Found Deceased TX - Sherin Mathews, 3, Richardson, 7 Oct 2017 #7 *Arrests*

Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn't that just legalese for the state's act of taking custody of their child and putting the child in foster care ?

I am not sure. From what I have read, this is an action to end their parental rights, completely. To make the temporary state of their child being in CPS custody a permanent one. My understanding is that this action to end parental rights was put in place after Sherin was found and WM confessed to removing her body from the house. But I could be wrong.
 
Here here is the federal law regarding termination of parental rights of children in foster care as modified in 1997 via the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) prior to this family reunification was the primary goal and health and safety of the child secondary. I have bolded aggravated circumstances and more relevant passages.


[FONT=&amp]The [/FONT]Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA, Public Law 105-89) was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 19, 1997, after having been approved by the United States Congress earlier in the month.

ASFA was enacted in an attempt to correct problems that were inherent in the foster care system that deterred the adoption of children with special needs. Many of these problems had stemmed from an earlier bill, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980,[SUP][1][/SUP]although they had not been anticipated when that law was passed, as states decided to interpret that law as requiring biological families be kept together no matter what.[SUP][1][/SUP] The biggest change to the law was how ASFA amended Title IV-E of the Social Security Act regarding funding.
Moreover, ASFA marked a fundamental change to child welfare thinking, shifting the emphasis towards children's health and safety concerns and away from a policy of reuniting children with their birth parents without regard to prior abusiveness.[SUP][1][/SUP] As such, ASFA was considered the most sweeping change to the U.S. adoption and foster care system in some two decades.[SUP][1][/SUP] One of ASFA's lead sponsors, Republican Senator John H. Chafee of Rhode Island, said, "We will not continue the current system of always putting the needs and rights of the biological parents first. ... It's time we recognize that some families simply cannot and should not be kept together."[SUP][

[/SUP]
Major provisions and tacticsEdit

The major provisions of the law include:

  • Requires that States move to terminate parental rights for children who have been in Foster Care for 15 out of the last 22 months
  • Exceptions to the 15/22 rule include:[SUP][4][/SUP]
    1. When the child is in a Foster Home with a biological relative (Kinship Care)
    2. When the Agency documents a compelling reason why parental termination is not in the Child's best interest
    3. When the State has failed to provide services necessary for reunification
  • Requires that Permanency Hearings be held every 12 months
  • Clarifies cases in which States are not required to reunite Families (Aggravated Circumstances)
  • Expands family preservation and support services
  • Extends subsidies for adoptive children
  • Provides incentives for States to improve adoption rates
  • Requires States to document efforts to move children toward adoption
  • Expands health care coverage for adoptive children
  • Provides funding for efforts at encouraging adoption
  • Clarifies that interstate boundaries should not delay adoption.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_and_Safe_Families_Act

[105th Congress Public Law 89][From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ89.105]


[[Page 111 STAT. 2115]]

Public Law 105-89
105th Congress

An Act



To promote the adoption of children in foster care. <<NOTE: Nov. 19,
1997 - [H.R. 867]>>

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Adoption and
Safe Families Act of 1997.>>

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) <<NOTE: 42 USC 1305 note.>> Short Title.--This Act may be cited
as the ``Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997''.

(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is as
follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--REASONABLE EFFORTS AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR FOSTER CARE AND
ADOPTION PLACEMENTS

Sec. 101. Clarification of the reasonable efforts requirement.
Sec. 102. Including safety in case plan and case review system
requirements.
Sec. 103. States required to initiate or join proceedings to terminate parental rights for certain children in foster care.
Sec. 104. Notice of reviews and hearings; opportunity to be heard.
Sec. 105. Use of the Federal Parent Locator Service for child welfare
services.
Sec. 106. Criminal records checks for prospective foster and adoptive
parents.
Sec. 107. Documentation of efforts for adoption or location of a
permanent home.

TITLE II--INCENTIVES FOR PROVIDING PERMANENT FAMILIES FOR CHILDREN

Sec. 201. Adoption incentive payments.
Sec. 202. Adoptions across State and county jurisdictions.
Sec. 203. Performance of States in protecting children.

