Should the State of Missouri Take Children Away From the Blind?

July 21, 2010

Should the State of Missouri Take Children Away From the Blind?

Quick answer: of course not. But let’s try to move beyond the anger many of us likely feel when reading this story in the Kansas City Star, and instead discuss the question. To sum up quickly, the Missouri Department of Social Services removed a newborn from her parents — both of whom are blind — two days after her birth. Yesterday, after 57 days in state care, the state placed the baby back with her parents.

Did the state make the right decision to return the baby in the end? (I certainly think so. I’d be interested to hear from anyone who disagrees.) Should the state have taken the baby away in the first place? (I don’t think so, although some might think the question of the baby’s safety required some type of action.) Should the state have the power even to consider doing what it did in the first place? In other words, should the state have the power to take a child away because of the fear of potential harm (let’s assume it is a legitimate fear), but absent any actual harm?

I think the third question gets tougher. That is not to say I agree with anything the state did here; I am merely posing the question. Should the state have any power whatsoever to remove a child from its parents because of the potential of harm, but before any real harm occurs? The problem here is that we can all come up with hypothetical situations that would probably lead to an answer of “yes” (i.e., the parents are meth addicts), but as soon as you say “yes” you are granting the state the right to make judgment calls. Inevitably, they will at some point use that judgment improperly, just like they did in this example. Let’s discuss this in the comments.

I have a few points I want to make — and I write all of this as a fairly new parent, myself. I think this statement by the mother is one of the most honest statements I’ve read in a while:

“I needed help as a new parent, but not as a blind parent,” Johnson said.

Being a new parent is tough. It was certainly tough for me, and I am about as perfect a physical specimen as you will ever lay eyes on. I can’t fathom being a parent in the situation these parents are in, but I feel certain that the sense a parent has for the well-being of their children will trump the issues those children may face. Practically speaking, I would bet that a home designed for the blind would be just as well baby-proofed as anywhere. If other parts of their lives are a little trickier than they are for the sighted, those are the challenges of life. For example, letting a two-year old Mikaela run around at the park will be hard for parents who can’t see the child. Do they use one of those child leashes? Only go to parks with fully enclosed fencing, like DeMun park in Clayton? Take family or friends along with them?

I don’t know the answers to those questions. I do believe that the family’s love will overcome all these obstacles, and I think the involvement of the state here has been an outrage.

« Read Previous Entry Read Next Entry »

5 Comments »

To take a no brain, to me, example, I have no problem removing a child from a home where the parents have been ‘recently’ violent against their other children. Parents could claim that they have changed, but I would still want a probationary period. I don’t know if ‘real harm’ meant to the individual child or real harm in general.

I believe that the state should have the duty to intervene on behalf of those who can’t fend for themselves. Parents may prevent a child from getting a blood transfusion, as an example. I want the state to say that the child gets a transfusion.

Parents make mistakes, the state make mistakes. There are times when there is greater harm in doing nothing than in doing something. Discerning those times can be very difficult. State intervention usually prevents really bad outcomes, but also prevents full potential as well.

Comment by Papillon — July 22, 2010 @ 10:06 a.m.
A representative of the Missouri Department of Social Services called and asked me to make a clarification on this post. I am happy to do so, but want to make clear that there is a difference between a “clarification” and a “correction”, and this is the former.

They asked me to to clarify that the DSS does not have the authority to remove child from its home. They have the authority to initiate a legal process to have the court system order such an action, which is what happened here.

Blog posts require brevity, and going into the details of exactly how the state removed the child was beyond the purpose of the post. Especially since the final result was the same – the state removed the child, and then thankfully returned the child to its parents. However, the rep. from DSS left me a very polite message asking for that clarification, and I am pleased to meet his request.

Comment by David Stokes — July 22, 2010 @ 10:21 a.m.
I agree that it is inappropriate to intervene when no harm has occurred.

Tangentially, do you believe that children have a claim right on their parents? As I understand it, people who do not believe in positive rights whatsoever would say that parents do not have a moral obligation to feed and clothe their children. Parents tend to feed their children because they have a legal obligation and benevolence towards them. If it weren’t for this legal obligation, then the state would have not have the power to intervene.

Comment by Christine Harbin — July 22, 2010 @ 11:02 a.m.
There are plenty of people far better than I for theoretical discussions like this, but I’ll bite nonetheless. Yes, I think children have a claim on their parents, that parents have a moral obligation to care for their children, and that that obligation can be enforced legally. If a parent allows their child to starve to death out of carelessness, they should go to prison. If they do so out of malice or cruelty, they should be executed.

So if the state has the authority to enforce the care of the child by penalizing it after the fact, why would they not have the authority to prevent harm to the child beforehand? It is sort of like “pre-crime” in that Tom Cruise movie. So once you grant the state the power to intervene beforehand, are you just accepting that the state will improperly act on this at some point and trusting that civil lawsuits and the threat of firing state employees will hold state power in check? I guess you are, and that might be the best we can do here. Will the 57 day absence of the child be made right by several thousand dollars? To phrase it better, will the payment of several thousand dollars, or several hundred thousand, deter the state from making similar mistaken actions in the future?

Papillon made some great points, what about the family who won’t allow their child life-saving medical care for religious reasons? I don’t know the answer to that question. I am friends with a Christian Scientist whom I admire deeply – former County Councilman Skip Mange. I don’t think I have ever had this discussion with him. I wish I had. (I also understand that it is incorrect to assume all Christian Scientists adamently adhere to the no medical care under any situation rule.)

