The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Mother's Recurring Condemnation of 13-Year-Old Son's Homosexuality as Child Neglect
From In the Matter of Isaiah D., decided last week by Justice Robert Hettleman of the New York Family Court (Kings County):
[The Administration for Children's Services (ACS)] has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. D.W. and Mr. W. neglected the [then-13-year-old] child Isaiah pursuant to FCA § 1012 in the following respects: (1) the parents used excessive corporal punishment on Isaiah on April 5, 2023; (2) the parents failed to allow the child to return to the family home after he was cleared for release from the hospital, and the parents failed to provide a meaningful or sufficient alternative plan; and (3) Ms. D.W. emotionally neglected the child by using anti-gay slurs in front of and towards the child, denigrating his lifestyle, and failing to sufficiently support him in the face of her disapproval.
Here's the emotional neglect analysis:
Emotional and/or verbal abuse can constitute neglect under the Family Court Act, where a respondent's actions place the child at imminent risk of emotional or mental harm. In such circumstances, contrary to the arguments of counsel, child welfare cases do not violate a parent's right to free speech under the First Amendment. Rather, the very nature of Article 10 cases involves a balance between a parent's fundamental right to parent their children as they see fit against the state's interest in protecting children from parenting that fails to meet a minimum standard of reasonableness.
In this case, Isaiah described that his relationship with his parents had deteriorated since he had identified himself as gay. He stated that his parents did not support that kind of lifestyle, that they had locked him out of the home in the past, and that Ms. D.W. had used a "gay slur" towards him during the incident on April 5. He also said his mother had a ritual performed on him involving candles, coconut, eggs, coffee and other items to rid him of being gay.
In court, Ms. D.W. acknowledged that she did "not believe in homosexuality," that the Bible "told her that," and that "god created male and female." When asked whether she ever used a "gay slur," Ms. D.W. responded that she regularly used the term "anti-man." She said this is a common term in her community, that she did not mean to use it in a derogatory way, and that she never used it towards Isaiah. On cross-examination by the AFC, however, she admitted that "the term comes up often," like when they saw things on social media or television, or even in conversations with her own mother. In addition, Ms. D.W. was evasive and inconsistent in her testimony about the role of Isaiah's sexuality in the family dynamic.
At one point, she said she had no idea about his sexuality before April 5, 2023, but throughout her testimony she described her ongoing concerns about his school recruiting him into a "gay cult." Upon questioning from the AFC, she testified that she "was not worried that Isaiah might be gay," but she was worried that the gay cult might turn him into being gay. Then, she said that if she had felt that Isaiah had been taking on any gay "traits," she would have wanted to correct that by talking to him and taking him to a church member.
Immediately after saying this, however, she said that she did, in fact, take these actions prior to the April 5 incident. She denied performing any "ritual" on Isaiah, stating that she is a Christian, but then she rambled on about if she had done "powerful" voodoo, she would not be in court and would be back on her job, "doing what I like." Finally on this topic, she said she "knew" where Isaiah was "getting that from," but she did not elaborate.
Parents are free to choose their own values, beliefs, and religious principles, and they are free to raise their children within those parameters, even if it creates tension or unhappiness. But this does not excuse conduct that rises to the level of neglect. In Matter of Ibraheem K. (Jacqueline N.), 190 AD3d 643 (1st Dept. 2021), the First Department upheld a finding of neglect where the parent threatened to send the child to the Middle East due to the child's sexual orientation, with the implication that the child would be killed for that reason. In Matter of Shane T., 115 Misc 2d 161 (Fam. Ct., Richmond Co., J. Leddy, 8/12/1982), the trial court found that the respondent father neglected the subject child by regularly calling the child a "fag," "queer," "girl," and similar terms. The Judge rejected the parent's explanation that he was trying to "cure" the child of his "girlie behavior." I have not found any other cases in New York State Family Court specifically addressing a parent's beliefs or actions around sexual orientation. Notably, in Ibraheem K., there were also findings that the parent used excessive corporal punishment on the child, which may have factored into the decision, and the Court in Shane T. noted that the child lived in constant physical fear of the respondent.
