Original_To:  BITNET%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:00:00 CDT
From:         "Love does not subtract, it multiplies." <HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Divorce from Parents?

<   I find it very dangerous to fall in love with the idea of taking a
<child from his natural home and putting him in another simply because
<it seems happier.  First of all, things are not always what they
<seem.

In this instance, we have a case of a kid whose biological mother saw him seven
months out of the last three years, who had next to no contact with the child
during the time, who neglected the child and exposed him to an abusive
household during the time she did have him.  When he did see her, he didn't
know who she was.

On the other end of the equation, the kid was placed in a foster home where he
was loved and well treated (not: this does not equal money, see below) for
several years.

What possible justification can you offer for returning this child to his
biological mother?

<Second, if we are to judge the worth of families strictly on
<the basis of alternatives, we would be splitting up half the country.
<There are countless poor, dysfunctional homes out there, and plenty
<of rich, happier ones that might open their doors.

In the child's own words, this isn't about money.  He said (this is a
paraphrase): "I;m not doing this because she wouldn't buy me a nintendo.  She
_had_ a nintendo."

<   Also, lets remember that while the idea of kids "divorcing" their
<parents may be fine from a children's rights point of view, few, if
<any, children are going to go out there and hire a lawyer themselves.
<There will almost always be an adult involved.
<   Which raises the question of motive.
<   How many of us, even innocently, have remarked on someone else's
<parenting techniques?  How many of us have privately thought that we
<could do better?
<   Now, after the Kingsley case, it may strictly be a case of
<convincing a child of the same thing -- and getting him or her a
<lawyer.  You can see the potential problems.  A rich, religious
<family, seeing what it feels is a poor, godless home, deciding to
<take matters into its own hands.
<  "Would you like to live with us?"  the family might ask one of the
<children.  "You can, you know..."

There are several flaws in this analogy:

A) Children are already taken out of abusive homes and placed into foster care.
That is how Gregory Kingsley wound up with his foster home in the first place.
What is different here is that Gregory's opinion on whether he should be
returned to his mother or stay with the foster family is taken into account.

B) Kingsley was not taken because her was poor.  Child services first
investigated his home and took him because his alcoholic father was beating him
and his alcoholic mother was ignoring him.

In the absenbce of documentable abuse, the situation outlined above is far
fetched at best.

NOT EVERYONE SHOULD BE A PARENT

<   The only important issue in the Kingsley case is the boy's natural
<home: Is it safe?  Is it positive?  Does the child have a chance to
<grow up without undue problems?

If the answer to these questions were yes, Gregory would not have been taken in
the first place.

Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU