anything you have written, but that doesnt change the fact, the American government wasnt set up to take care of its population.
By the way, capitalism unchecked is just as bad as any other system for the people who are trying to get by with in it. Socialism and Communism both were brought down by human nature and greed, no different then what unchecked capitalism is doing to America.
I disagree, I feel we need to go back to the beginning and force people to be responsible for themselves and not dependent on the government. I feel the biggest problem today is the nanny state we live in.
If there's no real solution to fixing the National Debt and Deficit then it would be a very terrible burden on our children and grandchildren especially for current generations of people that are still alive today. It's a terrible mess but apparently the U.S. Government doesn't care enough about their own people to fix the problem that they started but maybe they still do hopefully. Sure I may be a fool but I haven't given up hope, then again that's all you can live by anyway.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta