Re: Ray attempts Biblical justification: was Re: U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

Kane writes:

> My answer to your question, "Who else's would it be?" is, I didn't
> percieve being hit.

Hi, Kane!

Those who have resorted to violence against children have many
explanations -- some plausable, some not.  Younger people's  explanations
are usually along the lines of, "he started it," or "I had to make a point
so no one else would bother me," or "he hit me first."

If you, as you say, did not perceive yourself being hit, you may have
justified your use of violence as making a point or in another way.

School officials and other authorities you call social controllers are
accustomed to the excuses and generally respond by punishing both of the
combatants.

We were both lucky that we grew up in a different age.  Today, a child who
repeatedly injured other children would find himself subject to
"interventions" by assorted species of bureaucrats convinced that the
"problem must be in the home."  If a given child repeatedly breaks the noses
of his peers, the do-gooders would want to know where the child learned his
violent ways.  They would project into the future and find the child "at
risk" of horrendous, evil deeds associated with increasing violence.  The
violent presenting behavior of the 11-year-old would trip a lot of
"indicators" on the inevitable "risk assessment tools" the bureaucrats would
use in assessing the child's family.

Can you imagine how many little boxes a CPS worker would check off if, in
the process of "assessing" the family, she learned that one of the parents
actually enrolled the violent "offender" in a martial arts class?

Can you imagine the "risk" the CPS worker would assess if a parent became
angry during her "assessment" of the home?

"Why the hell are you checking the contents of my fridge when the complaint
here is that my kid broke the nose of a bully who was older and bigger than
he was?" dad asks in frustration.  "Why are you asking me how much my uncle
on my mother's side drank and whether my parents spanked me as a child," mom
demands.

"Ah, haaaa!" writes the caseworker.  "So, that's where the child's 'anger'
comes from!"

How would you have fared, at 11 years old, in a "psychological evaluation"
ordered by the CPS worker. Would the social worker across from you with the
clipboard understand your validation of why you broke all of those noses of
all of those children?  Would she accept your explanation that the victims
were bullies?  That they hit you first?  That you had to make a point so
other bullies wouldn't hurt you?  That they "started it."

In the process of her assessment, the CPS worker should talk to the multiple
victims involved.  We are all sure, of course, that those kids (teenagers or
younger) are going to be truthful and explain that the altercations were all
their fault, right?  They are all going to say that they started it.  That
they hit first.  That they were bullies.  Right?  Or are they, in the
parlance of children the world over, going to say that, "he started it," "he
hit first," "he was a bully."   They will be talking to CPS, afterall.

Imagine how your parents or foster caregivers would have fared after all of
the "risk assessments" and investigative paperwork was completed.  In the
words of Martina McBride, "where would you be."

Under current CPS policy and procedure, using current risk assessment tools,
the violent child would be a clear candidate for "protective custody."  CPS
would determine he would need to be taken out of the home environment that
contributed to his "acting out" and placed into foster care to give the
parents time to get their act together.

It is important to keep in mind that the majority of children forcibly
removed from their homes and placed into foster care by CPS were not abused!
The vast majority of "substantiated" cases are for RISK of abuse or neglect.
And a whopping 103,144 children removed in 2001 were UNSUBSTANTIATED for
either risk of or actual abuse/neglect (around 25% of the children placed in
foster care).  http://tinyurl.com/9psd

Once the nose-breaking, violent child was in foster care, the parents would
have accept "services" to get the child back.  These cookie-cutter services
would likely include psychotherapy, beginning with a psychological
evaluation by one of CPS's stable of contracted therapists, parenting
classes, and anger control classes/counseling.
These will be scheduled during the day, so the parents will have to ask
their employers for some "adjustments" of their work schedule.  The parents
will, no doubt, try to explain the "illogical" reasons why the government
has ordered them to undergo therapy, but the boss assumes he knows what CPS
does (they deal with child abusers, right?) so he figures "where there's
smoke there's fire."

But, wait...there's still more.