I stand by my claim that the state made an egregious error here. I think the standard for removing a child based on the threat of harm, instead of proven harm or history of harm (such as demonstrated abuse of a prior child), needs to be extremely high. I don’t think this came anywere near the standard that should be held. For example, it was the mother herself, not just the nurse, who noticed the initial attempts at breast-feeding were not going well and the baby was having trouble breathing. But should the state have the power to intervene in such a situation ever? I guess they probably should.

And for the record, parents in Missouri have the legal right to abandon their children to the state up to a certain age by leaving the child at a hospital, etc. I have no idea if that is a positive or a negative right, but it beats the hell out of leaving the child in a dumpster, which is what it was intended to alleviate.

Comment by David Stokes — July 22, 2010 @ 12:04 p.m.
My dad is a physician, and he sits on the ethics committee at his hospital. One of the committee’s responsibilities is deciding what to do when parents oppose a medical treatment for religious reasons that will save their child’s life. (I understand that Jehovah’s witnesses, for example, are opposed to blood transfusions for religious reasons.)

The committee decided that, in this event, the hospital becomes a medical guardian of the child and then performs the life-saving treatment. This way, the parents can maintain their opposition to the treatment, but then the child will still receive the treatment and live.

Comment by Christine Harbin — July 22, 2010 @ 4:28 p.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Categories

To take a no brain, to me, example, I have no problem removing a child from a home where the parents have been ‘recently’ violent against their other children. Parents could claim that they have changed, but I would still want a probationary period. I don’t know if ‘real harm’ meant to the individual child or real harm in general.

I believe that the state should have the duty to intervene on behalf of those who can’t fend for themselves. Parents may prevent a child from getting a blood transfusion, as an example. I want the state to say that the child gets a transfusion.

Parents make mistakes, the state make mistakes. There are times when there is greater harm in doing nothing than in doing something. Discerning those times can be very difficult. State intervention usually prevents really bad outcomes, but also prevents full potential as well.

Comment by Papillon — July 22, 2010 @ 10:06 a.m.

A representative of the Missouri Department of Social Services called and asked me to make a clarification on this post. I am happy to do so, but want to make clear that there is a difference between a “clarification” and a “correction”, and this is the former.

They asked me to to clarify that the DSS does not have the authority to remove child from its home. They have the authority to initiate a legal process to have the court system order such an action, which is what happened here.

Blog posts require brevity, and going into the details of exactly how the state removed the child was beyond the purpose of the post. Especially since the final result was the same – the state removed the child, and then thankfully returned the child to its parents. However, the rep. from DSS left me a very polite message asking for that clarification, and I am pleased to meet his request.

Comment by David Stokes — July 22, 2010 @ 10:21 a.m.

I agree that it is inappropriate to intervene when no harm has occurred.

Tangentially, do you believe that children have a claim right on their parents? As I understand it, people who do not believe in positive rights whatsoever would say that parents do not have a moral obligation to feed and clothe their children. Parents tend to feed their children because they have a legal obligation and benevolence towards them. If it weren’t for this legal obligation, then the state would have not have the power to intervene.

Comment by Christine Harbin — July 22, 2010 @ 11:02 a.m.

There are plenty of people far better than I for theoretical discussions like this, but I’ll bite nonetheless. Yes, I think children have a claim on their parents, that parents have a moral obligation to care for their children, and that that obligation can be enforced legally. If a parent allows their child to starve to death out of carelessness, they should go to prison. If they do so out of malice or cruelty, they should be executed.

So if the state has the authority to enforce the care of the child by penalizing it after the fact, why would they not have the authority to prevent harm to the child beforehand? It is sort of like “pre-crime” in that Tom Cruise movie. So once you grant the state the power to intervene beforehand, are you just accepting that the state will improperly act on this at some point and trusting that civil lawsuits and the threat of firing state employees will hold state power in check? I guess you are, and that might be the best we can do here. Will the 57 day absence of the child be made right by several thousand dollars? To phrase it better, will the payment of several thousand dollars, or several hundred thousand, deter the state from making similar mistaken actions in the future?

Papillon made some great points, what about the family who won’t allow their child life-saving medical care for religious reasons? I don’t know the answer to that question. I am friends with a Christian Scientist whom I admire deeply – former County Councilman Skip Mange. I don’t think I have ever had this discussion with him. I wish I had. (I also understand that it is incorrect to assume all Christian Scientists adamently adhere to the no medical care under any situation rule.)

I stand by my claim that the state made an egregious error here. I think the standard for removing a child based on the threat of harm, instead of proven harm or history of harm (such as demonstrated abuse of a prior child), needs to be extremely high. I don’t think this came anywere near the standard that should be held. For example, it was the mother herself, not just the nurse, who noticed the initial attempts at breast-feeding were not going well and the baby was having trouble breathing. But should the state have the power to intervene in such a situation ever? I guess they probably should.

And for the record, parents in Missouri have the legal right to abandon their children to the state up to a certain age by leaving the child at a hospital, etc. I have no idea if that is a positive or a negative right, but it beats the hell out of leaving the child in a dumpster, which is what it was intended to alleviate.

Comment by David Stokes — July 22, 2010 @ 12:04 p.m.

My dad is a physician, and he sits on the ethics committee at his hospital. One of the committee’s responsibilities is deciding what to do when parents oppose a medical treatment for religious reasons that will save their child’s life. (I understand that Jehovah’s witnesses, for example, are opposed to blood transfusions for religious reasons.)

The committee decided that, in this event, the hospital becomes a medical guardian of the child and then performs the life-saving treatment. This way, the parents can maintain their opposition to the treatment, but then the child will still receive the treatment and live.

Comment by Christine Harbin — July 22, 2010 @ 4:28 p.m.

July 21, 2010