RoR: Forum

Post 20

Thursday, August 21 - 3:04am

Link

Edit

There have been a small number of cases like this over the years where parents do not obtain or refuse treatment for their child based upon beliefs that they hold and the child ends up suffering or dying as a result. Is this neglect or child abuse? I argue no. There is no indication of mal-intent, and the parents are not neglecting their child. On the contrary, they are actively attempting to help their child by curing the illness through prayer.

You can only say that while ignoring all standards for life in general. Not neglecting their child, you say?

This is willful ignorance, which absolutely implies willful neglect. This is evasion on a criminal level. How hard do you suppose these people had to work at ignoring all of the better alternatives? Pretty damn hard, I'd say. The "mal-intent" was against reality, and thus against this child's basic rights.

The right of this child to live superceded her stupid parent's right to practice their voodoo on her. To disagree is to say that children are indeed the property of their parents.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 8/21, 3:07am)

Post 21

Thursday, August 21 - 3:17am

Link

Edit

If some parents tossed their child off a cliff and defended themselves saying they wanted their sweet one to be with God as soon as possible, I would find them guilty of murder. I�ll take your slippery-slope warnings under advisement, but here too, I�m not seeing how a guilty verdict invites laws telling us what to eat.

Exactly.

Post 22

Thursday, August 21 - 5:15am

Link

Edit

Some people have said that neglect requires intent. Not so in the state of California. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services took kids way from their parents based upon neglect without any reference to intent.

Parents could be dead, or paralyzed, or psychotic to the point of not being capable of forming intent or making moral choices, or well-intended but too low functioning to get the job done - none of these mattered. If the child wasn't getting minimal care they were placed where they could.

When ever a question came up, neglect was measured against what a reasonable person would deem necessary for the welfare of the child. Parent's responsibility to the child was absolute in terms of health, education, and safety - that is, no good intentions would overcome bad results (you couldn't pray your way of not taking care of your kids).

I really like Jon's idea of the parents praying instead of hiring a lawyer - let prison be a "test of their faith" - and his idea of putting the legislature on trial. Along with the other Steve, I think the Wisconsin legislature is shocking.

"At issue is a Wisconsin law that says a parent cannot be accused of abuse or neglect of a child if in good faith they selected prayer as treatment for a disease." That is INSANE!

A reasonable person doesn't endanger their child by not seeking alternatives when what they are doing isn't working. A reasonable person is expected to grasp basic community norms in the area of childcare.

Jeff talks about the right to maintain a belief even if it is profoundly irrational and he talks about the right to risk our own lives - like with the helmet laws. And he points out the slippery slope that both those issues can bring about. I agree, EXCEPT that children are an exception. To be a parent is to assume a responsibility that is special. Just as doctor who hangs out his shingle must meet a standard of care that is separate from his freedom to believe in idiotic things as a private person and separate from his freedom to take stupid risks with his own health. He has to live up to a community standard of excellence for the practice of medicine as determined by what a reasonable doctor would do under similar circumstances. If he wants to practice some of his bizarre medical ideas, that is okay too, but he has to let the patient know in advance (else it is fraud). Same thing for fiduciary responsibilities for a banker or investment person. Same for a parent. They must provide and protect and prepare their young to become functional adults - that is the responsibility they took on.

There is no inherent conflict here with freedom of action in the area of risking ones own life - so long as that responsibility to the child is fulfilled. When the kid is 18 they can try to get into the Guiness book of records for the most heroin shot into the veins in one day. And as long as they provide a good baby-sitter, they can go off and do smaller amounts of drugs, while the kids are growing up - as long as they can function as reasonable parents when the baby-sitter isn't there.

If I'm an investment counselor, I might have some nutty scheme for beating the odds in Las Vegas, and I can try it out with my money, but I know there are external, objective standards I need to meet governing how I handle my client's money - if I want them to risk their money on the crap table I need their informed consent. Those parents can pray for their own health, but the kid required a doctor and that was the parents' requirement.

Some people have argued that this issue is one that is informed by the differences between individual rights and legal rights. It isn't. A child is, by definition, not in possession of a full set of legal rights (or responsibilities) until reaching the age of majority or being granted emancipation (which can be done as early as 14 in some states and situations). Until that time they are deemed to be dependent upon the care of their parents or guardians.