TITLE III--ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS AND REFORMS

Sec. 301. Authority to approve more child protection demonstration
projects.
Sec. 302. Permanency hearings.
Sec. 303. Kinship care.
Sec. 304. Clarification of eligible population for independent living
services.
Sec. 305. Reauthorization and expansion of family preservation and
support
services.
Sec. 306. Health insurance coverage for children with special needs.
Sec. 307. Continuation of eligibility for adoption assistance payments
on behalf of children with special needs whose initial
adoption has been dissolved.
Sec. 308. State standards to ensure quality services for children in
foster care.

TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 401. Preservation of reasonable parenting.
Sec. 402. Reporting requirements.
Sec. 403. Sense of Congress regarding standby guardianship.
Sec. 404. Temporary adjustment of Contingency Fund for State Welfare
Programs.
Sec. 405. Coordination of substance abuse and child protection services.
Sec. 406. Purchase of American-made equipment and products.

TITLE V--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 501. Effective date.

[[Page 111 STAT. 2116]]

TITLE I--REASONABLE EFFORTS AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR FOSTER CARE AND
ADOPTION PLACEMENTS

SEC. 101. CLARIFICATION OF THE REASONABLE EFFORTS REQUIREMENT.

(a) In General.--Section 471(a)(15) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 671(a)(15)) is amended to read as follows:
``(15) provides that--
``(A) in determining reasonable efforts to be made
with respect to a child, as described in this paragraph,
and in making such reasonable efforts, the child's
health and safety shall be the paramount concern;
``(B) except as provided in subparagraph (D),
reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve and reunify
families--

``(i) prior to the placement of a child in
foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for
removing the child from the child's home; and
``(ii) to make it possible for a child to
safely return to the child's home;
``(C) if continuation of reasonable efforts of the
type described in subparagraph (B) is determined to be
inconsistent with the permanency plan for the child,
reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child in a
timely manner in accordance with the permanency plan,
and to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize
the permanent placement of the child;
``(D) reasonable efforts of the type described in
subparagraph (B) shall not be required to be made with
respect to a parent of a child if a court of competent
jurisdiction has determined that--

``(i) the parent has subjected the child to
aggravated circumstances (as defined in State law,
which definition may include but need not be
limited to abandonment, torture, chronic abuse,
and sexual abuse);

``(ii) the parent has--
``(I) committed murder (which would
have been an offense under section
1111(a) of title 18, United States Code,
if the offense had occurred in the
special maritime or territorial
jurisdiction of the United States) of
another child of the parent;
``(II) committed voluntary
manslaughter (which would have been an
offense under section 1112(a) of title
18, United States Code, if the offense
had occurred in the special maritime or
territorial jurisdiction of the United
States) of another child of the parent;

``(III) aided or abetted, attempted,
conspired, or solicited to commit such a
murder or such a voluntary manslaughter;
or
``(IV) committed a felony assault
that results in serious bodily injury to
the child or another child of the
parent; or


[[Page 111 STAT. 2117]]

``(iii) the parental rights of the parent to a
sibling have been terminated involuntarily;
``(E) if reasonable efforts of the type described in
subparagraph (B) are not made with respect to a child as
a result of a determination made by a court of competent
jurisdiction in accordance with subparagraph (D)--
``(i) a permanency hearing (as described in
section 475(5)(C)) shall be held for the child
within 30 days after the determination; and

``(ii) reasonable efforts shall be made to
place the child in a timely manner in accordance
with the permanency plan, and to complete whatever
steps are necessary to finalize the permanent
placement of the child; and
``(F) reasonable efforts to place a child for
adoption or with a legal guardian may be made
concurrently with reasonable efforts of the type
described in subparagraph (B);''.

(b) Definition of Legal Guardianship.--Section 475 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 675) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) The term `legal guardianship' means a judicially
created relationship between child and caretaker which is
intended to be permanent and self-sustaining as evidenced by the
transfer to the caretaker of the following parental rights with
respect to the child: protection, education, care and control of
the person, custody of the person, and decisionmaking. The term
`legal guardian' means the caretaker in such a relationship.''.

