• TORFdot0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Staff in group homes shouldn’t have to parent those kids. I think that this is where the nuance of the family court system should step in. If the parents are shown unable to care for the child then the court removed them and places them with a foster parent with an improvement plan for the birth parents with an end goal of reunification.

    I agree that in an edge cases like this that there is not a good outcome, but the other side of an edge case like that is the system involuntarily sterilizing or removing children of individuals that are fit to parent because of bias/abuse by the system.

    You can show that someone is unfit to parent and take action via the court with facts but preemptively doing so or preventing it with involuntary sterilization are violations of human rights in my view.

    • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Absolutely, I just wanted to challenge your black and white statement.

      The world is a gray place.

      I also 100% agree that involuntary sterilization has no place in a modern humane society, even if it leads to people who have no ability to care for kids having kids. Because no medical intervention is without risk and incontinence, ED or worse side effects are not worth to even risk. And because of that we will always need foster homes.

      Courts consist of people and people aren't infallible, so we'll always need newspapers and journalists calling them out when shit goes wrong. Checks and balances are needed at every level of human society. And nothing will ever work perfectly.

      Another good thing to keep in mind is that there very rarely are true bad guys out there. The foster parents love and care for that kid and fight to keep it, the bio-parent does as well and the lawyers, judges and jurors try to uphold the law and by extension the fabric of our society. Some have their set interpretation (which you and I might disagree with) of what the law means, sure, but that's mainly because the law was written by humans in human language which just isn't ever going to be perfect, if it was we wouldn't really even need the court system.