Should a blind or deaf woman be allowed to keep her baby from birth? How about a woman with a low IQ? Cerebral Palsy? Religious Fundamentalist? Opposed to vaccines? Homeless? A 16 year old mother?
I’m sure some of you will be horrified that I am asking the question, but these are questions which social workers asked of judges. Not only have parents lost their children to foster “Care” for these reasons, many have also lost their children to Forced Adoption for even sillier reasons.
We often see the question; “Why not license the right to a child, we do it for dogs?” Are we really that far away from the State issuing licenses to get pregnant or to raise a child? Let’s not forget that China has already done this in an effort to reduce its population. The result was a whole generation of males and female babies killed or put up for adoption. What will happen when these boys grow up and want to start a family?
Eugenics has never worked. Although many think about the Lebensborn Program of Nazi Germany, Eugenics actually started in the USA with the concept that poverty or undesirable traits could be “bred out” of society by preventing poor people from having children. Sociology is the new form of Eugenics. The theory is that social “Scientists”, have the ability to be able to control society. The reality is that Sociology has no history of excellence, there is no evidence of any social experiment having worked to the benefit of society, none, ever. Sociology is not “scientific” by any means or standard. The country of Japan dropped Sociology from its university curriculum, and bear in mind that Japan has the lowest crime rate of any country.
Many are starting to realise that the only value of Sociology is in advocacy. In Child “Protection”, the theory is that social workers intervene as Advocates, but have the weapon of Prosecutor of families if necessary. The reality is that there is no advocacy, social workers jump by default to take all children away. The false dogma of “damned if we do, damned if we don’t” eliminates any need to keep families together. Nobody gets damned for doing their job competently or acting within the law. The false narrative of social workers being persecuted for their successes is wearing thin. By playing the victim card, social workers draw people to their side, its an age-old strategy. They cite the Baby P case as evidence that social workers are persecuted, but seem to forget that it was their incompetence and inability to determine the correct intervention, that led to the death of Baby Peter. There were 60 visits to Baby Peters home by “Professionals”, 18 by social workers alone. To me this is proof-positive that social workers wouldn’t recognise child abuse and neglect if they sat in the livingroom 18 times and watched it happen, but didn’t see the threshold being met.
We should never accept the victim narrative at face value and flock to their side without first examining the evidence. Human Nature by default makes us take the side of the victim, but many times we are proven wrong on examination of the evidence. I have repeatedly stated that we need to take a Scientific Approach, especially to the Investigative Process. There is nothing scientific in the approach taken by social workers in Child Protection matters. In fact social workers don’t even do investigations, they do “Assessments”. By using flawed guidelines, we are asking social workers to do a job that nobody will ever be capable of. When you bear in mind that the vast majority of children are “care” on the basis of nothing more than future “risk”, you would have to agree with UK politician John Hemming, that; “this is the Thought Police” approach to protecting children.
Rather than removing babies at birth on future risk, why not help the parent or parents to raise their child? 50 years ago it would be unthinkable to remove the child of a disabled person, but now that the narrative that you can remove a child from “A” and give that child to “B” without consequences for the child, a false narrative, has taken over, many disabled people will lose their child. Worse yet, many children of disabled or less-abled parents will lose their parents. We need to stop thinking that children will survive “Care” or Adoption. The evidence is clear, children do better with parents and the State is the worst parent imaginable.