Parenting licenses

[CoraSpia]

Your own potential failings do not give you a right to restrict the rights of others.

Why do fully grown adults get more right to live than kids? We have driving licenses so adults don't get killed while driving by others, so why don't we get parenting licences so kids don't get killed just by being a kid.

Because the vast majority of parents don't abuse their children, and the money that could be spent on creating parental licensing programs could go towards making the existing safeguards against abuse more robust. There is also a massive amount of potential for state abuse as has already been pointed out, with the possibility of reducing the birthrates of certain groups in society becoming very easy.
We also have the problem of the fact that not every pregnancy is planned, and that laws are broken willingly. What happens to the child then? Would you propose taking the child away from a potentially loving home just because the parents didn't have the right paperwork? The potential benefits here are far outweighed by the costs.

[CoraSpia]

I think you misunderstand the point of the proposal? I don't know where you live but being able to drive isn't required to raise a kid, nor is having a family fortune. The proposal is about preventing child abuse, not about making sure that the kid never wants for any of the luxuries in life.

Neglect is abuse. And is mentioned in the first post. But OK, parenting licenses for disabled people who can pass the same tests as anyone else. If that vetoes a few who are so mentally impaired they get a diaper back to front after weeks of practice, then too bad. They cannot be single parents.

There is a difference between willful neglect and being unable to provide for your child through no fault of your own. Even people who were at the time in stable jobs can often find themselves facing unexpected circumstances that lead to them having less financial resources, such as an economic downturn, a new health condition or a disabling injury. What do you do then? Take their license away retroactively? Throw the kid into the social care system? The money could be better spent on supporting the parents financially so as not to break up the family unit.

[CoraSpia]

Because the vast majority of parents don't abuse their children, and the money that could be spent on creating parental licensing programs could go towards making the existing safeguards against abuse more robust. There is also a massive amount of potential for state abuse as has already been pointed out, with the possibility of reducing the birthrates of certain groups in society becoming very easy.
We also have the problem of the fact that not every pregnancy is planned, and that laws are broken willingly. What happens to the child then? Would you propose taking the child away from a potentially loving home just because the parents didn't have the right paperwork? The potential benefits here are far outweighed by the costs.

The vast majority of people never murder either. I would much rather intervene before they do, than put more into policing and prisons. "Taking the children" is going to happen with parents going to prison or not. Better soon than late.

What do you think of Mandatory Reporting? I want to know if you are serious about safeguards.

Yes, most people don't murder. That's the reason we don't lock everyone up at birth and make them take a society course in order to get free. There are things we can do that stop people before they murder someone else, most notably around mental health.

Some professions should be mandatory reporters, especially those that have close contact with children such as medical staff and teachers. Forcing every adult to be a mandatory reporter would just clog the system with hunches and overblown reports however, and would lead us nowhere.

[CoraSpia]

There is a difference between willful neglect and being unable to provide for your child through no fault of your own. Even people who were at the time in stable jobs can often find themselves facing unexpected circumstances that lead to them having less financial resources, such as an economic downturn, a new health condition or a disabling injury. What do you do then? Take their license away retroactively? Throw the kid into the social care system? The money could be better spent on supporting the parents financially so as not to break up the family unit.

You are arguing against something I never said. All I said is that seriously disabled people who would need day/night help to raise a child (to 6 or so) should cross "single parent" off their life ambitions list. Unless they can afford it. Or they can find a licensed partner.

"The money could be better spent" is such an easy argument to make, mmm?

I'm not sure what 'to 6' means, but again I disagree. One of the few things that I am absolutely happy with the state throwing money hand over fist at is supporting non-abusive parents raise children, even if that means they have to provide a large amount of support to the parents in comparison to others. Absolutely love that budgetary priority, lowers abortions and leads to healthier and happier children. If a parent is not abusive or wilfully neglecting a child then the support should be there to enable them to raise that child.

[Forsher]

To return to the driver's licence comparison... driver's licencing regimes are a good way of telling who can't drive (and providing a simple means of checking, of those who can drive, who is authorised to do so), but how do you tell who can't parent?

[Bears Armed]

Anti Vaxxers are right wing. They are part in parcel of the right wing sense 2016.

Maybe in the USA... maybe. Elsewhere, people opposed to vaccination are probably at least as likely to be left-wingers prejudiced against the process because they think governments are pushing it just to boost the producer' profits (or for some other nefarious reason, such as using specially-designed "vaccines" to target particular minorities for harm), or "neo-hippie" types who think that it's "unnatural" and that the proper solution to pandemics lies in using homeopathic medicine (possibly with aside-order of crystals) instead...

[CoraSpia]

Yes, most people don't murder. That's the reason we don't lock everyone up at birth and make them take a society course in order to get free. There are things we can do that stop people before they murder someone else, most notably around mental health.

Some professions should be mandatory reporters, especially those that have close contact with children such as medical staff and teachers. Forcing every adult to be a mandatory reporter would just clog the system with hunches and overblown reports however, and would lead us nowhere.

I think parents should be. They have the original and strongest duty of care. It should be illegal for them not to act. They may fear the future without the income (or house) of their abusive partner, but if they make the same reckoning for their child, they are wrong. Criminally so.