(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 472(a)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
672(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``for a child'' before ``have been
made''.
(d) Rule of Construction.--Part E of title IV of such Act (42 U.S.C.
670-679) is amended by inserting after section 477 the following:

``SEC. 478. <<NOTE: 42 USC 678.>> RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

``Nothing in this part shall be construed as precluding State courts
from exercising their discretion to protect the health and safety of
children in individual cases, including cases other than those described
in section 471(a)(15)(D).''.

SEC. 102. INCLUDING SAFETY IN CASE PLAN AND CASE REVIEW
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS.

Title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in section 422(b)(10)(B) <<NOTE: 42 USC 622.>> --
(A) in clause (iii)(I), by inserting ``safe and''
after ``where''; and
(B) in clause (iv), by inserting ``safely'' after
``remain''; and
(2) in section 475 <<NOTE: 42 USC 675.>> --
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``safety
and'' after ``discussion of the''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B)--
(I) by inserting ``safe and'' after
``child receives''; and
(II) by inserting ``safe'' after
``return of the child to his own''; and

[[Page 111 STAT. 2118]]

(B) in paragraph (5)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), in the matter
preceding clause (i), by inserting ``a safe
setting that is'' after ``placement in''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B)--
(I) by inserting ``the safety of the
child,'' after ``determine''; and
(II) by inserting ``and safely
maintained in'' after ``returned to''.

SEC. 103. STATES REQUIRED TO INITIATE OR JOIN PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE
PARENTAL RIGHTS FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE.


(a) Requirement for Proceedings.--Section 475(5) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675(5)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) in the case of a child who has been in foster
care under the responsibility of the State for 15 of the
most recent 22 months, or, if a court of competent
jurisdiction has determined a child to be an abandoned
infant (as defined under State law) or has made a
determination that the parent has committed murder of
another child of the parent, committed voluntary
manslaughter of another child of the parent, aided or
abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit
such a murder or such a voluntary manslaughter, or
committed a felony assault that has resulted in serious
bodily injury to the child or to another child of the
parent, the State shall file a petition to terminate the
parental rights of the child's parents (or, if such a
petition has been filed by another party, seek to be
joined as a party to the petition), and, concurrently,
to identify, recruit, process, and approve a qualified
family for an adoption, unless--

``(i) at the option of the State, the child is
being cared for by a relative;
``(ii) a State agency has documented in the
case plan (which shall be available for court
review) a compelling reason for determining that
filing such a petition would not be in the best
interests of the child; or
``(iii) the State has not provided to the
family of the child, consistent with the time
period in the State case plan, such services as
the State deems necessary for the safe return of
the child to the child's home, if reasonable
efforts of the type described in section
471(a)(15)(B)(ii) are required to be made with respect to the child.''.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ89/html/PLAW-105publ89.htm

BBM
 
Here are 2 links to a very short video by Dr. Sanjay Gupta on toxicology with relation to autopsies. A little simplistic but worth the watch.

[video]https://youtu.be/8TAFKzmvjaI[/video]

[video]https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cBro8YbCpNXHFsbHCqN_FV82Urk-hfq6[/video]
 
Grouchymom, your last BBM item in post #23 (Title 1 Sec 103 E) reads like it severs parental rights collectively.

the State shall file a petition to terminate the parental rights of the child's parents

Is that correct?
 
Grouchymom, your last BBM item in post #23 (Title 1 Sec 103 E) reads like it severs parental rights collectively.

the State shall file a petition to terminate the parental rights of the child's parents

Is that correct?

That is the way I interpret it and that is what occurs in the majority of cases that qualify under this statute. I suppose a good attorney could try to argue that &#8220;parents&#8221; refers to multiple cases as opposed to all parents in a single case. That is the fun of our legal system, it is only as good as the judges interpreting it.
 
That is the way I interpret it and that is what occurs in the majority of cases that qualify under this statute. I suppose a good attorney could try to argue that “parents” refers to multiple cases as opposed to all parents in a single case. That is the fun of our legal system, it is only as good as the judges interpreting it.
Thanks! Sorry if I scrolled through any previous discussion about this. I'm sure I did, this thread was flying. Trying to catch up a bit.

