Posted on 07/18/2009 10:46:43 AM PDT by SmithL
Little Gavin Mills, the 4-year-old panhandler who evoked so much sympathy and concern from San Franciscans, has been taken from his parents by Child Protective Services.
It is an incredibly difficult decision to take a child away from his mother and father, but in this case it is the right choice.
"Gavin deserves a chance in life," said Mary Long, who began a crusade to improve Gavin's and his mother Toni's life after seeing them at the Embarcadero BART Station. "He wasn't getting one being used as a panhandler tool by his chronically homeless mom."
City officials say the family was repeatedly offered beds, services and child care. But their offers, they say, were rebuffed, and people like Long kept seeing Gavin panhandling.
Gavin's parents, Eric and Toni, came to The Chronicle Friday to complain about columns I've written about Gavin. They would not speak on the record, but their point was that they love their son and are making every effort to get him back.
Erica Kisch is executive director of Compass Community Services, which works with homeless families. She said panhandling can earn quick cash whereas the wait to get housing can take months.
Christi Foist, a commuter from the East Bay, tried to connect the family with a friend in a church charity group. When that didn't work out, in January she cashed in JetBlue tickets to fly all three of them back to West Leechburg, Pa., where Eric's parents, Tom and Florence Mills, live.
Florence said when they arrived she was hoping to get some help for the family and that they could stay with them.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The public schools ask the kids to sell so much junk, it’s not much different than this kid except you won’t be able to keep the money. If the kids don’t participate, they make them feel guilty.
Read the whole article. The kid’s parents seem to prefer the “homeless” lifestyle. They are clearly immune to offers of help and employment. No mention of drug addiction, though.
The comments for the article point out that this sort of thing is routine in oh-so-sophisticated Europe.
I guess homelessness is a crime worthy of having your kid taken away now? I am not comfortable with that.
Serious child endangerment, yes, chronic drug abuse, yes, serious neglect, yes, serious abuse, yes.
I am not sure this kids was endangered, neglected, or abused. And the article seems to say there was no drug abuse?
He was not out in public panhandling on his own. He was with his mom. I don’t approve, but I don’t know that it is in his best interests to take him from his parents.
No drug abuse. No alcoholism. No child abuse. No lack of clothes, food or cleanliness. But when CPS decides to play snatch-the-kid, due process falls on it's face and people have to answer to a bunch of ignorant, arrogant social workers to get their child back.
It's right out of Kafka - prove your "plan" is worth geting your kid back, when you're not told what's wrong with your "plan" except that it "upsets" social workers - who got their degrees by discussing the age at which blowjobs should be taught in elementary schools, how many innoculations a kid can get at the same time before it's immune system collapses, and when irritation at being taught to be a passive, feminized boy-girl requires ritalin to crush the kid's remaining resistance against the destruction of his developing manhood.
Other than this case, of course, panhandlers are a protected, "understood" group in SF. But when social workers need a publicity fix, need to ram forward that the State is the ultimate parent, or are just in a bad mood, you better hide the children - because once they snatch them, these monsters never, ever give them back.
And the dirty little secret of these sickos is that what they love most is the terror that they create in parents everywhere. Because to liberals, there is no bliss higher than unlimited destruction in the name of helping. It's pure nectar.
/rant
I’m sure that even a superficial investigation revealed more problems. Like lack of medical care, lack of regular schooling (whether in a school or at “home”), etc. He’s being used as a sympathy-generating prop to boost his irresponsible, lazy parents’ panhandling income. And there’s no actual confirmation of drug or alcohol abuse (at least not in the article), but it seems very unlikely that one or both parents isn’t involved in drugs and/or alcohol abuse. And where are they sleeping? If they’re *ever* sleeping outside in an urban area, it’s extremely dangerous for the blond, blue-eyed little boy, who’d be a prime target for kidnapping by pedophiles/pimps/child porn producers.
As for lack of regular schooling, he is 4. Compulsory education age is 6 in CA.
I’m sorry, but when you use your own child as a begging prop you’ve just blown it. They obviously don’t give a damn about him. He’s just lucky they didn’t blind him to make him more pathetic like in “Slumdog Millionaire.”
Yup. The next stage is the parents renting him out to pedophiles.
I have no sympathy for the parents. I think they are doing something wrong. I am just not certain I think the child should be taken from them. He will just go into foster care. That is not necessarily a better thing for him.
I can’t support taking a child from his parents except in the most extreme of circumstances. This doesn’t seem extreme enough, for me.
I also don’t like the state deciding they can take kids just because they don’t like a certain lifestyle. I don’t like that lifestyle, either, but it’s not illegal.
You have a point there. The only thing worse than his present situation would be Foster Care Hell.
He’s not being abused or molested now, but if turned over to the state, he will be eventually.
City officials say the family was repeatedly offered beds, services and child care. But their offers, they say, were rebuffedA little later:
Erica Kisch is executive director of Compass Community Services, which works with homeless families. She said panhandling can earn quick cash whereas the wait to get housing can take months.Hey Erica -- Is that really "works with" homeless families? Or should it be more correctly phrased "makes excuses for" homeless families? How many months did it take these parents to rebuff the repeated offers to get them off the streets? It seems to me that they're in their current situation entirely because of their own choices.
Not providing for the child and wanting others to do it is more than neglect. It should be a capital offense.
I’ve since done some googleing.....seems like the homeless numbers are pretty similar in the US and Europe. I guess I live in the “wrong” part of Europe - don’t see many here, anyway ;-). I must take back my earlier statement, though.
Just remember, his alternative is apparently foster care.
Many foster parents are excellent. Many are far worse than these parents. It’s a crap shoot.
To put a child on the street at the age of four is not being a parent. Both of the clowns should be fixed so they cannot have any more, and the kid has a much better chance at life without them.
I’m not condoning what the parents did. The child was not left unsupervised. Had he been, I’d be 100% in favor of CPS, here.
Forced sterilization?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.