Should previously convicted felons automatically give up the right to see their children on a regular basis but be permitted to see them on occasion, not be allowed to see them at all, or have no restrictions at all?

[The object of such a law would be to protect the welfare of these children.]

It would depend on what the conviction was for, the current lifestyle of the person (as well as the other parent) and other factors.

I didn't answer this question because there are greatly differing types and degrees of felonies. For example: Theft of over $250 and child molestation are two entirely different matters. It would be cruel to deny visitation in the first case, possibly advisable in the second. I don't think one shoe fits all works here.

No, convicted felons should not lose custody or visitation, just because they are felons.

I didn't vote because it depends on the crime. Existing Juvenile code stipulates that one cannot lose custody or visitation rights for their children unless they have abused/neglected their children or it is substantiated that the children would be in imminent danger if left with the parent. For instance, it could be established that a rapist poses imminent danger to the child. Murder, rape, and some other violent crimes offer the grounds which imminent danger could be established.

I can see these arguments being offered but my question is whether felons should lose parental rights to protect the welfare of their children. Of course, you can also answer for limited rights if you think that's too extreme.

You can't make a unilateral decision about something like that without facts (and the convicted felon is not enough facts for this decision). You may see things in black and white, some of us see colors and gradients. Being convicted of a felony does not necessarily make one an unfit or dangerous parent, so the answer is NO people should not necessarily lose parental rights because they are convicted felons.

Exactly! Apparently crwrd didn't read my post.

I clearly explained in my post when ANYONE, felon or not, should and could legally, lose their parental rights: 1) IF they have been substantiated for abuse or neglect 2)OR if it can be shown that the child faces imminent danger by being left with the parent.

Only under those conditions, should they lose parental rights or visitation. It doesn't matter if they have been caught and convicted of some other crime or not.

Yes, I understand that.

I want to know if people THINK it should be the way I described.

No, I do not think it should be. READ MY POST. I said SHOULD OR COULD LEGALLY and then stated under what conditions.

Why is it that felons should be allowed to endanger the welfare of their children?

Perhaps if the question were narrower: Such as "felons who are convicted of violent crimes," the proposition would have far greater support. A felony could be something as (relatively) minor as a smallish theft, a DWI, or possession of a small amount of drugs. These people don't need the added indignity of losing visitation rights.

It would be immoral to remove children from their parents based on a broad term like welfare of the child. Tearing apart natural families should only be done if there is substantial reason to believe the child has been abused or is in immediate danger.

You obviously are not a parent and have no respect for parental rights and responsibilities to make this broad judgement.

Not all felons DO pose an imminent threat of danger to their children. In fact, most of the cases I worked with at Child Protective Services, neither of the parents were felons but they were abusive parents.

Using felon as a criteria to split apart families is not going to ensure the safety of a child.

For a so-called 'open-minded' person you sure are quick to pass judgement. FYI the whole point of this is to diminish the environmental factors that could otherwise result in the child learning a maladaptive lifeskill set.

The first concern should be to protect the welfare of a child regardless of any other factor.


That's true. But it wasn't the point. The point is that the welfare of all children must be protected and being in the care of a felon can sometimes lead to situations in which the child will learn a maladpative lifeskill set.

There's no law that says ANY parent has a right to be a parent. There are plenty of laws that are supposed to ensure the appropriate upbringing of children.

There are plenty of laws that protect and uphold the family and parental rights. I majored in SW and a big part of our studies were family law and juvenile code. I also worked at Child Protective Services and have seen first hand these abusive families and worked with them in a family preservation unit.

You cannot prevent anyone from having children. There is NO law that bans parenthood for some.

Family is highly regarded morally and within our laws.

Do you have children or any background working with abused children? These children LOVE their parents no matter what their parents have done and it is cruel and evil to take them from their parents unless they have been abused or are in immediate danger.

Poor people cannot afford to provide the optimum environment, nor are they required to by law. Why should some parent lose their child because they cannot afford the things for their children that my husband and I can?

Perhaps some of the less educated have less than desireable parenting skills, but that still does not mean the STATE has a right to tear these children from their God given families.

You still haven't answered the question of what law says that a child's welfare may be compromised? In terms of having a criminal parent, isn't it quite likely that their raising of that child might inspire the same type of behavior in their children?

