I agree with QM. This woman has shown a demonstratable inability to care for her children. 6 are in foster homes without the ability to be adopted (because she hasn't given them up, they were taken and she hasn't relinquished rights). This means that they don't have the stability that kids need to be mentally and emotionally healthy. The 7th has been essentially foisted off on a relative.
The judge isn't saying she isn't allowed to have kids, but that until she demonstrates the ability to take care of the kids she has, she isn't allowed to have any more. I think that is fair. When she can reclaim her kids from social services and hold on to them, she can have more if she wants.
The fact that the youngest ones were born with cocaine in their system just adds fuel to the fire for me. Children born from addicts often have problems (brain issues, low birth weight, addiction, etc.) so trying to get her cleaned up before she has other kids is a GoodThing in my opinion, however, that is independent of the basic idea. If you have children you are supposed to take responsible care of them (if not, social services will step in). If you fail at your responsibilities, you should not be allowed to try again.
If a person is convicted of severe animal neglect, they can be banned from getting more of that animal. Is that any more an infringement on rights?
I would like to see people who are in over their heads (like this woman seems to be) given the option of free depoprova or something like that which IS reversable but long-term and effective (heck, I wouldn't be above offering free sterilization if that is what she wants).
I do wonder where the 7 fathers in this are. Do any of them contribute toward the care of their child (or his/her half-sibs)? If not, why not and what (if anything) is being done to get them to?
Re: toughie
The judge isn't saying she isn't allowed to have kids, but that until she demonstrates the ability to take care of the kids she has, she isn't allowed to have any more. I think that is fair. When she can reclaim her kids from social services and hold on to them, she can have more if she wants.
The fact that the youngest ones were born with cocaine in their system just adds fuel to the fire for me. Children born from addicts often have problems (brain issues, low birth weight, addiction, etc.) so trying to get her cleaned up before she has other kids is a GoodThing in my opinion, however, that is independent of the basic idea. If you have children you are supposed to take responsible care of them (if not, social services will step in). If you fail at your responsibilities, you should not be allowed to try again.
If a person is convicted of severe animal neglect, they can be banned from getting more of that animal. Is that any more an infringement on rights?
I would like to see people who are in over their heads (like this woman seems to be) given the option of free depoprova or something like that which IS reversable but long-term and effective (heck, I wouldn't be above offering free sterilization if that is what she wants).
I do wonder where the 7 fathers in this are. Do any of them contribute toward the care of their child (or his/her half-sibs)? If not, why not and what (if anything) is being done to get them to?