Do you think the minimum parenting standards should be raised in your area?

Question

I read an article today about DCFS and it left me horrified for the child in this situation that nothing could be done because the parents are meeting the minimum parenting standards for their area.

My state has just about the same laws and it makes me feel sad for those children who are living like this.. I just can't understand how this isn't considered unsafe for the child with the rodents in the house.. just because the child has food and a roof over their head doesn't make this safe 🤦‍♀️

Accepted Answer

I don’t see how rat infestation, fecal matter, and urine soaked blankets qualify as ‘protection from physical, mental, and emotional harm’ ... they seem pretty harmful to me...
I feel like this is the system failing these children.

Answer

I think the definition of physical harm needs to be expanded....being surrounded by rodents that can bite and carry diseases and being wrapped in soiled blankets which can create sores and also cause diseases, doesn't sound to me like the child is safe from physical harm. 
I also think the definition of mental and emotional harm should be expanded as well. Too many kids are victims to mental and emotional abuse but they aren't removed because it's not "bad enough" I guess, and in this instance, again, the child would constantly be fighting off rodents and trying to avoid being bit which I feel like would be incredibly emotionally taxing. 
I do think that sanitary living conditions should be a part of minimum parenting standards, as well. I don't mean that people should have their kids taken away because there's a spider on their wall or anything like that but conditions like what's described above don't sound like safe living conditions for a child.

Answer

I feel like there is physical harm in this case. Poop on the floor can and will make the child sick! It’s harmful to breath in which can cause respiratory issues

Answer

THE CHILD WAS UNRESPONSIVE, and they think that everything they encountered met the “minimum parenting requirements”?! Yes they provided food and shelter for the child; but urine, faeces, infestations, and the fact the child was UNRESPONSIVE in that “shelter”, does not seem like a place the child should be.

Answer

I have mixed emotions about this.  Part of this (the electricity, lack of sheets, and rodents) could be due to lack of money. You can’t remove children because the parents are poor, but you can offer services and resources in order to help the parents meet those basic needs (and then if the parents accept the help, all is well).  
But the part about the kid covered in urine. Is that due to lack of money for diapers? Or due to lack of caring for the child (possibly due to drugs or mental health issues)? 
The feces on the floor though? That’s unacceptable. That has nothing to do with socioeconomic status and is obviously a clear health/safety hazard, particularly for a child of that age who still might put things in their mouth. I’ve worked for CPS before, and have removed children for being in that type of situation.  And other times parents have been given a chance to clean up (with children voluntarily elsewhere in the meantime) without court ordered removal of the kids. (It depends on the other risk factors within the family/the bigger picture). 
But the bottom line is that it sounds like this particular agency (each state operates differently) is taking their definitions a bit too literally. So while minimum parenting standards don’t necessarily need to be raised, the agency does need to exercise some common sense here.

Answer

I dont see how the situation described meets the minimim standards in any way 
But just to play devil's advocate for a moment, unfortunately it isnt as simple as raising the standards and removing a child from a home. CPS then has the responsibility to place them in a group or foster home, and the foster system is overloaded as is. There's a reason CPS's number one goal is to keep families together as long as there is no sign of neglect or abuse 
But in the specific situation described, I would definitely think that qualifies as neglect and the children should be removed

Answer

I dont think the lack of electricity is the issue. You can get along fine without power. The rest of that is what's the problem. 
They seem to be taking it issue by issue instead of in totality

Answer

You know.... now that I know that this is a thing my childhood is making a fuckton more of sense and it pisses me off. If you dont have the common sense the lord gave a lime enough to know that rats, piss soaked floors, and whatever the fuck isnt a suitable living environment for a kid you shouldn't be in charge of kids. 👏 the system failed me and my siblings and will continue to fail until it is looked at in depth. This shit isnt acceptable. Fuck their bare "minimum parenting" expectations.  "Minimum parenting" is a fancy phrase for acceptable neglect apparently. This makes me nauseous.

Answer

Absolutely. Dcfs is a joke

Answer

Wow this is disgusting poor children😔

Do you think the minimum parenting standards should be raised in your area?

The Top Baby Tracker App: Embrace New Beginnings with Tender Care

The Top Fertility Tracker App: Your Path to Achieving Pregnancy

The Top Pregnancy App: Nurturing Your Journey to Motherhood

The Top Period Tracker for Empowering Your Menstrual Health Journey