Returning to the instant matter, I find that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that Ms. D.W. neglected Isaiah by mocking his lifestyle and failing to support him emotionally. Even if her religious beliefs were honestly held and could be considered acceptable parenting, she continued to use anti-gay slurs regularly, including in the presence of the child, and used one directly to him during the April 5 incident.
During this entire time period, Ms. D.W. knew that Isaiah was struggling at school, having behavioral issues at home, and had been hospitalized for mental health problems. Yet she continued to denigrate his sexual orientation, took him to church and coworkers to redirect his thinking, and refused to engage in meaningful and productive ways to understand and work with him.
Her proclaimed supportiveness of him, including even if he were gay, is belied by all of the other evidence in the case. And the detrimental harm to Isaiah is clear from his hospitalization, struggles, and statements in April of 2023, particularly in combination with the parents' excessive corporal punishment on him and failure to take him back home or making a sufficient plan for his wellbeing.
However, there is insufficient evidence to establish any actions or omissions by Mr. W. with respect to Isaiah's sexual orientation, and thus ACS has not proven that cause of action against him.
And here's the factual backstory that sheds light on the finding of physical abuse and the failure to pick up the child at the hospital:
The case was filed before another Judge, and on April 14, 2023, that Judge released Elijah and Malia to the parents with various conditions, but she remanded Isaiah (who was still hospitalized at the time) to the care and custody of ACS. The case was assigned to me in mid-August of 2023. During the pre-trial phase of the case, the parents were very cooperative with ACS and foster care agency supervision with respect to Elijah and Malia, who were doing fine at home. On December 7, 2023, ACS offered the parents an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal ("ACD") for those two children for a period of four months, which the parents accepted. The ACD for those children successfully expired on April 6, 2024, and thus that part of the case was dismissed.
In contrast, Isaiah remained in foster care and has not wanted contact with his parents. Likewise, the parents did not want him back in their care unless they felt he got the help he needed to ensure that there would be no violence in the home….
CPS [Child Protective Specialist] Lyn was assigned to investigate the case, and on April 12, 2023, she spoke to Isaiah at Brookdale Hospital. On direct examination, she testified that Isaiah told her the following: on April 5, 2023, he came home later than his curfew, and he and his mother started arguing. The argument became physical, and Ms. D.W. dragged Isaiah off his bed. Mr. W. intervened and began punching and kicking Isaiah, and then Isaiah fled to the living room. Next, his mother pinned him to the ground, his father choked him while he was on the floor, and at some point, Ms. D.W. threw a scooter at the child, hitting his leg. Isaiah also stated that at some point during the incident, Ms. D.W. called her own mother on the phone.
In response to questioning by other counsel, CPS Lyn provided additional details described by Isaiah. Isaiah stated that he broke his curfew because he was at a park making TikTok videos. When he got home, his mother asked where he was and lectured him about the world being dangerous. Isaiah told his mother to "shut the fuck up," and his father asked why he was speaking to his mother that way. Isaiah then said that he punched at his father, and at some point, he pulled his mother's braids and told her she would lose her job for beating him up. Ultimately, his mother called 911, and he was taken to the hospital.
CPS Lyn observed injuries to Isaiah, and she took the pictures that are Pet's 1-3. These pictures show a small mark to Isaiah's shin and scrapes to his forearm. Isaiah attributed these injuries to the April 5 incident, including that the mark to his leg was from being hit by the scooter.
CPS Lyn then testified that Isaiah went on to describe that the dynamic in the home had been deteriorating since he identified himself as gay. He said that his parents do not support that type of lifestyle: they had locked him out of the home in the past, and Ms. D.W. brought a "spiritual woman" to come to their home to perform a "ritual" that involved blowing smoke in Isaiah's face, throwing eggs, and cursing at him. Isaiah said that he wished his parents would not be so strict with his curfew, and he had spoken to them about it. In fact, they had moved his curfew back — to 5:00pm — but Isaiah still wanted it to be later.