Could mom get a second bite at the apple if she say... divorced dad, and was found to be an innocent non-contributing party to Sherin's death (assuming that's possible), and could provide a stable home, and and and... I am sure the list goes on. Just curious if a hill exists she can climb to regain custodial rights. Purely a technical question (no judgement regarding mom).

Also, do you think the GAL findings Will provide a preliminary pass/fail for mom being able to pursue custody? TIA!
 
This news report has a tiny bit in the video, where a man and woman (could be relatives of Sini's, maybe the ones who want to take care of the 4 year old) are let into the room with Sini and her lawyers.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/sherin-mathews-parents-return-to-court-for-biological-child/491232310
The severing of parental rights may only be applicable to WM, according to the text of the article above.
Thanks for this link. It clearly states
Prosecutors are looking at taking away all of Wesley's parental rights, known as an aggravated circumstances motion and it will likely be filed in the next week or so.
 
IMHO - The mom is in a terrible quandary. Everything she does to keep from being charged in the death will hurt her chances with custody. Unfair as it may seem on the surface the &#8220;sleep&#8221; alibi under the standards of social services, plays as being unable or unwilling to protect her child(turning a blind eye) Refusing to comply with LE, while fully within her legal rights implies she has something to hide.

Everyone of us at one point or another has thought in the back of our mind that someone who takes the 5th (the right against self incrimination)or a defendant chooses not to take the stand, in refusing to testify is guilty of something, that if they testified they would obviously incriminate themselves. It is a normal inference yet Judges are constantly instructing juries not to infer guilt from it. Sini will suffer from that same thought process. Even though she is acting on advice of her attorney, in part due to the fact he wasn&#8217;t present for the initial interviews and she may have been so upset at what was then the disappearance of her child, she may not remember what was said originally. When someone gives a repeat interview the can be in a catch 22 situation. If they answer a question differently either due to having time to calm down and think more clearly or by trying so hard to &#8220;see what they missed in the spouse that the have&#8221; created a false memory -they are assumed to be lying. Yet if they answer everything exactly the same they seem rehearsed and can be accused of manufacturing the story.

So so back to custody, if something bizarre were to happen and the autopsy results were to come back natural causes (some undiagnosed condition as a heart defect or aneurysm) obviously her situation would improve dramatically. On the other hand if evidence of repeated abuse or sexual molestation were to be found she is sunk. Even if she were completely oblivious to it she would be held responsible for not knowing and failing to protect her child.

The best scenario for Sini at the moment is to get the child into a kinship placement were in time she will have unfettered access, assuming she does not get charged before everything is done. If the department proceeds with termination of parental rights as yesterday&#8217;s comments seem to have indicated, once that court order is entered there are no second bites. At this point the best scenario I can come up with for Sini is if WM wants to show what a &#8220;wonderful family man&#8221; he is and how much he &#8220;loves&#8221; his family and makes a full and complete confession, pleads guilty to what ever was done to Sherin and makes the claim that he drugged Sini without her knowledge thus truly making her a victim also. With a plea deal WM would be able to avoid the death penalty as well.

There are also a few precedents that could benefit Sini where agreements were made to give physical custody to family and the termination of parental rights were not fully persued. After all the interest dies down the family although illegal hands the child back to the parent without the knowledge of social services.

If indeed this was a one time event where WM being tired and frustrated tried to speed up the 3 am drink and accidentally caused her to choke to death. Then in some sort of bizarre immature panic decide to hide the body and everything snow balled from there, it is a tragedy of unbelievable proportions that caused the death of 1 innocent child destroyed this family and did irreparable harm to the second child and wife. If the body ends up too decomposed to determine the exact cause of death social services can not take the chance that returning the second child would place her in possible danger. Ultimately, the death of one child at the hands of a parent especially if the other parent was in the near proximity just creates a risk factor for the other child that is rarely overcome.

Now after all of that it is still a coin toss. The judge may see things differently than social services and interpret the law differently than the mainstream. She may order the department to attempt measures for reunification. I highly doubt it but it could happen. If I were Sini I would be preparing myself for a very different life and relationship with my surviving child.
While she needs to hope and work toward getting custody retuned, she needs to know it is an uphill battle of epic proportions.


IMHO


Thanks! Sorry if I scrolled through any previous discussion about this. I'm sure I did, this thread was flying. Trying to catch up a bit.

Could mom get a second bite at the apple if she say... divorced dad, and was found to be an innocent non-contributing party to Sherin's death (assuming that's possible), and could provide a stable home, and and and... I am sure the list goes on. Just curious if a hill exists she can climb to regain custodial rights. Purely a technical question (no judgement regarding mom).

Also, do you think the GAL findings Will provide a preliminary pass/fail for mom being able to pursue custody? TIA!
 
.....
If the department proceeds with termination of parental rights as yesterday&#8217;s comments seem to have indicated, once that court order is entered there are no second bites. ...
Is there any MSM reporting that says the termination of parental rights is applicable to both parents ?

The link from Alisha Ebrahimji, WFAA http://www.wfaa.com/news/sherin-mathews-parents-return-to-court-for-biological-child/491232310
only mentions "
Wesley's parental rights"

Prosecutors are looking at taking away all of Wesley's parental rights, known as an aggravated circumstances motion and it will likely be filed in the next week or so.
 
Is there any MSM reporting that says the termination of parental rights is applicable to both parents ?

The link from Alisha Ebrahimji, WFAA http://www.wfaa.com/news/sherin-mathews-parents-return-to-court-for-biological-child/491232310
only mentions "
Wesley's parental rights"

What I think is happening is that both parents' rights are being challenged. WM's rights are up for complete termination due to aggravated circumstances. SM's rights are being challenged by CPS, and we do not know what allegations they have against her. I posted sources on page 1 of this thread, #17 and #18, I think. Another lawyer not involved with the case commented that she was not surprised the state was challenging both parents' rights, but I think the challenges are different.
 
[FONT=&amp]Because of the questionable circumstances surrounding Sherin’s death and possible additional criminal charges, the state does not want to offer any type of reunification services.[/FONT]
http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/us...decide-on-custody-for-richardson-girls-sister

[FONT=&amp]Because of the questionable circumstances surrounding Sherin’s death and possible additional criminal charges, the state does not want to offer any type of reunification services.[/FONT]

http://www.fox4news.com/news/judge-to-decide-on-custody-for-richardson-girls-sister


Is there any MSM reporting that says the termination of parental rights is applicable to both parents ?

The link from Alisha Ebrahimji, WFAA http://www.wfaa.com/news/sherin-mathews-parents-return-to-court-for-biological-child/491232310
only mentions "
Wesley's parental rights"
 
Thanks both !!

Just trying to get clarity on the comments in the Phoenix based report about challenging the parents' right, opposition to reunification services and the lawyer statement about allegations against SM.

And the Dallas based report not mentioning anything about the challenges to parental right against SM while explicitly mentioning the proceedings to terminate parental rights of WM.

Hope some in the Dallas media will get us more info !!
 
I am curious what type of restrictions will be in place with regards to Sini's visitation of the child? I completely feel putting her with family is the best thing to do. I am just hoping that any restrictions will be adhered to (at least until this whole thing plays out) and who will know if they are not?
 
Thanks! Sorry if I scrolled through any previous discussion about this. I'm sure I did, this thread was flying. Trying to catch up a bit.

Could mom get a second bite at the apple if she say... divorced dad, and was found to be an innocent non-contributing party to Sherin's death (assuming that's possible), and could provide a stable home, and and and... I am sure the list goes on. Just curious if a hill exists she can climb to regain custodial rights. Purely a technical question (no judgement regarding mom).

Also, do you think the GAL findings Will provide a preliminary pass/fail for mom being able to pursue custody? TIA!

I think this is why it is going to take some time to move this one forward.

In my rather anecdotal experience, even in families where one parent abuses while the other is a victim, there are lots of questions about the victim parent's future ability to protect any children from the other parent, or possibly from future partners. There is a likelihood of continuing patterns of abuse--such as those who grow up in abusive families and then find themselves re-victimized in their choice of a life partner. Not always, but sometimes. And particularly when there has been no intervention from counseling, etc.

Pretty clear WM is going to be legally removed one way or another. But CPS has a somewhat greater latitude than a criminal court when it comes to determining Sini's level of complicity with whatever happened--on that night and for any time leading up. And using that assessment to determine if she poses an ongoing ris--even if looking a possible sins of omission rather than commission.
 
Still following as closely as possible, praying that peace can come soon. My heart just aches, and the waiting sure doesn't help.
 
I am curious what type of restrictions will be in place with regards to Sini's visitation of the child? I completely feel putting her with family is the best thing to do. I am just hoping that any restrictions will be adhered to (at least until this whole thing plays out) and who will know if they are not?

I think initially the supervised visits at CPS/DSS will remain in place at least until the autopsy results are made public. They may allow the relative who gets the child to supervise visits once the autopsy is available providing nothing comes out in the report leads to a./n indictment or arrest. JMHO
 
I think initially the supervised visits at CPS/DSS will remain in place at least until the autopsy results are made public. They may allow the relative who gets the child to supervise visits once the autopsy is available providing nothing comes out in the report leads to a./n indictment or arrest. JMHO

I think that would be best waiting until the autopsy is in. Imagine if it turns out not what WM says and instead show she has healing fractures for example, a sign that it wasn't a one of moment from WM. For my own peace of mind I would have kept her with CP's until the autopsy report was in, even though it is better for sherin to be with family
 
I am curious what type of restrictions will be in place with regards to Sini's visitation of the child? I completely feel putting her with family is the best thing to do. I am just hoping that any restrictions will be adhered to (at least until this whole thing plays out) and who will know if they are not?

That's what I worry about too. We do not know what was going on in that home. CPS needs more info before they can make the proper decision about where this sweet girl should be living.

Sini's relatives might just allow the child to be back in Mom's care, and that might not be the best place for her at this time.
 
I think this is why it is going to take some time to move this one forward.

In my rather anecdotal experience, even in families where one parent abuses while the other is a victim, there are lots of questions about the victim parent's future ability to protect any children from the other parent, or possibly from future partners. There is a likelihood of continuing patterns of abuse--such as those who grow up in abusive families and then find themselves re-victimized in their choice of a life partner. Not always, but sometimes. And particularly when there has been no intervention from counseling, etc.

Pretty clear WM is going to be legally removed one way or another. But CPS has a somewhat greater latitude than a criminal court when it comes to determining Sini's level of complicity with whatever happened--on that night and for any time leading up. And using that assessment to determine if she poses an ongoing ris--even if looking a possible sins of omission rather than commission.

Thank you for your comments, Margo/Mom! I often struggle when posters here at WS opine that a mother might have been a victim of DV which in turn may mitigate the mother's obligation to protect her child. And yes, I was once a victim of DV and the choices I made may color my opinion of how mothers should proceed in similar circumstances. FWIW, I had the confidence and support of my parents and was able to exit the abuse and I acknowledge that not every woman is as lucky but it's very hard for me to excuse continuing abuse on a child.

IOW, let an :behind: beat on me but if he beats on my kid then it's on me to stop the abuse.

I know it's been suggested in this case that Sini may have been a victim of abuse by WM. In another case I'm following where a father beat his newborn to death and hid her body posters have suggested the same about the baby's mother.

In both cases IMO it's reasonable for CPS to question the ability of the mother to move forward in a way that she is able and willing to protect her surviving child. IMO it may (or may not) come down to the willingness of the mother to break the cycle of abuse. Neither upbringing nor cultural mores should determine the level of risk a mother is willing to tolerate for her child.

MOO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
230
Guests online
3,083
Total visitors
3,313

Forum statistics

Threads
592,234
Messages
17,965,644
Members
228,729
Latest member
PoignantEcho
Back
Top