You're making great assumptions that says just by nature of the class of charge that:

• the child's welfare may be compromised by contact with a parent who has a felony conviction
• the parent (with the felony conviction) has not been rehabilitated (or cannot be rehabiitated)
• the parent (with the felony conviction) will definitely expose the child to maladpative criminal behaviour
• a child who is aware of that criminal behavior and allowed continued contact with the parent is likely to emulate that behavior; but a child with diminished (or no) contact will not emulate that behavior

If you think appropriate to have a one fits all legislation (and you can't use the arguement you gave us choices, because you're now arguing you shouldn't need to give us specifics of the cases to make a decision) do you think the next step should be to prevent convicted felons from having children? Will couples who decide to stay together when one's been convicted of a felony have to divorce, separate or lose custody of the children in order to ensure the children aren't possibly exposed to the maladpative behavior now that the parent has been convicted of a felony and released from prison. What if someone was convicted of a violent crime (felony) 10 years prior to having a family and has stayed out of trouble since - would you still apply the rules you come up with?

One size does not necessarily fit all.

You also seem to be working on the assumption that the parent convicted of a felony crime is a worse parent and sets a worse example than one with no/limited criminal record. Having seen the care provided by many parents w/o felony convictions, I'm not sure you are correct in the assumption.

Contrary to what you may think, I am very big on personal responsibility and hold people accountable but, unlike you, I believe that one should use their analytical skills to determine the facts of a given situation and apply logic in order to delineate an appropriate course of action.

I argue that a child's welfare is much more compromised by a parent with multiple speeding tickets, and a DUI (not necessarily a felony) than he/she is with a parent convicted of felony robbery so he could buy groceries.

Well then I guess here is something else you will find 'illogical': I think felons should pay higher taxes than everyone else. They've paid their debt for their crimes, now they should pay their debt to the taxpayers. How 'bout that?

Yes, I did it. The law states (and it varies somewhat state to state because Juvenile code is in the State Statutes), that the State canNOT require an optimum environment and ONLY IF the child has been abused/neglected as substantiated by CPS OR has been shown to be in imminent danger as substantiated by CPS, then the child can be removed from his/her family.

"Child's welfare" is not used to remove a child from his/her family. And even if CPS substantiates, ONLY A JUDGE CAN MAKE THE FINAL DECISION TO HAVE THE CHILD REMOVED.

YOU never defined "child's welfare" as I asked. This term is HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE.

I agree. I also would state that a parent who has a chronic history of child abusive, yet has never been convicted of ANY crime, is higher risk to abuse again.

The examples are countless. For instance, suppose someone gets convicted of stealing a car but has never shown tendencies to abuse their child. This person poses less danger to a child than someone with a chronic history of child abuse that has never been caught committing any crime.

Higher taxes, wouldn't it make more sense to have them pay for their room and board by taking it out of their wages along with taxes (like they do with child support) until they've made restitution to the tax payers? Why just limit it to felons?

What if the child gets the notion from that parent that it's ok to steal? What if the environment provided by that guardian lends itself to criminality? As far as I understand it, THAT is a situation in which the child's welfare would be compromised.

That would work as well, but I think only more serious criminals should be punished in this way. Besides their room and board they should also have to foot the bill for social programs to prevent people from becoming felons in the first place. There's no reason that non-felons should have to do that because they are not felons.

What if the child learns the exact opposite and that the criminal is not the only one who gets punished by incarceration?

You are asking for a LOT of State interference in a parent raising a child and have YET TO DEFINE CHILD'S WELFARE as you see it.

SO WHAT if the child takes on the values of the parent, it is WRONG for the STATE to intervene at that level. WHO WOULD DECIDE WHAT THE OPTIMUM ENVIRONMENT IS? AN ATHIEST? A FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN? WE ARE A FREE NATION IF YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED.

EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE OF THAT LEVEL IS COMPARABLE TO COMMUNISM THAT DICTATES HOW MANY CHILDREN, WHAT SEX THE CHILDREN CAN BE, AND PROHIBITS FREEDOMS SUCH AS FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

WE ARE NOT A COMMUNIST COUNTRY!

What if I do the wrong thing by TRYING to do the right thing? You can't possibly know that but it should be obvious that children shouldn't be raised in environments that are a serious threat to their welfare (that includes non-indicted abusers). Felons should have to pay higher taxes because they are responsible for making unfair constraints on society by their actions. It's not clear what is the appropriate thing to do to assist in raising their children but what's clear is that we should try every method possible to avoid the endangerment of the child(ren)'s welfare.

so removing access to parents who have been convicted of a crime is always the right thing for a child because the child might learn something bad? how come not all criminals come from homes of lawbreakers>

Pay higher taxes? Foot the bill for social programs? Why not just stick them back in prison and avoid even trying. After all, it's difficult to impossible for a convicted felon to secure gainful employment. Minimum wage beckons and then they're the first to go when people are fired and the first to be accused if something goes wrong. Yeah, take their few pennies for taxes and make them pay and pay. Let's just execute them all and not have to put up with their presence, even if they might have been innocent in the first place (and that has happened more often than anyone wants you to know).

The world's not always going to work the way you want it to.