On April 13, 2023, CPS Lyn spoke with both parents. On direct examination, CPS Lyn testified that Ms. D.W. described that Isaiah was regularly breaking his curfew, and she confirmed that an altercation happened between them on April 5, resulting in Isaiah being hospitalized. She said she called her mother in Guyana during that incident. Ms. D.W. complained that Isaiah's current school is "selecting boys" to be in a gay cult. She acknowledged that the hospital advised the parents that Isaiah was ready to leave the hospital, but she refused to take him home because she felt he needed more time in the hospital.
On questioning by other counsel, CPS Lyn testified to additional statements made by Ms. D.W. The mother said that Isaiah had come home after curfew, and she asked him where he was. Then he cursed at her and pulled her braids, whereupon Mr. W. intervened. Then Isaiah got a push pin or thumb tack and tried to scratch Mr. W. Mr. W. then "contained" Isaiah in the living room while Ms. D.W. called the police. She said that Isaiah's injuries were from him butting himself against a wall and hitting himself with the scooter. At some point, she called her mother in Guyana to show her what was happening. She denied ever using corporal punishment on her children, describing that she was a mandated reporter of child abuse through her work and would not want to jeopardize her job. Ms. D.W. said that their family does not believe in homosexuality and that she believed "demonic spirits" were taking over her son. She said that she was not ready to have Isaiah come home from the hospital, even though he had been hospitalized for over a week and was deemed safe and ready for discharge. She claimed that she was working on finding a different school or residential treatment program for him.
CPS Lyn testified that Mr. W. also confirmed that the incident took place after Isaiah broke curfew, and he said that Isaiah started it. Mr. W. echoed Ms. D.W.'s statements about Isaiah being in a gay cult.
Also on April 13, CPS Lyn went to the home and interviewed the younger children, Elijah and Malia. Both children appeared healthy and well, and CPS Lyn observed no injuries to either child. Elijah, who was 10 years old at the time, described that the April 5 argument took place, and that Isaiah was pulling Ms. D.W.'s hair and screaming "do you want to fight?" Mr. W. came into the room and pinned Isaiah down while Ms. D.W. called the police. When EMS came, Isaiah was kicking a wall. Elijah said that his parents do not use corporal punishment; rather, they take away the children's tablets or television time. Elijah said he likes his family but does not like it when Isaiah misbehaves and causes problems.
Malia, nine years old at the time, said she was asleep but awoke to noise in the home. When she came out of her room, she saw Isaiah on the floor trying to grab their mother's hair. An ambulance came and took Isaiah away, and Malia was mad at Isaiah for fighting with their mother. She, too, denied any corporal punishment in the home, and she felt safe with her parents….
The records describe that Isaiah was brought to the hospital by EMS on April 5, 2023. He had dried blood on his face, and he was calm. In RM's A, a medical note from April 5, Isaiah described that he had a history of mental health issues. "The patient described" hitting his head and having scratches on him, he said he would kill his whole family, and he made suicidal statements as well. The record notes that Isaiah had been seen in the emergency room "several times" for similar issues. In that note, Ms. D.W. said that Isaiah struck her multiple times with closed fists and that Mr. W. restrained him. The parents said that the incident started with the child acting out, banging his head on a wall, using a pin to prick himself, and threatening to shoot them. They described a prior incident where Isaiah grabbed a knife and threatened them, and they said they had difficulty handling his behavior. At some point, the hospital held a "family meeting," and Ms. D.W. said they were overwhelmed by Isaiah's behavior and threats. She said she had reached out the Board of Education for help but that they did not take her seriously.
