RoR: Forum

This article calls attention to a great tragedy: that the state, the most incompetent of all our social institutions, removes innocent children from their families (often for objectively trivial reasons) and imprisons them, under conditions not open to public scrutiny, sometimes for years. Any sane human, 13-year-old or not, when subjected to such a regime will run away (if she is intelligent enough to figure out a way to) and experiment with whatever she was denied in her imprisonment. Add the preposterous actions of theocratic politicians - as if it were possible that it could be in the best interest of a 13-year-old to remain pregnant - and you have institutionalised, political child abuse. Who will protect the children from their "protectors?"

Post 1

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 11:51am

Good notion - political child abuse... will post that one as letter to editor in my area. There are few I know who have any love of DCF, and for very good reason, as noted in this example.....

Post 2

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 12:49pm

Adam, perhaps next year at SOLOC 5 you can offer a talk on the political rights of children. I can see you have an intense passion about this issue, and it certainly deserves more attention in the Objectivist body of literature.

Post 3

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 3:33pm

it certainly deserves more attention in the Objectivist body of literature

Indeed it does, I actually tried to raise debate on this a few weeks ago.

One point that particularly struck me about this case is that it seems the girl is legally entitled to an abortion without consulting her guardian (i.e. the state), so no one is quite sure why the matter even came to court.

Even here in the UK, where the culture is firmly secularised, there have been issues over medical professionals assisting teens with contraception, advice on terminations etc; which caused an outcry from parents. It seems that in the absence of good philosophy, the natural and understandable parental desire to care for one's child can often be harmful and counter productive. Of course it is that same protectiveness, elevated to the societal level, that leads to children being forcibly made wards of the state.

MH

Post 4

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 3:36pm

The matter came before the judge because here in Florida, there is a law which states the DCF may not permit abortion on one of its charges, obviously contradicting the 'right to privacy' of getting an abortion.....

Post 5

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:09pm

Ah thanks for clarifying that Robert. I don't know if it's just me but that point doesn't seem to come over in the article.

Post 6

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 7:44pm

I don't know if it's just me but that point doesn't seem to come over in the article.

There was an earlier article in the same paper that mentioned that point:

Marilyn Munoz, spokeswoman for the Department of Children & Families, said the agency had no choice but to stop the abortion. She pointed to a Florida statute: "In no case shall the department consent to sterilization, abortion, or termination of life support."

I don't think this explanation appeared in the later article I posted.

So this seems to come down to a contradiction between two statutes that the courts are going to have to resolve.

Post 7

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 11:38pm

A 13 year old asks why she cannot make her own decision.
УI don't know," says Circuit Judge Ronald Alvarez.

Whazzat?

I don't know?

A US judge actually said that to a 13 year old?

That scares me even more than the issue.

Michael

Post 8

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 12:30am

Assuming the state had a good reason to be her ward, its their decision. If they take the role of parents then they have to act like it. And I can't see any responsible parents not making that choice for their 13 year old daughter, she'll have input for sure but the ultimate decision is not hers.

I know a lot of people here look at pregnacy as something a woman has a choice to carry or terminate, with no moral consquences. Say your 13 year old daughter came home with a tatoo on her neck, whose choice would it be to have it removed?

Post 9

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 1:06am

That is an insult to the individual - you should be ashamed of yourself.

Post 10

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 1:08am

If they take the role of parents then they have to act like it. And I can't see any responsible parents not making that choice for their 13 year old daughter, she'll have input for sure but the ultimate decision is not hers.

I don't have children (yet, anyway), but I wouldn't force a daughter of mine to do something she seriously didn't want to (like removing a tatoo she wanted to keep).

Besides, by running away from the youth shelter, has this girl not effectively expressed that she no longer wishes to live under the government's guardianship?

MH

Post 11

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 4:59am

L.G. had run away at least five times from her youth shelter, maintained, "It would make no sense to have the baby."

"I don't think I should have the baby because I'm 13, I'm in a shelter and I can't get a job ... DCF would take the baby anyway,"

This whole scenario does not make any sense to me. You have a state law saying parents/guardians do not have to consent to a minor having an abortion. Children and Family services has a rule that conflicts with that law and the judge that says, "duh, I don't know," on what would seem to be a no-brainer.

I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem that CFS rules could be not be enforced when in conflict with state laws, just as you couldn't enforce state laws that conflict with federal laws. And why the hell someone would want to force this kid to have a baby which would immediately be taken into state custody anyway is something I have big issues with. I fail to see how making this girl take the child to term under any circumstances could possibly be in her best interests that the state, as her guardian, is supposed to be upholding.

Let the girl have the abortion and let the courts sort it out for the next ten years or so. They don't need another ward of the state to put a human face on their legal posturing. That is child abuse.

(Edited by katdaddy on 5/01, 5:26am)

Post 12

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 5:57am

Omitted from this discussion is a measure passed last year requiring parental notification of abortions for their minor children:

http://right-mind.us/archive/2004/11/11/599.aspx

Abortion -- Amend the Florida Constitution to require notification of the parent or guardian of a minor before an abortion; Florida Legislature would be required to provide exemptions and create a process for having notification waived. Florida passed that measure by 65 percent! It's amazing to me that you have to have parental consent to give a child an aspirin, but an abortion was OK. Talk about the world being upside down!

Can anyone put this amendment into the context of the article? Notice that this amendment requires only notification but not permission of the parent or guardian. I would certainly want to know if my minor daughter sought any medical procedure.

Post 13

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 6:56am

Luther,

Leaving aside questions of whether the measure you cite is Objectively justifiable, I'm not sure that it really affects this discussion here - legally the state is the girl's "guardian", and the staff at the care home (in effect the state's agents) clearly are aware of her desire to abort.

MH

Post 14

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 3:36pm

Insult to the indivisual my ass. Robert you're saying no one can make these important decisions for this 13 year old girl? From what I see she's prpbably mature for her age but she still has only a few years of life experience behind her and the fact that she was having sex at 13 just shows she is not responsible for herself and dosen't adquatly understand the consquences of her actions.

Luther, so if your kid runs away its ok since they obviously don't want to live with you anymore?

Also ask yourselves this, its obvious this 'journalist' is compleatly biased in favor of the abortion. He gives us all this background information on the girl yet 'omits' the reason why she is a ward of the state. I'd bet it's for a damn good reason but he doesn't want to give any legitimacy to the government.

(just to add, I do support this girl getting the abortion, she's way to young to have a baby. What I am objecting to is her legal guardian not being able to make that choice. Yes it is the state but whoever the guardian of a child is, it dosen't make the child any more or less responsible.)

Post 15

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 5:15pm

He gives us all this background information on the girl yet 'omits' the reason why she is a ward of the state. I'd bet it's for a damn good reason but he doesn't want to give any legitimacy to the government.

According to an article in Newsweek:

L.G.'s life has been racked by hardship from the start. The middle child of three siblings, she grew up in a broken home, her attorneys say. In 2002, after her parents finally signed away their rights to her, she entered the foster care system. With no one to adopt her, she moved from one facility to another, running away at least five times. It was during her most recent escape in January that she became pregnant.

Doesn't say too much more, I guess, but that's what I've found.

Post 16

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 5:19pm

Thanks, her parents signed her away and no one would adopt her. So what do you do with the little girl?

Post 17

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 8:11pm

Clarence asked:

Luther, so if your kid runs away its ok since they obviously don't want to live with you anymore?

I do not recall saying or implying anything like that in this or any other thread.

Post 18

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 8:56pm

I'm sorry, that was for Matthew Humphreys.

Post 19

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 2:05am