The Conspiracy of CaringSubmitted by DeadGeorge on Wed, 08/06/2014 - 22:02
[Rough draft. Please make constructive criticism.]
Why do institutions created to protect children often fail so miserably at it? Why do they, in addition to allow or even cover up cases of neglect and abuse, seek to remove children from good homes over spurious allegations?
I came across this really unsettling article. A doctor essentially created a successful career out of falsely alleging abuse and breaking up families to build her reputation as an expert on what is called "medical child abuse" or Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, where medical professionals unilaterally allege the reasons behind a child's injuries or illness is neglect on the part of a parent in order to get medical attention.
As this website notes: "Munchausen by Proxy is not recognized by the American Medical Association or the American Psychiatric Association." That didn't stop courts from breaking up families for it, however, nor stop a doctor from being sought after for her expertise regarding it, including a professorship at a Florida University, where she can presumably train pediatricians to ignore parents and lock them up if they disagree with their doctors.
I noticed that the National Education Association, a lobbying group for the teacher's unions had no information on child abuse by its members, but a helpful article entitled "Defend Yourself" on how teachers could defend themselves against accusations of abuse. Also included, good information for how to report suspected abuse by parents of children.
Institutions are good at protecting their members from allegations of abuse; they are also good at alleging abuse, and making the allegations stick.
In the Cash for Kids scandal judges took payouts from a prison builder to sentence kids to juvenile detention for small infractions. One of the judges tried to make a political career on "getting tough" on juvenile offenders. These judges were convicted and sentenced to prison, but the offenders clearly did not think there was anything wrong in what they were doing, nor contemplated they'd ever account for their actions.
Why should they have? Institutions always close ranks around those inside against those outside, even if those inside are the abusers and those outside are the ones protecting children.
When you face accusations of abuse as an individual by a teacher, doctor or social worker, a judge assumes the purpose of the allegation is to protect a child, even when there is clear evidence that these people have ulterior motives for making the allegations. Our only defense is to investigate and expose these motives, for once their spurious allegations are accepted, there is no way to contest any draconian measure leveled against us to make us prove our worthiness to be left alone in the reasonable enjoyment of our homes and families.
To make your way in this world now, you have to have dirt on the other guys, because you can be guaranteed he's collecting dirt about you. In this spirit, I've decided to start investigating Child Protective Services in my area and around the state before my child is taken for some petty disagreement with a school administrator, law enforcement or nosy neighbor.
A CPS investigator who herself was forced to give up her foster parent certification due to child abuse.
A personal story about a woman who boy was taken from her in San Francisco over hysteria surrounding her large dogs.
A very recent story about a Sacramento foreign national couple whose baby was taken from them because they refused the advice of their doctor and asked for a second opinion
A couple of court cases affirming that parents do indeed have the same constitutional rights when CPS alleges abuse as anybody else, including the right to see the evidence against them and the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures.
On the other side, one story of CPS' placement of children in an abusive household.
A woman discussing her personal story of her suspicions of retaliation by the San Francisco Unified School District by charging neglect for telling her children to wait outside to meet her. (Unstated in the article, but per my own experience, the school in question has no parking lot available to parents, lack of street parking and, of course, rigorous enforcement of traffic and parking violations.)
About the Child Abuse registry in California, and how tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of names are placed their over spurious allegations unsupported by any documentation, and how judicial review was nonexistent in some cases and even ignored by state officials in other cases.
About a child taken from a homeless family.
Report about a widely used custody evaluator for the City of San Diego caught faking his credentials and sued. (Unfortunately, not in this article, although there is clear and convincing evidence that he was a fraud, no wrongdoing by the same court that sometimes employed him was found and, as per California court rules, the family suing him was required to pay the fraudster's legal bills.)
There is a clear and convincing pattern here, of taking the child first and asking questions later. Although parents are slowly but surely being restored their essential rights (Yay?) you may still have to inform law enforcement, school administrators and social services of these changes at your peril and expense. These officials, including the sudden experts they employ to back up their spurious claims, are what are important to courts--you and your family, and your choices concerning your family, is to be tolerated, at best.
What's more, when children enter social services, they are likely, in addition to being ripped from their natural homes, to be abused and neglected by those with whom they are placed. That is, even when the family is restored, the child or children can never similarly be restored. If social services purports to know what is best for your child, should they not at least have to prove that they are capable of protecting your child from anything other than you?
Serious conflicts of interest and lack of oversight permeate child protective services. Under the guise of "protecting children" and with the support of militarized law enforcement, almost any abuse of power and fraud by the state against families can be done and any consequences successfully avoided--the most important being termination of a rogue employee and criminal sanctions against their behavior. Wealth being given from taxpayers to individuals who can not be made whole simply by money is the poorest of substitutes.
Families are living in fear, fear of a petty grievance or even misunderstanding leading to the destruction of everything they have worked to achieve over life. Those that aren't in fear soon will be.
We have ourselves, somewhat to blame. Whenever we ask the government to do something to protect children, we are inventing a public sector job to spy on our parenting, and thus a vested interest in "protecting children" even when no wrongdoing exists. We dare not call it kidnapping, but that's precisely what it is, when somebody takes your child for no or bad reasons.
People have a hard time believing that the government or child protective services means harm. That's because they don't. It's a conspiracy of caring. In their myopia to justify their position and lavish public funding (but hidden even to themselves behind caring for children), every action is justified a priori, and then later by the courts. When wrongdoing is discovered, it never results in substantive consequences for the parties involved, therefore the most important change never happens--a change in mentality.