'Parents' whos children have been taken away...

Stifler's - posted on 08/17/2010

I agree the question should be asked whether someone with a severe mental illness is capable of looking after a kid. You can't make laws like this with so many grey areas though. People who repeatedly abuse their children and have them taken away should definitely be on mandatory birth control until they can prove they won't abuse their future children/will discontinue the abuse to their existing children.

Jessica - posted on 08/17/2010

I agree that if a person is found to be irrefutably guilty of child abuse then yes, they should have their tubes tied and should not be allowed to have or be near children.

However, with the social system the way it is (in the UK at least) happy healthy children are being taken from good and loving parents whilst children starve or are beaten to death whilst under social care supervision.

So before anything of this (what you have suggested) could be implemented we (in the UK at least) need a total system overhaul.

Shannen - posted on 08/17/2010

Tara, I am against Sterilisation.



"To even suggest that someone should have to take an evaluation test prior to having children is partaking in the act of "reproductive selection" you are in essence saying that we should be "weeding" out certain types of people from the gene pool so that they do not reproduce,



I am in no way saying they shouldn't reproduce, all i am saying is that they should undergo an evaluation to make sure they are taking their medications and trying to improve their situation.

It isn't taking away any ones human rights they can still have children.

I would never tell any mother or father that they shouldn't have children. I'm not sure why you have taken so badly when i never said that these people should never have children.



Anyway like i said it isn't possible thats just how i feel about the situation.

Kayle - posted on 08/16/2010

Wow seems this conversation has gotten of track.

And after reading some of your opinions, I think I have changed mine. No they shouldn't sterilize them because people can change. But long term bc should be given to them. (such as norplant or and IUD) Something that only a doctor can remove.

Sharon - posted on 08/16/2010

I, personally wasn't speaking just for women being sterilised. Men or women - if they have these criminal convictions should be sterilised. temporarily for the most part but in some cases (murdering your own kids) permanently.

Tara - posted on 08/16/2010

It is horrible because it is a direct and blatant assault on our human rights. To even suggest that someone should have to take an evaluation test prior to having children is partaking in the act of "reproductive selection" you are in essence saying that we should be "weeding" out certain types of people from the gene pool so that they do not reproduce, you can say it is in the name of saving children from a life of misery and the system having the burden of these children, but the act of sterilizing human beings against their will is only the beginning of the end. Next it will be banning people who do not have the right income level from having children so that the system does not have to provide for them in the future etc. And by the way no test can predict the future. People can change. Murderers can change.
Do you know what a lobotomy is? This was an accepted form of medical intervention to "assist" people with emotional issues. Was it fair? Was it right? nope. But it was done on tons of people against their will.

Shannen - posted on 08/15/2010

I can see how Tara was offended although my comment wasn't aimed directly at her. I do understand that many mothers with mental illness are perfectly capable if not better mothers then some with out and that they lok after themselves extreemly well.
Yes it is a generalisation. But how many times are we going to let someone who has a history of a mental illness get away with murder and then get a lessened charge due to that illness?
Why is it so horrible to suggest that a Person, be it mother or father, get evaluated before having children?

Charlie - posted on 08/15/2010

Shannen ,

Although im against sterilization i think there is a difference between a person with history of abuse and just saying all people with mental illness should be tested , its far too broad to say all mental illness considering many people live life and function with mental illness and many with children , in fact quiet a few awesome mums i have met through COM , its also something that can happen after birth to someone previously with no condition , i can see how Tara may have felt offended .

Stifler's - posted on 08/15/2010

I agree with Shannen. I don't know what some people are thinking having children. A lot of people do it to save a crap relationship without realising that children make relationships even more stressful.

Shannen - posted on 08/15/2010

So it's ok for some others on here to say sterilisation is ok but for me to even say they should undergo some sort of testing is horrible?

I am serious i have seen and know of too many mothers who have some sort of "issues" ( sorry to make it such a blanket statement but they are all different) that have children that they can't handle and should not have had until they had been evaluated in some sort of way.
I am so happy that you are being treated and learning and all that but there are many people who just fall back on their illness when things go wrong.
Why would it be an issue for mothers to have to go to their Dr before being able to have children? If they were taking their medication and there was improvement then there wouldnt be a problem.
Why would a mother want to have children if she was so unstable anyway????

Tara - posted on 08/15/2010

@Shannen

Are you for real?

"I do believe that people men or women who have a mental issue what ever it be should have to under go some sort of testing or evaluation before they are able to have children."



I suffer from post traumatic stress disorder and depression/anxiety. I find it it amazingly ignorant of you to make such a HUGE blanket statement about people with mental health issues. My ability to be a great mom is not compromised by my illness, I am treated, I am growing, I am learning, I am blessed to have wonderful children who are all very emotionally intelligent people.