An adult living in the same house is FAR more likely to be aware of abuse, than a doctor or teacher is. In fact, they are complicit.

Your idea of strengthening existing safeguards has fallen at the first hurdle. Have you got other ideas?

A lot of people who abuse kids also abuse their partners. The other parent might be in fear for their own safety if they speak to the police, or may have been effectively brainwashed by the abuser. They could also be a victim.

[CoraSpia]

I'm not sure what 'to 6' means, but again I disagree. One of the few things that I am absolutely happy with the state throwing money hand over fist at is supporting non-abusive parents raise children, even if that means they have to provide a large amount of support to the parents in comparison to others. Absolutely love that budgetary priority, lowers abortions and leads to healthier and happier children. If a parent is not abusive or wilfully neglecting a child then the support should be there to enable them to raise that child.

6 years old. Rough guess of age a child can be left alone in their room.

Some disabled people require around the clock care. They may take the cheaper option for government and live in a nursing home. But some countries support them to live in house of their own.

Are you comfortable paying for a full time nanny for someone who doesn't need around the clock care themselves, to allow them participation in raising a child of their own? The money will come from somewhere, and most likely from other disability support.

Why would it come from other disability support? There are far better places to take the money from. To answer your question, I would be happy for the government to pay for that. Nobody should be left with the choice between having to care for a child they're not ready for and having to give that child up or get an abortion. You can go to the very end of this line of argument if you want, but as long as the parent is not abusive you're going to find that I'm totally consistent here.

[CoraSpia]

A lot of people who abuse kids also abuse their partners. The other parent might be in fear for their own safety if they speak to the police, or may have been effectively brainwashed by the abuser. They could also be a victim.

All the more reason to put legal pressure on them, to end the bad situation.

The same for any serious crime. If the person was just a witness, they get immunity from previous complicity. If they go to police.

I'm sorry? Are you seriously suggesting here that the state should prosecute domestic violence victims for failing to report? There is a reason that so few domestic violence victims report things to the police and why so many of those that do don't go ahead with giving evidence. It's what coercive control basically entails.

[CoraSpia]

Why would it come from other disability support? There are far better places to take the money from. To answer your question, I would be happy for the government to pay for that. Nobody should be left with the choice between having to care for a child they're not ready for and having to give that child up or get an abortion. You can go to the very end of this line of argument if you want, but as long as the parent is not abusive you're going to find that I'm totally consistent here.

OK. I can't defeat the argument "any problem can be solved by government spending" because sometimes I say it myself

Most things can't be solved by government spending. There are about 4 or 5 things I support government spending on and this is one of them.

[Katganistan]

wonder how easy it'd be for disabled people to get one of these?

Probably they would end up being discriminated against. With all the fake syrupy "we're concerned about your ability to be parents" and "it's for your good as well as the baby's" nonsense cooed at them.

[Katganistan]

Topic came up here.

So far the attempts to cut down on child abuse and child neglect have been focused on deterrence, but the threat of facing a taste of one's own medicine; and then some, depending on the prison; has not been enough to scare parents into only having kids they intend to raise properly. We could up the ante, but we could only up the ante so far. Death penalty might actually backfire if some parents would rather die than encounter other prisoners as a convicted child abuser, and would rather be executed than be remembered as suicidal.

So why don't we shift the focus to prevention instead? Why don't we have parenting licenses? The usual response I hear elsewhere is that the government could misuse this authority. Well, the government could also theoretically misuse laws against abuse and neglect by only prosecuting dissidents who abuse and neglect their kids while leaving non-dissidents who do the same alone. Nevertheless, we have standards on parenting, answerable to a plurality of voters rather than just the individual parents. Why not try to predict how likely those standards are to be met by the parents, and if that seems unlikely, give the kid to one of the many would-be adoptive parents out there clamoring to take on that role if the child is still in the infancy stage, to make abuse and neglect less likely?

I actually support a parenting license, given this is based off my fears of being a bad parent but still.

If you fear being a bad parent, then don't become one.

[CoraSpia]

wonder how easy it'd be for disabled people to get one of these?

Probably they would end up being discriminated against. With all the fake syrupy "we're concerned about your ability to be parents" and "it's for your good as well as the baby's" nonsense cooed at them.

I agree with Kat and therefore feel the need to lie down until the shock dies down.

[CoraSpia]

I'm sorry? Are you seriously suggesting here that the state should prosecute domestic violence victims for failing to report? There is a reason that so few domestic violence victims report things to the police and why so many of those that do don't go ahead with giving evidence. It's what coercive control basically entails.

Failing to report ABUSE OF THEIR OWN CHILD yes. Duty of care should not have an exemption for "but I am a victim too".

By rejecting even an extension of Duty of Care you make it clear than "strengthening existing safeguards" was just hollow words.

I also notice you didn't mention Priests. As Reporters?

Priests are people who have close contact with children. I didn't mention nursery staff either, because I didn't think you needed an exhaustive list.
Laws often protect victims from consequences of inaction when an abuser has such a high degree of control over them. This is no different.