In different notes from April 6, the hospital described various statements by Isaiah. In one note, Isaiah said he came home late, his parents questioned him about it, the argument escalated, and his parents and his siblings started to beat him up. In another note, the hospital documented injuries to his forehead and cheeks, and Isaiah said his mother hit him with a phone, that the argument escalated, he hit his father with a calendar, and a fight ensued. Isaiah told them that he threatened to slap his mother. In a note from April 8, Isaiah said he was doing okay and wanted to go home. He reiterated that the incident began with an argument about his curfew, and he said he got upset because his mother was hitting him. He hit her back and called her names, and he said that she called him a gay slur during the fight.
The notes document that Isaiah has a history of adjustment disorder, disturbance of conduct, and ADHD. Isaiah said that prescribed medication had helped him in the past, but he stopped taking it in January because of issues with the family's insurance coverage. He said that therapy helps, including family therapy, but that it was not resulting in changes in the family's relationships. He acknowledged that there is less conflict in the family when he follows his curfew and takes his medication. He said he was suspended from school in March for fighting. Isaiah said that his family wants him not to be gay, and his mother performed a ritual on him with candles, coconuts, eggs, coffee, and other items. He said he wants to be with his family, but he wants them to ask better questions, support him, and think more about how to do so. Finally, he agreed to change his own behavior to reduce conflict in the home.
On April 6, Ms. D.W. told hospital staff that Isaiah's behavior had been deteriorating since September of 2022. She said he stole a laptop, lied to family, has outbursts, threatened to get a gun and kill everyone, bangs his head against the wall, scratches his face with a pen, and has been threatening towards his parents with knives. She acknowledged that his medication had been effective and helped the situation, but she had insurance issues which resulted in Isaiah not being able to stay on the medication. On April 12, the hospital informed Ms. D.W. that Isaiah had made progress and was ready for discharge, but she said she wanted him to be in a residential treatment facility. She said that, among other things, she was concerned about the safety of her other children. On April 13, she again refused to take him home….
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"emotionally neglected the child by ... denigrating his lifestyle, and failing to sufficiently support him in the face of her disapproval."
If that's child neglect, we're all fucked.
I mean, if you can't beat your unruly faggot of a son for coming home after curfew, what is this world coming to?
It sounds like there are reasons for a finding of neglect outside of disapproval of the child's lifestyle.
But removing children from their parents for disapproval of the child's lifestyle violates the parents' rights. Can you imagine a court removing a child because the parents disapprove of her polyamory?
The ruling was not just that she “disapproved” of his sexuality.
For instance:
“I find that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that Ms. D.W. neglected Isaiah by mocking his lifestyle and failing to support him emotionally. Even if her religious beliefs were honestly held and could be considered acceptable parenting, she continued to use anti-gay slurs regularly, including in the presence of the child, and used one directly to him during the April 5 incident.”
[This should not be treated as the only thing at issue but it shows mere disapproval was not involved.]
The result was “struggling at school, having behavioral issues at home, and had been hospitalized for mental health problems” that she did not adequately address.
As noted, this is on top of findings of physical abuse and other grounds for neglect.
How does this compare to “disapproval” of polyamory? If some thirteen-year-old was having sex with a bunch of people, the parents could deny her from seeing them and ground her and so forth. Constant slurs and other refusal to adequately address her needs ON TOP OF other things that make that sort of thing particularly concerning is not appropriate.
You don't like my characterization of mocking and failing to emotionally support aspects of the child's lifestyle that she disapproves of as "disapproval"? Fine.
I hereby change my hypo to mocking and failing to emotionally support the child's polyamory.
But when courts define neglect too broadly, the first amendment and parental rights become meaningless.
I thought it was an inaccurate framing of the case.
I don't "like" certain foods. I guess I dislike inaccurate framing too.
The fact the opinion is not about mere disapproval is what separates it from the fears of the last sentence.
So you wouldn't have a problem a finding of neglect for failing to emotionally support the kid's polyamory, but not just disapproval? OK then.
Yeah, as people are saying the homosexuality aspect isn't the issue here.
There are ways to show disapproval, and then there is emotional abuse.