And you really believe myself and people with similar conditions should have to be tested before we can be parents???? Seriously?

Danielle - posted on 08/15/2010

Uhm no.
Why? Because some people can change.
Where pedophiles, rapists, and murderers are concerned...yes I'd be all for it. But for a neglectful mom to face mandatory, involuntary sterilization seems cruel and forceful. Our society provides many types of programs to help these "mothers" learn to be good mothers and if they want to take the opportunity to clean their life up I feel they should have that right.

Shannen - posted on 08/14/2010

I doubt she is off the drugs now. She is mentally unstable. She has been commited a couple of times. I believe that she had this child so that she wouldnt have to go back to work. Our government pays OK for Mums ot stay at home.
I do believe that people men or women who have a mental issue what ever it be should have to under go some sort of testing or evaluation before they are able to have children. How it could ever be inforced i don't know. I honestly dont think it is possible.

Jenni - posted on 08/14/2010

oops! mean't 'irreversable' invasive surgery

Jenni - posted on 08/14/2010

Sharon,
As a child of an abusive parent, I am the last one to be siding with these people and I'm not. I'm just say invasive surgery is not answer b/c it is infringement on human rights . You wouldn't amputate someone's hands for stealing. I do like your idea of it not being a permanent form of BC.
"We need tougher laws for drunk drivers too."
We need tougher laws for a lot of offences. Like cell phone drivers. I've had far more run ins with people talking on their phones than drunk drivers. But unfortunately we can't amputate their hands as well and force them to use hands-free.
I find it kind of strange it isn't a common practice to incarcerate neglectful/abusive parents (except in extreme cases). Although prisons are already at 3X capacity.
Oh btw i do realize that the abuser is just as likely to be a "HE" as a she. I think we were speaking about this thread where the abuser is a woman.

Shelley - posted on 08/14/2010

I had a really sheltered childhood and when i was 17 i got a job in a childcare centre. A 6 week old baby arrived this day stunk like smoke had dried vomit all around its neck a really like day old dirty nappy. after the mother left i picked the baby up and decided to bath her as i undressed her i noticed behind her elbows, behind her knees, in her groin and between her toes these swollen blue and red areas. i now understand these to have been track marks the child was born heroin dependant and the mother was injecting the baby to shut it up her words at a family court proceeding. thank god i was able to get onto family services who arrived with the police and an ambulance and were able to get this child to a lovely foster home.
This has and probably will stay with me for the rest of my life.
At the hearing we found that the mother had been abused as a child was born to a 16 year old mum who too had been abused. Drugs was all they knew it was their currency their everything. While these people continue to have kids where does the cycle end.
But i think its against human rights to sterilise. I don't know what the answer is but there must be something.

Sharon - posted on 08/13/2010

She has 3 healthy kids at home but she couldn't take care of herself or her unborn child, now she has an addicted baby, she's an addict - fuck yeah they should sterilise her. When she gets her shit back undercontrol - reverse it. but really? She couldn't stop herself from getting pregnant while addicted - I don't expect more from her while she recooperates and takes care of her baby. In her case its almost a favor.

what happened was a bit of an accident - she shouldn't be punished, like jail time, if her husband backs her getting clean - then she shouldn't lose her kids either, but I wouldn't count on her being mentally stable and I really think it would be in her best interest to NOT have any more kids until she's better, right?

Shannen - posted on 08/13/2010

I know a woman who has 3 very healthy children.
When her then youungest was born her hubby had a back injury and she got addicted to his pain medication.
when i was transferd back to our local hospital after giving birth there was a baby in there that was in pain it was horrible to hear it try and cry.
I found out after i left who's baby this was. What should they do to her? She knowingly put that baby in danger by taking those drugs but she already has 3 healthy children at home. Should they sterilise her?

Ashley=) - posted on 08/13/2010

I believe that to a point..it would be easier.There's always the mothers right to be taken into account in this..why i dont know when the can allow a child to suffer and an unborn baby but legally the mother has rights.:-(



All cases are different and some mothers do change but in this case the level of abuse and lack of consideration for the life of an unborn baby, if tubes tied was put on the table by the health service maybe the mother would be willing to do it.Obviously she doesnt want to be a mother or care enough to think about the lives shes created.