It is an emotional issue - as it always is with children and as it always should be. They represent our common heritage of innocence and promise and our future as a people. And like Ted has said, "Everyone starts happy" and, in its way, makes a child's laughter like the concrete reminder of our greatest value. But because these reasons, and others, can encourage us to form passionate attachments to children doesn't mean that any of the logic in this thread was flawed.

Post 23

Thursday, August 21 - 7:33am

Link

Edit

I think that the arguments against the slippery slope are at least as good as the for- arguments (perhaps even better). That said, here's more slippery slope:

They didn�t feed her one too many Twinkies, they ignored her having trouble breathing.

I can provide research showing that type 2 diabetes (which is 95% of ALL human diabetes) is about 91% due to environment and only about 9% genetic. The upshot is that we give ourselves -- or we give our children -- diabetes by (implicit) choice.

So a sober evaluation of the evidence reveals that, actually, there is a pretty good chance that they DID "feed her one too many Twinkies." The bottom line is that we might need to regulate what parents feed to kids, in order to avoid a moral contradiction.

Ed

Post 24

Thursday, August 21 - 7:38am

Link

Edit

I'm with Teresa.

In general, I don't think intent should matter nearly as much as outcome. The parents are supposed to take care of their child. Darwinism aside, a child shouldn't have to die because she has stupid parents. I really don't care if their hearts were filled with nothing but love for the child. Throw them in the can and let them think about how they stupidly wasted their daughter's life!

It's a question of "should we punish people even if they don't know that they did something wrong." Christian mothers drowning their children to dispatch them to heaven comes to mind. Do we just say it's OK because the perpetrator believes in life after death? We'd probably have to let off most murderers then.

We have the idea of "diminished capacity" so that retarded people are not treated the same as normal people. I would argue that instead of letting people off completely in such cases, maybe we go for "diminished punishment." If they are so stupid, maybe being punished will teach them a little something. If they could see the punishment as a little "message from God," maybe they will come to the right conclusion (even if for the wrong reason).

Post 25

Thursday, August 21 - 8:41am

Link

Edit

Ed,

I understand what you are saying, but it doesn�t wash.

A child breaks their neck playing football. The parents pray while he dies that night at home. They face charges.

Your dilemma would translate, in the above case, to this: We can�t deliver a guilty verdict without also outlawing letting children play football or without inviting laws against letting children play football.

All I can say is: Yes, we can.

You say there is a moral contradiction in the diabetes case. Where? It is immoral to watch a child die instead of getting care and it is arguably immoral to feed a child too many Twinkies. Both can be immoral, I�m not seeing any contradiction.

On the legal side, we can hold responsible those parents who seek no care and instead watch their child die from diabetic complications without outlawing feeding a child too many Twinkies. There is no contradiction in that.

Post 26

Thursday, August 21 - 8:42am

Link

Edit

Ed,

With child neglect there is no need for a trillion different defining condition, each spelled out in regulatory law, where one would be Twinkies. "In the US, neglect is defined as the failure to meet the basic needs of children including housing, clothing, food and access to medical care." Wikipedia

And, in fact, in Los Angeles, kids could be living with homeless parents in a car, if the parents were seeing to minimal educational, nutritional and health needs.

There are two different issues: One is the custody of the child. If the court determines that neglect does exist, they approve of the recommended change in custody - modifying parental rights. As to whether or not the County Attorney presses criminal charges is a different matter and a different set of laws. Most cases of neglect don't result in criminal charges. Physical abuse was a different story - severe physical abuse was almost always filed in criminal court and sexual abuse as well.

Subject jurisdiction for custody is Family Court.

Laure,

For parents with diminished capacity, like parents that mentally retarded, I've never heard of any criminal charges for simple neglect. The Family Court just ensures that the child has some change in custody that protects the child.

Post 27

Thursday, August 21 - 9:11am

Link

Edit

Suppose the parents believed that if they threw their child off a cliff he would fly, because they had a vision from God telling them so. Well, they didn't intend for him to fall to his death. But they did intend to throw him off a cliff. And that intent is good enough to hold them liable for murder.

