Child removed from family because she was loved too much

WTSP Channel 10, Tampa ^ | 12-05-02 | WTSP

[RGSpincich]

Presumably, the child in this story is having some visitation with her mom on a regular basis. That is the norm anyway. I know for a fact that a bond is created and sustained between parent and child even if their only physical contact is biweekly. That is, if the custodial party is willing to allow the child to express thoughts and have favorable feelings towards that parent. Many a child in this country is not living with one of their natural parents yet most maintain strong bonds with the absent parent. I have sole custody of a son who sees his mom maybe once a month because of distance, very strong bond. I don't like her much and she is not a fit mom but he likes her so we encourage his love for his mother. It is wrong to assume that the little girl has not or could not bond well with her mother. In the right enviroment she and her mom would do fine, bonding wise.

[GovernmentShrinker]

It all depends on the details, of course. This kid is two years old and has been out of her mom's custody for at least 11 months. A previously established bond can be maintained with bi-weekly visits, but it's not clear if such a bond exists, and with a child that age, I doubt that a meaningful new bond can be established on such a schedule. If the mom was strung out on drugs and ignoring the baby during its first year, there may not be any real pre-existing bond. Remember the story earlier this week about the drug-head mom who had her twin infant sons strapped in car seats and stashed in the attic, where they were being gnawed on by rats? -- those two probably had a stronger bond with the rats than with their mother (but thank God they had each other).

My guiding principle is that children shouldn't be taken from their parents for any significant length of time, without a legitimate, due-process jury trial, in a real courtroom, in front of a real judge. But once the parent(s)' guilt has been duly established (whether of child abuse/neglect, or of some other crime that entails a prison term and thus necessarily means the parent is not available to care for the child), the child's best interests ought to be paramount. The adults had a chance to keep their behavior within the bounds of the law, but once they've been found by due process to have blown it, we need to stop feeling sorry for the adults and worry about the much more vulnerable children.

[MattAMiller]

Are we really supposed to stired to frothing by a four paragraph article. It isn't like local news outlets are given to a sober unemotional accounting of events.

OK so appearently this girl is now being sent to live with a junkie mother. That's bad. But lets consider the role of parental rights advocates in this mess.

Yeah, yeah I know it's a Marxist plot. Everything thing's a Marxist plot. And Hillary Clinton sits at the center of it all. And when a kid is taken from his parents and given to his aunt then it will be the same thing.

[RGSpincich]

I think this is where your "guiding principal" and your "bonding" theory collide. No mention of the mom being convicted of anything and the child was removed from her care. Thus unfairly, in your opinion. So the mom should retain her place in her child's life because she has not been convicted of anything in the manner that you describe. However, it is a fact that the child and mom are not together and your position seems to be that the child should be allowed to bond with other adults because she probably didn't have much of a bond with mom anyway. Your two positions don't seem compatible.

[fightinJAG]

"The system" won't allow the aunt and uncle to petition to TPR. "The system" alone has the power to decide if the child should be put on the adoption track and "the system" is focused on "family reunification," i.e. return to birth mother almost no matter what.

These people should read up on Reactive Attachment Disorder. By deliberately breaking a child's bonds, and bonding mechanisms, they are permanently damaging these kids and making it very difficult for them to achieve successful relationships in adulthood.

That's why you see so many second- and third-generation foster kids.

[fightinJAG]

What is My Dog Skip about?

[fightinJAG]

kids without a conscience become very dangerous adults. And unhappy ones, too.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

"Why have we let this happen?"

Because "we" as a nation have gotten lazy. We actually believed what the morons who run our government at every level say and thought they would do what's right. It is our own fault for not being more vigilant. And sadly there is a majority out there that is more worried about the prime time tv lineup than the day to day evil the government commits on the population. It is very, very sad.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

I tend to agree with your statements most of all. There are too many "tin horn dictators" as you call them who get a little power and receive bonuses based on the numbers they process rather than the quality of care the child receives. It's the result of 20 years of 60's style socialist indoctrination in our universities, and it's only getting worse.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

Ah, yes...the "it takes a village" mentality.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

" Are we really supposed to stired to frothing by a four paragraph article. It isn't like local news outlets are given to a sober unemotional accounting of events."

Read my original comments before spouting off. I watched the 5 minute feature on the news. What pissed me off was the refusal by the DCF and the judge's office to reply to the media. It's hard not to get emotional about an issue 3 weeks before Christmas when a child is removed for the most absurd reason. Or perhaps you prefer the Chicom model and would love to just open up slave labor camps so we can keep our industrial base within our borders?

"OK so appearently this girl is now being sent to live with a junkie mother."

No, she's being sent to another set of foster parents. Read all the posts before spouting off.

"That's bad. But lets consider the role of parental rights advocates in this mess."

The mother is not fit to take care of the child yet per the judge and the DCF, FYI.

"Yeah, yeah I know it's a Marxist plot. Everything thing's a Marxist plot. And Hillary Clinton sits at the center of it all. And when a kid is taken from his parents and given to his aunt then it will be the same thing."

Congratulations. You have the DU whine down just like the best of that board. Why don't you just encourage the development of a slave labor system so in this manner these "problem" children won't have to be part of the system? It seems you have that Christian care and concern angle down to a science. And you are a major putz.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

And to think that we just used to laugh at Palm Beach County. It would appear the West Coast of Florida has become just as warped but at least we know how to vote. I think my time in our beautiful state is limited now, at least until I see how much our taxes skyrocket because ot the pro-classroom and pro-rail amendment morons.

[aruanan]

Judge Frank Gomez says the little girl’s aunt and uncle loved the two-year-old too much and did not belong with the family.

The judge said the aunt and uncle didn't belong with the family?

[Nuke'm Glowing]

" The judge said the aunt and uncle didn't belong with the family?"

Yes, after the Florida DCF advised the court.

[RGSpincich]

Brace yourself, it looks like they are doing it again.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

The *video* is heart-wrenching!!!!! What is JEB's email address? I'm so infuriated--I cannot imagine JEB would stand for this!! I can't even see the long list of things I need to do today, until I know that he is made aware of this! I just emailed Hannity, O', and Shep.

At least this reporter looks to be invested in getting to the truth here. Can you believe the DCF folks told the camera crew to go away, and that they had no business putting this in the media!?

[RGSpincich]

If the child is able to bond with the aunt and uncle, she will then be able to transfer that bond to her mother.

I think the judge sees the aunt and uncle as obstructing a bond with the mother now.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

YES! That is an important point!!! And a valid one at that!

I just emailed Jeb & his folks, too.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

Oh, and one point I forgot to make...this *is* family, and a blood relation that this child is/has bonded with.

I can see that we agree this motion is an injustice, but to the others who side with the ruling...since when is bonding with a blood relation a crime?