Friday, August 20, 2010

Let The Child Welfare Market Purge Itself

"Tracey Connelly, whose maiden last name is Cox, is an almost illiterate and sex-obsessed disgusting slob with a disastrous broken family background. She is definitely unfit to be a mother and should be sterilised."

Here is a comment I found in dealing with the horrific death of Baby P, in the UK.

A prime example of why these child protection reform groups, family rights groups and parental rights groups continuously shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to what they consider as reform is there is no general consensus except  for hate.

On the one hand, all these groups have one thing in common: the protection of children.  Unfortunately, they come from different directions, those of which originate from all over the social spectrum of interpretations of what should be done.
One group attacks another.
However, abuser-apologist group the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform wants to use the reduction as an excuse to gut investigation and prosecution of abusers. Executive Director Richard Wexler said, "The best use of scarce child welfare dollars is on prevention and family preservation — not on hiring more people to investigate less actual abuse." This when fewer than half of child abuse reports around the country are ever investigated at all.
These evil idiots are staunch advocates of "family preservation and reunification," and laud the "Alabama 'System of Care' " as a model, rather than a spectacular failure. They claim on their website, "The rate at which children are taken from their homes is among the lowest in the country, and re-abuse of children left in their own homes has been cut sharply."
What not one of these so-called advocacy groups has done is define the terms for which they advocate.

Some call for sterilization of certain populations.  Instead of reviewing the social policies that have generated cognitively and economically challenged populations, in the best interest of children, the call to action is preemptive genocide.

Then there are groups that fail to examine the lack of transparency and accountability in the financial administration of child welfare.  Instead of calling for the end of double-billing, false claims, kiddy kickbacks, and other forms of fraud, they advocate for an expansion of the current workforce.

The parental rights groups work towards empowering a right to a non-descriptive animus that never was granted that right.  Parents do not possess rights, individuals do.  Parenting is a privilege, not a right, and as such, cannot be empowered.  Parens patriae is the reference of a grant that was given to the States, not parents.  (I have investigated this in depth in my upcoming publication.)  The term parent is so broad, that it encompasses ancillary classifications of consanguinity, further disrupting the authoritative definition of a parents.  Parental rights groups are extremely arbitrary as to whom may qualify for this descriptive.

What this does is set up failure as the parental rights advocacy does not establish any legal litmus tests on such simple questions of "what is a parent". Is it a foster parent,  grandparent, or the state.  The state has rights as a parent and these groups neglect this established power.

Family rights groups cannot come to agreement on the definition of a family. These groups claim a family is defined as a man and a woman.  Some of these groups will take it a step further and claim that the relationship must be one through marriage.  Issues are raised to destroy the recognition of anyone, be it a single mother, father, grandmother/grandfather (divorced or widow) even those who raise children from the GLBT communities, from being classified as a family.

To take it a step further, these family rights groups do not support individuals raising children who are poor, using the term "unfit", where the term "unfit" is grounds for termination of parental rights.

The solutions are quite simple, and I believe it comes from the economic concepts of free market. 
Maximizing the benefits of transparency and accountability in the financial operations of child welfare will provide for the reinvestment of society.

We, the people created this dysfunctional child welfare system.  We, the people can demand transparency and accountability through the right to demand checks and balances.  Whether it is through the qui tam, reanimation of the State Medicaid Fraud Control Units, more aggressive activities of H.E.A.T, nothing will ever happen until we >a href="">expose the industry for what it is, a culture of fraud, waste and abuse.  Let the child welfare market purge itself.

I do not promote nor advocate a culture of hate rhetoric, but if one chooses to hate me, make sure you use my first and last name, including my link:

Beverly Tran
An Original Source
Post a Comment