Lyndsay - posted on 08/11/2010

I'm about halfway with you on this one. I don't think that just because you have had your child apprehended you should be forced into being sterilized. The social service system is not perfect, sometimes there are misunderstandings and children get taken away without good reason. Granted, these children are often returned to their parents after a short while, but circumstances vary and its something to consider. On the other hand, there is always the chance that a previously unfit mother may get her act together one day. A friend of mine has three children. Her first two were born before she was 17 and were taken away from her because she was unable to provide for them. Her last pregnancy happened two years ago, when she was about 20, and she decided she was ready to become a mom and she sought out community supports and was able to get her shit together for her daughter. Now she has full custody of her youngest, as well as unsupervised weekend access to her oldest kids. The two older ones have been in care so long they are now crown wards, which means that she has no possible chance of getting them back, regardless of anything. But thats not to say she wouldn't be considered a suitable parent, if their legal status were different.



Now... people who give birth to addicted, malnourished, or otherwise mutilated babies (I'm not talking stuff you can't help, I'm talking like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome et al.), THEY should be sterilized.

Sharon - posted on 08/11/2010

there are reasons why movies are made about people like Fantasia Barrino, Liz Murray, or Michael Ohr - its rare that people overcome such devastating horrible conditions of childhood.

Overcoming poverty - YES. Overcoming drug addicted abusive parents ? Rare. Hell, I consider a person a success if they just manage to avoid the addictions that ruined their parents.

Aura - posted on 08/10/2010

I'm sorry if I sound callous. I just don't want them to be another reason why some people shouldn't have kids. I do believe that God made a purpose for everyone, I just don't want it to be that purpose, you know?

Aura - posted on 08/10/2010

I agree, if they can. Right now, I don't feel that they are going to be able to. They aren't disciplined properly and it makes them obnoxious and vicious toward any child smaller or younger than them. Maybe they could be great, as I believe that God has a plan for everyone, but I still wish that my mother had realized that she didn't like her own children sooner.

Tara - posted on 08/10/2010

@Aura, how do you know it would have been to their benefit? How do you know they won't go on to discover the cure for AIDS? Or perhaps run a wonderful charity? Or be a great novelist? They are here now. What happened to you is sad, and shouldn't happen to anyone, but they deserve to live their life to the fullest.

Aura - posted on 08/10/2010

I'm good with the reversible tube tying, or something to that effect. I feel that, with adequate knowledge and careful teaching, a tiger can change it's stripes.

I came from an abusive household. Every day I am worried about my two young siblings (4 and 3) because I don't know for sure that my mother has changed. I have never seen the signs of the amount of abuse I received, but she spanks them a lot more than I think is necessary. I think she should have had her tubes tied a long time ago. I love my siblings, but I still feel it would have been better if they had not been born to my mother. I know this sounds bad, but really, it would have been to their benefit.

Stifler's - posted on 08/10/2010

That's so sad Kayle :( I agree with that too.

Kayle - posted on 08/10/2010

This is my opinion. I am sickened by all abuse stories. And there is multiple storys where it happens over and over again. My Cousins Father got both her and her two younger brothers taken away when she was about 6. He was abusive, neglectful, a drunk and into drugs. 3 years later he's with another woman. They have a baby boy. The baby is two months old and the parents come home from drinking and put him in bed with them. The next morning they can't find the baby. He was found in between the matress and the wall dead. Then just last year with another woman he had another baby girl. She was taken away with-in two months of being born. Because she was being abused and neglected. I see so many cases like these! Thats why I agree with sterilization.

Sharon - posted on 08/10/2010

Jennifer -

What if complications were to arise? Part and parcel of being guilty of child abuse or whatever. What if the child had died? What if the child had suffered extreme brain damage? The person has already demonstrated that they were willing to gamble with someone elses life in an uncontrolled setting. They should be perfectly fine with this gamble.

The drug addict scenario - in 15 years when she or HE is clean - he can have the surgery reversed. He or she will have had 15 years to pay for HALF the costs of the surgery to do so - cost is determined by cost at the time of surgery to sterilize.

Abused spouse - person loses custody because of abuse - as it is now - once the person in an abusive relationship leaves - they can get their kids back, sometimes after completing a parenting class, oftentimes not. I'd like to see a self awareness class and some sort of college/educational class tacked on to that as well.

We need tougher laws for drunk drivers too.

This is how it should be in my perfect world. People will see their wrongs and right them, but if they don't they can't hurt the offspring of their bodies any more and the public doesn't have to absorb the 18 years of inadequate care and legal obligations to a child that has never known anything but misery.

Isobel - posted on 08/10/2010

What Krista said.

Jenni - posted on 08/10/2010

Although I am sickened by this story and many like it not all cases are so black and white. Not to mention infringement of human rights. You can't force an individual to undergo surgery to their body. What if complications were to arise? Also, although this case doesn't seem as though the individual learned her lesson. There are cases where they do and like everyone else in the world they deserve a second chance. Let's say a drug addict has a child and neglects that child because they are an addict. That person gets clean changes their life around and is sober for say 15 years. They wouldn't deserve a second chance? And then there are cases where the mother is abused by her SO and so is her child and her child gets taken away because of it. She wouldn't deserve another chance if she got out of that relationship? Neways it's the same reasons we don't castrate sex offenders, infringement of human rights. Unfortunately as long as there are cars there will be drunk drivers killing innocent people and as long as people can have sex and make babies there will be bad parents.
These stories make my stomach turn though! I don't understand how anyone can do anything else but love and try to provide the happiest life for their children that they possibly can.

Sara - posted on 08/10/2010

I agree with Krista 100%!

Krista - posted on 08/10/2010

Sterilization is a slippery slope. However, I could agree with abusive/neglectful mothers being made to go on long-term, reversible birth control and attend counselling, as part of a conditional sentence, with violation of these terms being treated similar to a violation of probation. In order to have the conditions lifted, the counselor would have to assess the individual, she would be put through comprehensive psychological testing, and she would be subject to random home checks from CPS from the commencement of pregnancy until the child turns 18. The hospitals would also have a flag on her so that if the child is brought in with any physical injuries, CPS will investigate.

Like Tara said, there are some people who are royal fuckups and awful people in their 20's, who do a complete 180 by their 30's. So I'm not comfortable with an irreversible punishment -- but a very, very, very tight leash should be kept on that individual for a very long time.

Rosie - posted on 08/10/2010

definitely with sharon on this one. no i don't think they should be sterilized, but longterm birth control would be a great idea!

Sharon - posted on 08/10/2010

Who says it has to be permanent? why can't it be temporary?

Barbara - posted on 08/10/2010

I wonder how many survivors of abuse there are in the world that wish they'd never been born at all. I bet most of them go on to have happy lives eventually.
I mean, this world has plenty of people in it, but once you start deciding who can and cannot reproduce, where does it end? Whose right is it to decide? Perhaps they can be made to go on reversible birth control. I'd be for that.

Tara - posted on 08/10/2010

While I agree that there people in this world who should never become parents, I can't go so far as to say there are people who should lose their ability to re-produce. This thinking is very fascist in my opinion. What if the situation were as follows:
Mom is 20, has first baby, dad leaves her, she is in a car accident, becomes addicted to Oxycontin, this leads to a meth addiction or cocaine etc. she neglects her child, she slaps him, hits him, hurts him a lot when she can't get high. She loses him to the system (rightfully so). She goes to re-hab, gets clean, goes to school, becomes a mental health nurse, meets a man, gets married at 30. Wants to start a family.
Should the choices she made in her early adulthood really affect that much of the rest of her life? People change. People learn, people grow.
I do believe there are always exceptions to the rule., on both sides. Some people will always be a threat to society, whether it is cause they kill, rape or abuse. Some people make bad choices due to many factors and go on to change their behaviours, their lives in order to be better people.
A different system of accountability and support is needed. And kids should still be removed from abusive homes. I'm just saying that if we go around sterilizing every women or man who has had their kids removed from their home (in so many cases the abuse stems from addiction) than we are effectively partaking in "gene" selection. You can argue that it is for the best interest of not bringing children into the world who may end up abused or in the system. But really it seems a lot more like, weeding through the undesirable gene pool, making sure anyone who might pass on "unfavourable" genes is not able to do so. There are enough kids in the system, yes. There are too many cases of abuse yes. But it's still wrong in my opinion to decide who gets to have kids and who doesn't.

Janessa - posted on 08/09/2010

I am so glad somone shares the same views as me. I am so sad so many children are abused ect every day by they own parents. They have shown the first time they abused they children they cannot be parents so i say sterilized period.

Julie - posted on 08/09/2010

Can it be guaranteed that all such women were intentionally abusive/negligent/etc... before sterilization?

If not, no way. Call me crazy, but I can easily foresee women wrongly getting "spayed" for convenience/bias/laziness on the system that determines such cases. I'd liken it to folks sitting on death row for 35 years in a BS case only to be proven innocent with DNA evidence when they are about to die.

Now, one COULD harvest eggs from such women *just in case* and, if she 'proves' herself worthy, she could bear another child. But who would determine that?

Like many things in life, it's not just black and white.

I think education and a viable support system would go a lot further.

Sharon - posted on 08/09/2010

LOL I've brought up the sterilisation thing before too.

I'm all for it.

If you've lost rights to the kids you've already brought into this world, why should you keep the right to bring more into this world?

Pedophiles, rapists, women who have murdered their kids, maybe drunk drivers, should all be spayed & neutered like the base animals they seem determined to resemble.