What Is The libertarian Alternative to Child Protective Services

[raystone]

We've all read the occasional news story of an idiotic child protective service agent taking a child away in error.... because of a vindictive neighbor report, or just an obvious error in judgment on the part of CPS.

But about the genuine cases of child abuse ? Parental rights you say ?

Let's say you observe a parent holding a 6 year old's hand on a hot burner, or dipping it in boiling water.

Or, a wife knows her husband is raping their 10 year old daughter on a daily basis.

Crack mom has a baby, takes baby home to breast feed while continuing doing crack. (breast milk contains everything mom puts in body).

These, of course, are actual cases, and just a small sample. It gets much worse.



EDIT: I understand there are laws in place to charge the parent with assault, etc. Take an example of the hot burner case. The parent will be charged with say, 2nd degree assault. Assume he or she is convicted and spends time in jail with fine. Then the parent is released and back at home with child. Then, another case of assault isn't witnessed for the next 2 years, but the assault continues every day. More burnings, shocks, punches to areas of body where bruises can't be seen. The kind of severe abuse you read about occassionally.

[torchbearer]

What would you do if it was one adult hurting another?
Call the police.

[Truth Warrior]

The child is not the property of the parents, nor of the states.

[angelatc]

Family, neighborhoods and churches.

Those entities that government is desperately trying to replace.

[raystone]

What would you do if it was one adult hurting another?
Call the police.


The child is not the property of the parents, nor of the states.

Please see edit to original post.


Family, neighborhoods and churches.

Those entities that government is desperately trying to replace.


Consider the non church going family, without relatives nearby. And after one friend causes the assault charge, no more visits from friends are happening.

[Minarchy4Sale]

vigilant neighbors

[cska80]

vigilant neighbors

And male family members with balls who can take care of the situation by lending a beat down.

[trey4sports]

CPS is far from perfect, but I do believe that it is needed in some form.

[Kludge]

Everyone is the property of the state, less there is truly government by consent, which is not by mere representation in government, but by true voluntaryism (commune-ities within an anarchic United States), which is entirely impractical in a land mass as large as the United States.

[heavenlyboy34]

CPS is far from perfect, but I do believe that it is needed in some form.

How about a private charity that serves similar functions but is run on donations and is subject to public scrutiny and market forces? ;):D:) Laissez faire FTW!

[Truth Warrior]

Everyone is the property of the state, less there is truly government by consent, which is not by mere representation in government, but by true voluntaryism (commune-ities within an anarchic United States), which is entirely impractical in a land mass as large as the United States. Who OWNS you? Which state(s)?

[Kludge]

Who OWNS you? Which state(s)?

The township of Spring Arbor, the county of Jackson, the state of Michigan, the United States federal government as well as all people unjustly granted privileges over me by the government.

[Truth Warrior]

The township of Spring Arbor, the county of Jackson, the state of Michigan, the United States federal government as well as all people unjustly granted privileges over me by the government. The key word there is "unjustly".<IMHO> Null and void. ;)

You are sovereign.

[Kludge]

The key word there is "unjustly".<IMHO> Null and void. ;)

You are sovereign.

I'd like to be sovereign. Unfortunately (for me, at least ;)), I'm just another U.S. citizen.

I could declare sovereignty, but if I am not killed, I'll be imprisoned.

[Truth Warrior]

I'd like to be sovereign. Unfortunately (for me, at least ;)), I'm just another U.S. citizen.

I could declare sovereignty, but if I am not killed, I'll be imprisoned. You roll your dice, and take your chances. Life is a risk. No way around it.<IMHO> I've never seen a guarantee of otherwise. ;)

[Epic]

There should be no CPS. Free Market will handle it. You are a bad person --> people won't do business with you.

I should add that in the event of actual abuse in a voluntaryist society, it can be referred to whatever justice system has evolved.

[NYgs23]

My opinion: Every human being, from conception until natural death, is a person and possesses the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. However, the exercise of liberty is predicated on the possession of free will, which is predicated on the possession of reason. Certain individuals do not have the mental capacity to possess reason. This includes mentally retarded, deranged, senile, or brain dead people, as well as young children. There are common law precedents to help determine the specifics, such as the concept of "testamentary capacity" in the making of wills. So we see that the problem of children, is not a problem of children specifically, but all people lacking reason. These individuals require a proxy to protect their rights for them--that is to say, a legal guardian. Normally, in a free society, the legal guardian would be the same as the natural guardian, which would typically be the next of kin, which in the case of unreasoning children is their parents. Parents act as the guardian of the child until the child is mature enough to exercise his rights independently.