I'm not trying to be a dictator here. I'm looking out for the welfare of the child. Now in your mind-and your only defense to my argument-is that I am trying to tell parents how to raise their children. I am not. I'm just protecting children from an upbringing that may lead to their criminality. That's all this is designed to achieve, so turn off your nuclear defense system. Flip on the TV to reality.

There are two factors involved:
i. Environment
ii. Genetics

While we can't prevent the genetics, there are certain situations in which the environment can be prevented. We just have to figure out what those situations are.

The world is not going to be the way you want it crwrd. You want excessive control over other's lives. That wont happen in the US.

You STILL HAVE NOT DEFINED "CHILD'S WELFARE"

What is on your list for this aside from terminating the parental rights of a felon?

well you could enact a eugenics program and develop a program to weed out those with aberrant and unacceptable behavior to add to removing access to children, of course that was done before in the not too distant past in a place known as Nazi Germany



. . .but it should always work the way you want it to?

Are you sure you're really thinking about the best interests of children, because your black and white perspective sounds more punitive than protective?

Tell me, do you have children? If not, is this by your own choice?

cwrd could also establish a Parent Police Dept that randomly checked in on parents to be sure they were instilling the "RIGHT" values in their children. Were they allowing their children to watch trashy sitcoms or other shows on tv that could shape their values? Do the parents take their children to church? Do the parents have a big home and nice cars rather than donating all of their money to charity?

What about divorce? Isn't this teaching children the wrong values?

Sorry cwrd, you cannot legislate EXCESSIVE CONTROL AND INTERFERENCE IN FAMILIES' PRIVACY BASED ON ONE PERSON'S VIEW OF "CHILD'S WELFARE." Interference is ONLY warranted based on the two criteria I have listed out several times.

BTW, EMOTIONAL ABUSE IS ABUSE. Children can be removed for emotional abuse.

For someone who claims to be a socialworker, you sure have a narrow focus on what constitutes a "child's welfare". Should we not endeavor-when possible-to decrease crime in our society? Should a parent's so-called right to see their child trump the child's right to have their welfare protected? We need to develop more social programs to help prevent criminality. But we also need to pay attention to obvious ways to achieve the same goal which are a cheaper choice for society (such as the idea that I am presenting). Yes, abusers should not be able to parent. Nor should people who may have an undue negative influence on their future.

I am no longer a social worker, my husband and I own a real estate investment and development business.

That is besides the point, I understand what CAN AND SHOULD BE DONE LEGALLY with regard to REMOVING THE CHILDREN FROM THEIR FAMILIES. It would be extreme and excessive to remove children for other reasons.

There are numerous interventive programs that teach parenting skills. I'm all for intervention rather than waiting until things get so bad that the child ends up with broken bones or worse.

Various agencies and departments identify high risk parents and offer classes and therapy. Are these interventive programs funded adequately? NO!

YOUR DEFINITION OF CHILD WELFARE MAY NOT BE WHAT MOST"S IS< THAT IS WHY I ASKED YOU TO DEFINE IT AND YOU STILL HAVE YET TO DEFINE IT.

I know what I consider to be an optimum environment for a child and have taught parenting classes. But your idea may differ.


It is NOT ALWAYS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD TO REMOVE THEM AND PUT THEM IN FOSTER CARE! DO YOU HAVE ANY CLUE HOW HORRIBLE FOSTER CARE IS FOR A CHILD?

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A CHILD YANKED FROM THE ARMS OF THEIR OWN PARENT? IT"S HORRIFIC AND TRAUMATIC FOR THAT CHILD.

I wasn't asking for that UNLESS both parents are felons. I think we could settle on supervised visits a few times per year with the felon. The non-felon parent would be given custody.

A child's welfare includes not only being able to grow up free from abuse but also a right to learn adaptive lifeskills. There's no way we can be sure that this happens if the person teaching these skills may not know those skills himself.

NO ONE who has responded here, including myself thinks that not allowing a felon to have full parental rights, JUST BECAUSE he is a felon, is fair or reasonable.

I understand full well what an optimum environment is as a parent but I also understand that we cannot FORCE parents to adhere nor can we EXCESSIVELY INTRUDE ON THEIR FAMILY'S PRIVACY.

A FEW TIMES A YEAR? OMG! You OBVIOUSLY don't have children or understand the deep bond between children and parents; to show such utter disregard for this is reckless at best.

So you have gone from "child's welfare" to "adaptive life skills."

DO YOU REALIZE HOW MANY PARENTS HAVE SOME MALADAPTIVE LIFE SKILLS? YOU WOULD BE TAKING NEARLY ALL CHILDREN FROM THEIR FAMILIES AND RAISING THEM IN INSTITUTIONS! OMG! THIS SOUNDS LIKE THE ATROCIOUS ORPHAN TRAINS PRE CHILD WELFARE LAWS!!!

Yes, thank you for pointing out the oversight.