That you are openly excusing this kind of abuse when it's in service of being anti gay is really fucked up.
"Yeah, as people are saying the homosexuality aspect isn’t the issue here. There are ways to show disapproval, and then there is emotional abuse."
Yeah, that's why I generalized the issue to failing to show support for a kid's lifestyle, and provided a hypo that wasn't linked to homosexuality. You really need to read better.
And you want some family court judge to guess at whether failing to emotionally support a kid in the face of disapproval of his lifestyle is disapproval or emotionally abuse? Now that's what's really fucked up.
If you laid an endless tirade of anti-polyamory against said child, making then feel like shit, sure, that could be a problem, too.
What I am not getting is that this was some plausibly reasonable, sit down discussion.
"If you laid an endless tirade of anti-polyamory against said child, making then feel like shit, sure, that could be a problem, too."
Sure. But it's not neglect. If anything, it's the opposite.
If the kid was a pedo, a practitioner of bestiality, or a necrophiliac, and the mother had directed slurs to him about his sexual proclivities and regularly condemned them, etc, would that qualify as 'neglect'?
Seems to be the opposite of neglect, really.
Aren't cases like these good (partial/complete) grounds for expanding parental rights in regards to post-natal planned parenting? (48th trimester abortions, say?)
As well, is being a gay, a pedo, a necrophile, or a 'bestialic' a good ground for (self-selected, parent-selected, or state-selected) euthanasia? What about when coupled with the additional sorts of mental defects that are exhibited by this gay son?
Do/should these sorts of legal efforts to condemn, or at least subordinate, such parental practices (as part of the attempted normalisation of homosexuality) equally qualify as Islamophobic/anti-Islamic? Why should gay rights trump Islamic cultural practices and values?
Bingo. This is like arresting Charles Manson because he believes in progressive tax rates. Then using this as an example of why progressive tax is evil. Framing the the disagreement about sexuality as the main issue we have to be concerned about is silly.
But removing children from their parents for disapproval of the child’s lifestyle violates the parents’ rights.
Being romantically and/or sexually attracted to members of the same sex is not a "lifestyle." So let's fix that particular baked-in premise of yours.
Suppose a married couple are a couple of atheists. They have a child who, when she gets to be about 14 or 15, decides she wants to become a Catholic, based on her exposure to friends' and other community members' religious practices and beliefs. This is a deeply-felt religious commitment for the child.
The parents disapprove. Now, one possibility is they communicate that disapproval and try to convince her to leave Catholicism, but leave the matter to her, when she makes clear she won't be dissuaded. The other is they constantly mock Catholic practices and beliefs, ridicule her friends and other members of her congregation, say nasty things about pedophile priests, and so on. Is there a line they can cross, that comes to the point of emotional abuse or neglect?
We can ask similar questions about a biracial child, a disabled child, and so on. So the question is why, in your view, being gay is more like polyamory than it is committing to Catholicism or being born biracial.
Simon, remember when the faggots just wanted to be left alone, promising they would never interfere in our lives?
Remember when Dr. Ed burned a cross on that black family's lawn?
Remember when David Nieporent was convicted of raping little boys?
Two can play this game my friend, let's not...
How has a faggot interfered in your life lately, fuckface?
They visit him in his dreams.
Even crazier, some societies have adopted the concept of parenthood. Under this system, the child’s “lifestyle” choices are under the parents control They might even forbid the child from staying out all night, drinking, and smoking. They might even put additional restrictions on a child’s social life. And if that weren’t crazy enough, some might even spank the child.
If Trump doesn't win, we are fucked.
If he does, his H&HS may put an end to some of this crap.
If you think he is the messiah who will fix all your problems, you're delusional.
If you don't start organising now, with people you trust with your life, to do things you NEVER imagined you'd ever have to do in America to preserve your Republic, the rule of law, and prevent bona fide totalitarianism (rather than, say, comment anonymously and regularly on some third-rate blog that few people even read), then you're a waste of space.