After the classes, the psych evals, the therapy, the anger management
counseling (remember when dad and mom were upset over the family history and
food reserve part of the assessments), the parents will now have to prove
that little Kane will no longer break the noses of other children if he
comes home.  The parents will have to prove that they have learned by
jumping through the hoops how to better supervise little Kane.

CPS and now the court will want to know if the parents have "got their act
together" before they are willing to sacrifice the federal flow of funding
they are receiving for little Kane's stay in foster care and return him to
his parents.  The "team" (GAL's, caseworkers, CPS supervisor, Juvenile
Officer, assorted consultants and other species of jacklegs) will have to
agree that the parents are fit for reunification.

Meanwhile, under concurrent planning, the foster caregivers of little Kane
have grown fond of his gentle nature.  Since they have no additional
children of their own, the risk of broken noses is not of importance to
them.  They let their caseworker know they would like to adopt.

Now, its a close call for the "team."  They have to weigh what is in Kane's
best interests.  Which "home" would be best for the 11-year-old?  Not an
easy decision.  It is difficult to get the GAL, CPS caseworkers, foster
caregivers, consultants, supervisors, lawyers, child advocates, CPS
supervisors, foster care workers and other team members to agree.  It will
take time.

And...well, since the last hearing, things have come up.  One of the parents
have lost their job (the "appointments" with therapists and the stigma of
being a child abuser have taken their toll).  There is less income for the
family -- something that members of the "team" have "concerns" about.  And,
despite all that anger management counseling, the parents seem to be getting
more upset the longer this whole thing drags out.  The foster caregiver, who
is now effectively  an adversary in a custody battle over little Kane,
reported to the team that little Kane is "acting out" after visits with his
parents.  He throws tandrums when the visits are over...."violent" tandrums.
Oh, oh.  So much to consider.  A lot of concerns.  The team will need time
to sort it all out.

The average stay in foster care currently is around 2 years.

ASFA mandates that adoption be considered after the child has been in state
custody for 15 of the last 22 months.

> >I understood
> >you to say that you "whipped ass" after age 11, but still lived in
> fear. You
> >spent a lot of time hitting kids bigger than you that thought your
> mild
> >manner made you an easy target.
>
> "A lot of time?" Where did I mention how much time it took? Usual an
> encounter with a bully, if you don't back down, takes just a couple of
> seconds.

"I was a typical little squirt until I was about 15. SPENT A GOOD DEAL OF
TIME dealing with kids much larger than me that thought the mild mannered
one was an easy target. Can't tell you how many noses I broke."  (Your
quote, emphasis mine).

> >Once other children learned that you could
> >hit after age 11, they left you alone.
>
> Funny about that.
>
> You got a problem with it?
>

No.  In another era, like today, a lot of social service bureaucrats would
have "concerns" about it.

> Of course not. So you can readily see that hitting children is
> violence. You aren't going to try and claim that spanking does not
> require the action of hitting, are you?

Yes, I can see that hitting children is violence.  I don't know any form of
spanking that does not involve hitting.  But spanking is entirely different
that hitting children in the face with one's fist and breaking their noses.
Both involve hitting.  But it is clearly a different kind of hitting.

> >
> >As you mentioned, encountering bullies in the playground at age 11 is
> >commonplace.  Breaking their noses isn't.
>
> Funny how it tapers off quickly. I note a lot of families that have
> children that are bullied take them off to a martial arts training.
> Usually one of the striking disciplines such as Tae Kwan Do.

Oh.

>>I did agree with the reader I responded to that your
>>written attacks against some members of this group was bullying.

>That's odd. I consider many that you either don't engage and >correct
>as bullies of members of this group. Why is it you pick and choose
>just as you do?

I am not picking on you, Kane.  Really.

My point is that the system currently in place is likely to respond
incorrectly to the set of facts you have shared and that system needs to be
reformed.

You and I were lucky to have grown up in a different time.  We were able to
flourish, as you described, being raised by our families.