This often happens when generalizing about things (which I happen to be expert at).

So, let's offer a fair compromise: Instead of yanking parental rights away from felons, let's instead be sure that time spent with their children is always supervised. Thus, we can be fair in not taking away their right to see their children but also be sure that they are always on the up and up. It would be the responsibility of the non-felon parent to ensure that time spent with the children is supervised.

That still is too intrusive, that would mean the child could not live with the parent.

I do think it would be reasonable to require any parent who has been identified at risk to attend parenting classes. Currently, at risk parents are screened and identified when they give birth (through the hospital SW), or by DSS based on a report, and sometimes at HeadStart programs, but they could also be identified as they exit prison.

As I said, I'm all for interventive programs and offering services BEFORE it gets to the point of having to remove the child and there are (underfunded) depts in CPS that do this. But considering there isn't even enough funding for CPS to work properly, I don't see a shift to increasing funding of interventive programs on the horizon.

It's easy...felons could be taxed to pay for it.

Don't they already pay parole fees when they get out? I think we should increase inheritance taxes. Taxing wealth, opposed to income makes more sense to me. This would bring in HUGE amounts of money.

I don't they could afford to pay beyond what they pay now and parole fees. You don't want to put them in an impossible situation. Middle and Lower income people are already carring the tax burden. That's why we have seen an increase in Mult-millionares, the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer under Bush.

Is it unfair to ask felons--whether financially disadvantaged or not--to foot the bill for something they are responsible for? Yes, the rich are getting richer. Does that justify taxing them more? I'm not so sure. I think it is in general unfair to lay blame to the rich for society's problems. They are not the one's who have been convicted of these crimes (and if they are felons they should have to pay the higher taxes).


Why is it that the rich should pay up to 39% in taxes? Is it for the "good" of society? Is the exploitation of the middle and lower classes also ultimately for the "good" of society? Of course, not! The rich are not so innocent, but neither are the rest of us! We need to acquaint ourselves with an objective reality and only then pursue solutions to these problems.

Why is it that so many Americans are opposed to the idea of a progressive income tax -- the more money you make, the higher percentage of it you pay in taxes.

28 percent in taxes is a far greater burden for a person making $25,000 per year than 39 percent would be for a person making $500,000.

Yet, most folks in this country somehow seem to be operating under the delusion that someday they will be rich. There are precious few people who become superstar athletes or win the lottery.

I'm sorry but that wasn't the question. Just because someone has money doesn't mean there is a right of the gov't to take it away. Societal Entitlement is the only attempt that has been justified to do this. There isn't really justification honestly. Taxation is a necessary evil, but we still must use it sparingly for poor and rich alike.

Ever stop to think that maybe that's not the issue?

What it's really about is a couple of very important things. First progressive income tax implies that property rights apply differently to different people depending on how much property they have (and remember the equal right to property is guaranteed by the constitution). So if one person pays 10% of his income and the other pays 40% of his income, isn't this an unequal application of the right to property?

The second issue is a very important one and isn't so philosophical. Ask yourself this: how in the world does a country get the power to fight two wars on the other side of the world at the same time with a highly divided constituency?

Answer: By the power to tax! Whenever we ask the government to become bigger to take care of our problems, we're not empowering the poor or people of color or women or whoever -- we're empowering government. Once they have your money, they can eventually do whatever they wish with it.

taxation = labor = your time on earth = your social liberty

economic liberty and social liberty are convergent concepts.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am all for a truly progressive income tax, of course, you'll never get the rich to vote against their own fiscal best interests (unlike the poor).

Craichead, above, makes a good point on how progressive taxing infringes on our basic rights. What definitive case can you make in support of it?

Why are we so damned worried about taxing rich people too much? Many of them pay little or no taxes anyway because of loopholes and deductions. A progressive income tax is the one of the few ways to address the huge and growing disparity between haves and have nots in this country. Instead, Republicans generally favor regressive taxes that place an ever-greater burden on lower and middle income people.

Think of it this way: If we raised the upper limit (just to make the math easier) to 50 percent, a person making $1 million a year would *still* have $500,000 left. A person making $40,000 per year and paying 25 percent would have $30,000 left. Which situation would you rather be in?

I think we need to *rethink* our tax system. Specifically, an equal percentage seems the least of all possible evils to me. And no, I can't support the current system because making excuses of ways for me to get ahead as a non-rich person doesn't make it right for me to get ahead JUST BECAUSE I can. Taxes take away money from people and give that power to the government. Now, the government does deserve some power and the people do deserve a fair share of their own power and money. Thus, taxes should only be for necessary things and not those which are *optional*. Adopting this standard would solve most of our tax system problems.

Actually, that's a common misconception. The wealthy in America actually pay -- I think -- around 80% of the tax burden.