Suppose the parents believed in radical fasting, which resulted in their child's starving to death. They didn't intend for the child to starve to death. But they intended to feed so little that he did in fact starve to death. And that intent is good enough to hold them liable for manslaughter.

Suppose the parents injected their child with heroin to stop him from crying. They didn't intend to harm him, but they did intend to inject him with heroin. And that intent is good enough to hold them liable for child abuse.

As for the point about twinkies and Type II Diabetes, if it could definitely be established that feeding your child twinkies would result in Type II Diabetes, then yes, that would be child neglect and the parents should be held liable for it. The problem is that in most, if not all such cases, the connection isn't well enough established to draw that conclusion. How many twinkies do the parents have to feed him? How much of a factor is heredity? Etc. Here you would need very strong, incontrovertible evidence to charge the parents with neglect, which in most cases you probably couldn't obtain.

- Bill

Post 28

Thursday, August 21 - 10:07am

Link

Edit

Bill,

Intent isn't a part of neglect which is dealt with in family court. Neglect is judged only by the condition of the child and without any regard to whether the parents' intention. Family court is only adjudicating custody. If the County court chooses to file criminal charges, then intent will matter in the charge chosen and the penalty.

Post 29

Thursday, August 21 - 1:44pm

Link

Edit

Evolution is cruel, but effective.

The Romans did okay with a proprietary view of children. Until you were out of the house, your father could kill you at whim.

That is what these parents did - killed their child at whim. Had they watched and laughed as their child died, there would be no question as to their legal guilt. Prayer and laughter are both sounds that come out of the mouth.

Post 30

Thursday, August 21 - 2:04pm

Link

Edit

And crying. Crying that they failed to pray hard enough.

Post 31

Friday, August 22 - 6:19am

Link

Edit

Dale Neumann, 46, considered his daughter's illness "a test of faith," and Leilani Neumann thought her daughter was under a "spiritual attack" that could be overcome with prayer.

I realize I�m being na�ve in trying to apply reason to this situation, but there�s something about this that I don�t understand. Why do the parents think that they are more important to God than their daughter is? Why do they think that God set up the game so that if the parents fail the �test of faith�, their daughter loses her life? It would make some sense (sort of) if this had been a test of faith for the daughter; if she can�t pray in sufficient quality or quantity, then she loses. But she �could not speak, eat, drink, walk or breathe easily for about 48 hours before her death�, so how good could she have been at praying? I guess the parents think that they are the real �players� and their daughter was just a pawn. But I thought we were all equal before God.

It�s similar to the situation where the religionist claims that God took their child (husband, parent) because of some sin the religionist committed. �God is punishing me by taking my loved one.� So, once again, apparently they think that God considers their behavior more important than allowing another of his flock to continue to live.

It just seems a little egotistical to me.

Thanks,

Glenn

BTW, good job on this thread, Jon.

Post 32

Friday, August 22 - 8:03am

Link

Edit

It just seems a little egotistical to me.

Yep. Like when religious folks are caught in a disaster and survive, they think they're being humble when they say, "God was looking out for me!" -- ignoring the implication that all the people who died must not have mattered to God.

Post 33

Friday, August 22 - 11:29am

Link

Edit

The contradiction I see is that the parents are supposed to be representatives / caretakers of the child's interests. These parents didn't know how to do that (or didn't even care to "parent" their child effectively).

At this point, the government can respond by taking a Big Brother approach, and starting to question the parenting of children in general. Rules can be made about what kind of parenting the state approves of and what the state doesn't approve -- or what the state considers "risky" parenting (with penalties of fines and jail time to parents who diverge from the norm). The rules are supposed to be in the interests of the otherwise-helpless children. The unintended consequence is a soviet-style hell on Earth in America.

It's precisely because the children cannot exercise their rights -- but instead, have to have them administered "by proxy" from whoever brought them into this world -- that makes this murder case different from the norm.

Ed

Post 34

Friday, August 22 - 11:34am

Link

Edit

... though I do think that mandatory (state-imposed) sterilization of both parents is in order. They do seem to have acted in such a manner as to lose all of the potential exercise of their right to child-bearing / child-rearing.

