Deleted member 4612
mentally crippled by lonely teen years
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2020
- Posts
- 21,718
- Reputation
- 43,409
Child Protective Services has always been a system that tended to remove children from poor families to give them to wealthier families. Here are a few ways in which that happens:
(1) Kids from poor families are more likely to be hanging out in public places where they can be observed and reported to CPS. For example, if you're poor, then maybe your kid walks home from school along a public street, rather than getting off the bus at the entrance to your gated community. Maybe your kid throws a ball around with other kids in the neighborhood parking lot rather than in your fenced-in backyard.
(2) Poor families often can't afford to have their kids be closely supervised 24/7. Maybe the parent(s) work, and/or they can't a babysitter. So if there's a requirement that kids be closely supervised 24/7, then that will work to the disadvantage of poor families. (It doesn't help that a lot of kids are being raised by single parents these days, instead of there being a stay-at-home mom who can devote herself fully to being the kind of helicopter parent the state demands that parents be these days.)
(3) If you're poor, you're probably more likely to get slapped with a restraining order at some point. Abuse allegations are what penniless women, who can't afford to hire a lawyer to fight for possession of the family home and custody of the kids through the normal processes, often resort to. Once you have a restraining order on your record, that can be used against you by CPS as evidence that you have abusive tendencies. If you could've afforded a lawyer, maybe you could've gotten the judge to deny that restraining order petition, or it wouldn't have been filed to begin with.
(4) Once families get into the CPS system, if they're not rich, they'll have trouble jumping through all the hoops (treatment programs, etc.) that are involved. They have to pay the costs of the programs and take off work to attend. Caseworkers also visit their home and look through their fridge and so on; if they think there's not enough food, or the environment is otherwise not up to their standards, they'll share those concerns with the judge.
The end result is that parenting starts to seem like more and more of a Big Deal™ requiring lots of money and time. So people want to put it off longer and longer, till they've had plenty of time to enjoy some years of freedom and build up their resources to a point where they can give their kid the kind of environment (including round-the-clock close supervision) that the state expects them to maintain. This means that more couples will be childless because they waited too long to have kids, to the point that the woman became barren. Many of them will end up adopting the kids that get taken away by CPS from younger (and poorer) parents. Or even if they have babies, it will be much fewer than in the past because they start so late:
www.marketwatch.com
If people in the lower income brackets start to think that they won't be allowed to keep their kids, or that it would be irresponsible to have kids, then I would expect that's probably going to bring down the fertility rate. CPS proceedings can also rip apart families if, for example, the wife thinks she has a better chance of being allowed to keep her kids if she dumps her husband. At that point, she won't be having any more kids unless she jumps on a new dick. Some women, though, decide to just say, "I'm done having kids" after they break up with the father of their first child(ren).
(1) Kids from poor families are more likely to be hanging out in public places where they can be observed and reported to CPS. For example, if you're poor, then maybe your kid walks home from school along a public street, rather than getting off the bus at the entrance to your gated community. Maybe your kid throws a ball around with other kids in the neighborhood parking lot rather than in your fenced-in backyard.
(2) Poor families often can't afford to have their kids be closely supervised 24/7. Maybe the parent(s) work, and/or they can't a babysitter. So if there's a requirement that kids be closely supervised 24/7, then that will work to the disadvantage of poor families. (It doesn't help that a lot of kids are being raised by single parents these days, instead of there being a stay-at-home mom who can devote herself fully to being the kind of helicopter parent the state demands that parents be these days.)
(3) If you're poor, you're probably more likely to get slapped with a restraining order at some point. Abuse allegations are what penniless women, who can't afford to hire a lawyer to fight for possession of the family home and custody of the kids through the normal processes, often resort to. Once you have a restraining order on your record, that can be used against you by CPS as evidence that you have abusive tendencies. If you could've afforded a lawyer, maybe you could've gotten the judge to deny that restraining order petition, or it wouldn't have been filed to begin with.
(4) Once families get into the CPS system, if they're not rich, they'll have trouble jumping through all the hoops (treatment programs, etc.) that are involved. They have to pay the costs of the programs and take off work to attend. Caseworkers also visit their home and look through their fridge and so on; if they think there's not enough food, or the environment is otherwise not up to their standards, they'll share those concerns with the judge.
The end result is that parenting starts to seem like more and more of a Big Deal™ requiring lots of money and time. So people want to put it off longer and longer, till they've had plenty of time to enjoy some years of freedom and build up their resources to a point where they can give their kid the kind of environment (including round-the-clock close supervision) that the state expects them to maintain. This means that more couples will be childless because they waited too long to have kids, to the point that the woman became barren. Many of them will end up adopting the kids that get taken away by CPS from younger (and poorer) parents. Or even if they have babies, it will be much fewer than in the past because they start so late:
More American women are having babies in their 30s than their 20s
When it comes to that decision, however, mothers are still divided.
www.marketwatch.com
If people in the lower income brackets start to think that they won't be allowed to keep their kids, or that it would be irresponsible to have kids, then I would expect that's probably going to bring down the fertility rate. CPS proceedings can also rip apart families if, for example, the wife thinks she has a better chance of being allowed to keep her kids if she dumps her husband. At that point, she won't be having any more kids unless she jumps on a new dick. Some women, though, decide to just say, "I'm done having kids" after they break up with the father of their first child(ren).
