The question isn’t whether a child not reading is grounds for taking a child.
THe grounds for taking the child is clear. The child is being kept by a unrelated, unknown party who had no legal basis for holding the child. The adult in possession of the child was a kidnapper.
My discussion of the child’s abuse was merely to note that the child was NOT being cared for in an appropriate manner, so there was no valid argument to be made that the child was actually better off with this adult who had kidnapped the child.
It is probable that the adult knew the child was kidnapped because the adult kept the child out of school and hid the child when authorities came. So I don’t think you can argue that the adult had no idea there was a problem and thought they had legally obtained the child.
It’s not even the case that the mother attempted to legally transfer custody of the child to this unrelated woman. The mother gave up the child to the grandmother, the state (for reasons unknown) too custody of the child from the grandmother, and the sisters of the mother ran off with the child during a scheduled visitation.
My original argument was that it didn’t seem a typical case of CPS abuse (realising we don’t know the original reason for the child being removed from the grandmother’s care). You argued that it was equally likely (in the sense that mine was conjecture) that the family were evangelicals who were taking great care of the child against the wishes of an evil government CPS.
The further facts I have found I believe clearly show that my scenario is still more likely than your scenario, and that whatever reason they had for taking the child, the child has suffered because of it.
Girls tend to start reading earlier than boys. You are right, it isn’t “normal” for a child to read at age 3, but girls whose parents work specifically on reading skills can often be reading before they turn 4. I know my son took a lot longer to read, but by 5 he was able to read the words in age-appropriate books.
The question is what do they mean when they say she can’t read. Often, that means they don’t recognize words at all. If that is the case, most children by 3 are recognizing individual words, and by 7, teaching basic reading is a remedial step.
I was fortunate that my daughter started reading at a very young age, AND she loved it, so she has been reading all her life.
My son was average, and also didn’t like reading for a long time, so it was always work to get him to finish his reading assignments. But eventually, he became an avid reader himself, and now at 14 is always carrying at least one book with him.
It’s nice having kids who put books on their birthday lists. But I don’t think it was my special parenting skills, I think it’s just normal if you teach kids to read that they will be fascinated with the world of imagination it opens up.
So I guess when I read that a parent has cut their child off from that world, I see it as abusive. A child who is behind in reading will be disadvantaged in everything they try to do in life.
BTW, and again the real story is what happened back in 2003 when the child was taken away, but the kid wasn’t up for adoption, she was in foster care.
If the family was really interested in the best welfare of the child, and this family that had the child was really a good family for the child to be placed with, they should have pursued a legal adoption.
Then the adults wouldn’t have been guilty of kidnapping, the juveniles wouldn’t have had to break the law, and the child could have lived a normal life, not one where they were hidden and kept from school and kept ignorant.
And the child wouldn’t now be taken from another parent-figure that she has had for 6 years. I know that is a tragedy, but that’s what happens when you kidnap a child, the child suffers. We don’t award the kidnapper because we feel sorry for the child.