If you think you could ever trust these 'libertarians' or 'liberals', you were wrong. If you think you can trust them now, even if they might be afraid of the hard left, then you're also wrong about that.
Price tags/consequences.
Real deterrents.
Real counter-action.
Not just vacuous words and hope that the messiah will win your federal executive branch and somehow be able to change not just the trajectory of your government, but also the internal policies of your country's major corporations, your universities, your media, etc.
How many members of your family are firearms proficient, not just owners?
" He acknowledged that there is less conflict in the family when he follows his curfew and takes his medication. He said he was suspended from school in March for fighting."
"In RM's A, a medical note from April 5, Isaiah described that he had a history of mental health issues. "The patient described" hitting his head and having scratches on him, he said he would kill his whole family, and he made suicidal statements as well. The record notes that Isaiah had been seen in the emergency room "several times" for similar issues."
Appears to be a lot more issues involved than just the parents disproval of being gay. (though the ritual by the mom was likely counter productive). Reasonable assumption from the post is being gay is a relatively minor issue compared to the multitude of other problems.
fwiw - kings county ny is brooklyn.
> Appears to be a lot more issues involved than just the parents disproval of being gay ...
Agreed.
I was all ready to hate the parents as violent anti-gay bigots, but it seems that most of the violence was initiated by a disturbed kid. And what sort of father would be Ok with their kid literally telling his mother to "STFU" and pulling her hair? (I notice that charges against the father were dropped.)
Yeah, this kid has serious problems, and separating him from his parents doesn't sound like it would even begin to solve them.
Really? You read the OP and thinks this kid should stay with that mother?!
Again you demonstrate your inability to parse even simple sentences.
History suggests he parses them just fine, but he's just unable to argue against what people actually say, so he resorts to straw men.
If you're distinguishing between mother and parents, that's not addressing the problem.
He's not.
Thanks for proving my point.
I said exactly what I said, maybe you should read it again.
Need I remind you it is Sarcastr0? sigh.
Brett Bellmore 19 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Yeah, this kid has serious problems, and separating him from his parents doesn’t sound like it would even begin to solve them.
Concur - its also worth noting that dealing with mentally ill child is very difficult and I suspect that it is an extremely rare that a parent finds the best approach. Seems that everyone is second guessing and/or playing armchair quarterback.
The sad fact is that mental illness, like physical illness, can't always be solved.
" the parents did not want him back in their care unless they felt he got the help he needed to ensure that there would be no violence in the home."
Hospitals are notorious for discharging people before they are fully recovered.
"...his mother had a ritual performed on him involving candles, coconut, eggs, coffee and other items to rid him of being gay."
That's a new one. I was only aware of rituals with a chicken, snakes, and/or blood involved.
Yeah, sounds like the underlying issue here is that she got scammed with a fake ritual.
It's a vegan ritual.
It's got eggs so it's not vegan.
Obviously, Secretary Pete Booty Judge and his Husband Jizz should be given immediate custody! After a complete Molestation, I mean Examination by Dr. Richard (Dick) Levine
Frank
The mother's statement that she did "not believe in homosexuality" calls to mind an anecdote about a man who was asked if he believed in infant baptism. He replied, "Believe in it?? Hey, I've actually seen it happen."
Decontextualized from the homosexuality, a mother who belittled and insulted her child persistently like this would be unfit.
The act of physical abuse and the hospital thing are part and parcel and additional evidence this is bad shit.
Of course, some old culture warriors gotta fight the old lost battles nevertheless, but y'all are just reflexively defending bigotry you approve of and ignoring what the fact indicate.
“Decontextualized from the homosexuality, a mother who belittled and insulted her child persistently like this would be unfit.”
A court will have no idea how “persistently” this happens. You should really choose not to be a terrible person.
The court seems to have made that factual determination based on the record. Seems well suited to me.
"On cross-examination by the AFC, however, she admitted that "the term comes up often," ...In addition, Ms. D.W. was evasive and inconsistent in her testimony about the role of Isaiah's sexuality in the family dynamic.