:-)

Post 35

Friday, August 22 - 12:37pm

Link

Edit

Ed,

A parent's relation to the child is as a guardian. I think of it as an implied, performance contract that the parents entered into when they chose to have a child. The child, once born, has individual rights, but is also dependent. That is the problem. Parents are found in neglect when they fail that contract by not providing the child with minimal attention to health, nutrition, and education.

If the neglect is caught before it causes serious harm, then family court simply takes temporary custody (appoints a guardian ad litum) until the best, full-time guardian can be found (relative, foster-care, etc.) and there is no criminal action.

I think it's reasonable to expect parents to meet minimal standards - it isn't tough to do - as a species we wouldn't be here if that were the case. It was being done even before we had language. Even dogs and cats raise their young. The parents carry the obligation, just as I carry the responsibility for not harming others when I get behind the wheel of a car - I can't escape responsibility by saying I don't know how, or that Jesus said to close my eyes and trust in him. Choosing to drive made me responsible.

Logically, the alternative to the state stepping in is to say a baby is on it's own supporting itself, and that a parent could morally and legally leave the baby in a dumpster.

There is a similar situation if you fall into a coma. Until you regain consciousness, someone will act as guardian for you to make decisions. Someone in the family and if there is no one, then the state appoints someone.

The case of unconscious people who are that way for a long time and the problem of children who are abused by their parents are both statistically small even though they happen often enough that a guardianship mechanism exists. They represent the unusual, the life-boat like, instances of humans that have rights, but aren't at the time able to care for themselves.

I see these laws - defining the guardianship mechanism - as part of the over-all structure that supports individual rights: Guardians, cops, courts, judges, lawyers, legislatures, laws, military, etc.

You are right in saying that government can step in and take a big brother approach and start making too many rules or become invasive in looking for evidence of abuse. It happens. But I believe the basic structure I've outlined above (and not the big brother excesses) are within the scope of individual rights.

Post 36

Friday, August 22 - 12:42pm

Link

Edit

Thanks for the response, Steve. I like how you tied guardianship to rights. That helps.

Ed

Post 37

Friday, August 22 - 4:20pm

Link

Edit

I think the focus of this discussion (at least the key question to me and Ed) is:

To what Extent must a Guardian care/provide for good health for their children? Such that if they fail to meet this Extent, then government force should be used against them.

It doesn't matter what the Guardians' mental states were when providing for/neglecting their children when it comes to deciding the Extent. Their mental states only matter when deciding what the best punishment should be after the Extent has not been met.

Post 38

Friday, August 22 - 6:17pm

Link

Edit

Rules can be made about what kind of parenting the state approves of and what the state doesn't approve -- or what the state considers "risky" parenting (with penalties of fines and jail time to parents who diverge from the norm). The rules are supposed to be in the interests of the otherwise-helpless children. The unintended consequence is a soviet-style hell on Earth in America.

Ed -
Are you saying Objective law would not call this, at the very least, a crime of extreme fraud, resulting in death?

What kind of world do you want? It's a serious question.

Post 39

Friday, August 22 - 8:13pm

Link

Edit

Dean clearly grasps that difference of intent applies to punishment and not to the determination of neglect being present or not.

The question of how to set the standard of health care is a good one. If an objective standard is found, it makes it harder for the state to creep towards being the nanny.

Clearly it has to do with community standards since it would vary by the parts of the world, and the technology that is available at the point in time. So, what a parent in a poor part of the Dominican Republic does to maintain their child's health is not the same as a parent in Los Angeles. And, the law isn't stated as "Parent must do x and y and z." It is stated that parents are not permitted to neglect their child's health.

Ethical rights are absolute, but the laws drawn from them are more complex and often rely on things like "What a reasonable man would determine."

The law presumes innocence which with probable cause and Habeas Corpus protect us from a state that interferes in the absence of good evidence of neglect. The burden is on the state to show that there is material and significant damage (existing or imminent) to the child's health as a result of the parent's not doing something, that in their community, at that time of history, a reasonable person would have done and that doing would have made a difference in the child's health. That is why each single thing, like how many twinkies, does NOT have to be spelled out.

Is that helpful?