However, reason is not something that simply goes on like a switch after a certain age. The statutory "line in the sand" of eighteen, sixteen, or whenever is irrational. People come into possession of reason gradually and at different rates. It is, therefore, fallacious to discuss when a child is "old" enough to be independent. It is more accurate to talk about when a child is "mature" enough. Normally, in a free society, ideas about when children become mature enough to exercise their rights independently of the parents would be mostly to the discretion of the parents themselves, but regulated by social norms, organically developed. Parents would normally decide when their children would be allowed to work, enter contracts, etc, but it would be unlikely that most parents would try to prevent their children from exercising such rights until the were thirty or something, because social norms would be against it. In exceptional cases, young people would be able to go to a private court of arbitration, and demonstrate their capacity for reason and therefore their capacity to exercise their rights independently of the parents. The same thing, I might add, with all people suspected to lack mental capability. There would be precedents regarding all of this, and likely they would err of the side of assuming that the person is capable of exercising his rights. In fact, the very fact that the person was able to go to court and make such a claim would be evidence that they could take care of themselves.

But what about situations in which the person really is mentally incapable (a "child" or some other individual), but is having their rights violated by their guardian? That is: what if they are being abused or neglected? Again, these would likely be exceptional cases due to social norms and expectations and again, there is a whole foundation of common law precedents dealing with this. What you would need would be a party who would file a claim on behalf of the child to find that the guardian (the parent or next of kin) was violating the rights of the ward. In many such cases, individuals surrounding the family, like friends or extended family members would be involved. Also, there would probably be organizations (call them Child Protection Organzations or CPOs) dedicated to seeking out such cases and dealing with them. They could be churches, non-profits or even for-profit charities. Probably, if a CPO believed that the rights of a child were being violated by his parents, it would first try to convince the parent to willingly give up the child to a relative or form some other compromise. This would be easier and, since this would be a private organization, it would have to be scrupulously cautious; pushy or domineering CPOs would be isolated by the community. Only if the parent was both abusive and unwilling to relinquish guardianship of the child, would the CPO file a claim on behalf on the child in a court. Private courts, too, would have to be extremely cautious before actually ordering a parent to relinquish control of a child: the abuse would have to be clear. Even in these cases, all effort would be to place the child with the next closest natural guardian: a close relative, even the other parent, a godparent, a neighbor. Indeed, precedents might make this automatic. There might be a whole order of precedence laid out not by any statute, but by a common law, with orphanages and foster homes connected with the CPO at the very bottom of the list. All this would happen not by magic, but because private courts and CPOs would have competitors and would have a incentive to maintain their reputations before the community as a whole.

[tangent4ronpaul]

CPS is just plain EVIL!

How many here knew that the federal government pays CPS a $2,000 bounty for each child they abduct?

http://www.fightcps.com/oldsite/general.htm (Links to MANY sites)
http://www.bountylicenserecovery.com/cpswatch.html
http://cpswatch.meetup.com/
http://www.geocities.com/robbi01/cps-abuse.html (Links to MANY sites)
http://legallykidnapped.blogspot.com/
http://www.hereinreality.com/childprotection/links.html

-t

[CMoore]

CPS is just plain EVIL!

How many here knew that the federal government pays CPS a $2,000 bounty for each child they abduct?



I knew this. It is called the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Walter Mondale sponsored it when he was in the senate back in the 70's. More recent modifications mandate that paternal rights must be terminated if the children can't be safely placed back with the parents within 22 months. Of course guess who decides whether or not it is safe to put the kids back with the parents? It is suppose to be the judge, but he/she usually goes along with the recomendation of the state agencies.

It has turned state child welfare agencies into child snatching operations. If you go to family court and look at the crowd it is mostly African American. This is because these children are classified as 'special needs' and more difficult to adopt, hence the bounty amount is increased.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Does the State have a claim on the child if there is no birth certificate?

[CMoore]

Yes. They don't need no stinking birth certificate. They just come and get the kid. Period. Parents literally have NO legal rights in these situations. There is only minimal due process. The agency does have to go before a judge within 72 hours. But guess what? The judge just rubber stamps the agency. They will keep the kids until Hell freezes over. Once they have them for 22 months, they will petition to terminate the parental right of the parents so they can adopt the kids out. The parents may get to see the kids for an hour a week if they are lucky.

When the revolution comes, these people will the among the first against the wall.

[TastyWheat]

Litigation? If you believe someone is abusing their child then tell take them to court or drop the case if and when they give up the child to a relative or foster home. I'm of the ilk that believes lawsuits should be able to be filed by anyone against anyone for any reason, so long as the defendant can countersue for an equal or greater amount (i.e. loser pays). It's not always likely for the child to rat on his/her parents for abuse, but in those cases charges should be filed and an appropriate alternative home should be found.