You should really choose not to be a terrible person.
Coming in a bit hot, aren't we?
"Often"? That's not much of a standard.
This is family court.
Don't play dumb.
Tar & feathers are too good for family court judges...
"This is family court."
Oh, well that's OK then. By all means take kids out of homes if a family court judge found that the belittling happened "often"
You’re demanding basically a scientific standard where that’s never been the case.
I can’t imagine that’s a serious objection, just chaff. This case is just another instrument in your culture war.
I'm demanding a stringent standard when it comes to removing kids from their homes. Like serious physical abuse.
You would remove kids from their homes because a parent belittled her child if a family court judge found that she did it "often".
This is because leftist totalitarians like yourself believe that the state, and not parents, should raise kids.
You're just bucking the court's finding by demanding an impossible level of evidence.
That's not how it works, because that's not how it can work.
Above you admit this is issue based with you.
And you randomly call me a terrible person for explaining the OP.
I'm going to mute you for a bit because you're not arguing, you're working through some personal shit.
Wow, you really can't read, can you.
I guess it doesn't matter if you mute my comments or fail to understand what I write.
You want to take children from their parents, for arbitrary reasons. Are you mad? You evidently are fine with that. How are you not a horrible human being...Taking someone's children?
This child has serious psychological issues, and needs his parents. And a lot of professional help. The judge was wrong.
No one believes "the state" should be raising kids. I don't even know how "the state" could raise kids. We're not taking kids from abusive/neglectful parents and putting them into collectives where they are taught to worship the state and abide by officially-sanctioned groupthink. The point of all this due process and back-and-forth with CPS, etc., is to put the kids in the care of someone capable of raising them in health and safety, in accordance with their own personal beliefs and parental practices - maybe that's another relative, maybe that's a foster parent, maybe that's adoptive parents. Institutionalizing these kids is an absolute last resort.
What's bizarre about your assertion is this belief that it is better for kids to endure serious trauma and developmental harm - as long as it falls short of "serious physical abuse" (determined how and by whom, one wonders, if not the state?) - than to try to put kids in a better living situation. That's how you take a bad home situation and make it into a set of siblings who are socially maladjusted, criminals, unable to hold a job, unable to build their own healthy families, etc. Your preferred alternative to the nanny state is, ultimately, the police and prison state.
"What’s bizarre about your assertion is this belief that it is better for kids to endure serious trauma and developmental harm – as long as it falls short of “serious physical abuse” (determined how and by whom, one wonders, if not the state?) – than to try to put kids in a better living situation."
You really want some judge, in all but the clearest of situations, trying to guess if your kid is in the optimal living situation?
You really want some judge, in all but the clearest of situations, trying to guess if your kid is in the optimal living situation?
I think you mean "some judge," overseeing an adversarial process where the parents are given abundant opportunities to present evidence and make arguments while represented by counsel, and subject to appellate oversight.
Personally, I focus less on what I would want and more on what a child living in an abusive or neglectful situation, but short of "serious physical abuse" (as you put it), would want. It's frankly incredible to me that you would place "parental rights" ahead of "the welfare of the child," but perhaps I should just incorporate that into my understanding of the twisted way that MAGA views the world. If the rules aren't "heads MAGA wins, tails everyone else loses," you can't abide by them.
Just look at the OP. That kid is not on a good path, while his parents appear to be escalating the abuse/harassment and toying with the idea of just throwing him out on the street. You are saying that it is better for the court to let that happen, than to step in and find him a home where he might be able to get his life back on track.
The parents were dealing with what amounted to living with a flesh and blood Chuckie, only rapidly growing. Have some sympathy for them. At least they have some motive for dealing with it, if you can get them some help. Good luck finding somebody willing to voluntarily take their place.
Tar & feathers are too good for family court judges…
It is indeed. And so the ‘factual record’ established in the state family court cannot be taken to necessarily be (assumed to be) the truth by any rational person.
Go back to Russia, then hop into an oven.
Great comment!
Always moving the ball forward!
Great comment! Always providing more proof of your limited intellectual capacity.
The headline in this article is very misleading. The parents abused the kid in wide range of ways. They deserved to lose.
Sure, but the one the OP is concerned with the finding about the disapproval of homosexuality. The other issues are unremarkable.
If that’s the case, then the judge should have avoided breaking new ground on highly controversial issues unnecessarily. The judge should either have not reached the question, or should have explicitly found that the other issues were also sufficient.
It's clickbaiting.
Yesterday you were super pissy that EV supposedly didn't post about judges taking your side of the culture war often enough. Now you say it's clickbait when he does. It's... almost like you're commenting in bad faith.
Oh the irony...
Suppose a juvenile judge disparaged a minor after, say, a juvenile rape conviction. Disparaging a juvenile’s sexual identity and sexual lifestyle risks serious enotional harm to the child, so the state’s dissapproval of a minor’s sexual conduct doesn’t permit its agents to disparage it, correct?
The reasoning here is based on the emotional harm to the minor that disparagement creates. That harm is exactly the same regardless of whether one thinks the minor’s sexual conduct is disparageable or not. So based on the analysis, illegal child neglect also ought to occur whenever a child is disparaged for disapproved sexual conduct, regardless of what one thinks of the underlying sexual conduct or the legitimacy of disapproving of it.
If I were the parent, I would investigate whether this judge made disparaging remarks about a minor’s sexual conduct in any past secual misconduct cases and report the judge for child neglect for doing so.
Courts always disparage, overtly or by 'happy talk' - it does not matter. The legal system disparages one or both parties in every case. Dismissing a case before it starts disparages those involved in bringing the case to a court. Emotional harm is part of every trial; there is no escaping disparagement.
Voting disparages all candidates, also. Disparagement is part of discrimination too.
The parents overt disparagement of Isaiah is the same as Isaiah's covert disparagement of girls.
This is a good example of how mentally ill people often interact with the legal system when they aren't represented. I can absolutely see you spending long hours with a highlighter and expensive transcripts, poring through them for anything sus, then submitting a voluminous accusation without ever realizing that only a parent or guardian can be found neglectful under the law in question.
New York has more than one potentially relevant law.
As but one quick example Sec. 260.10 (1) (endangering the welfare of a child) applies to any person, not just parents and guardians, and has language (e.g. “mental” injury) that could at least very arguably apply.
Autologies are always welcome and appreciated.
Rape is neither an identity nor a lifestyle.
If I were your father, I'd smack you over the head for being a moron. Besides your repeated I'm-so-clever-I-can-play-words-games idiocy ("illegal aliens are just like fetuses"), judges are not caregivers and are thus not liable for "child neglect" for the children who come before them.
So, if the beating were about some non-gay issue, would it still have been child neglect? Then why not say that? Why bring up the gay stuff at all? Or is the gay stuff an extra factor in the finding of unfitness?
"Neglect" is a weird term for corporal punishment. Usually neglect implies *not* doing something, rather than overt acts. Excessive corporal punishment is, however, specifically listed in the statute as neglect.
His lifestyle? He's 13; what, exactly, is he doing? Merely being gay is not a "lifestyle". Is the judge just using the wrong word?
The kid was on medication which helped, but stopped taking them - not due to his own choice, but due to his parents' insurance issues. I don't know how expensive this medication is or what their financial situation is, but if they can at all afford it, it *is* neglect to not provide it.
They refused to take him home from the hospital. In context, he had just attacked them the week before. I can understand why they'd not trust the hospital that he was safe. But on the other hand, if they're not willing or able to care for him, he *should* be placed somewhere else.
The state is punishing the parents for not being willing to bankrupt themselves to pay for the placement.
This kid has got almost no chance of happiness. Will the court intervention help ? No.
Makes me sad that kids face such abusive situations, also makes me grateful for being raised in a home nothing like this one.