Court: Homelessness no excuse to remove child

[flashl]

A Miami appeals court ruled that the state's child-welfare agency cannot take a child away from a parent simply because the parent is homeless.

A Miami appeals court rebuked the state child-welfare agency Wednesday for removing a 12-year-old boy from his mother because she was homeless, ruling that not having a home for a child does not by itself constitute abuse.

A three-judge panel of the Third District Court of Appeal, in an opinion reversing a ruling by Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Valerie R. Manno Schurr, said being homeless is not sufficient cause to take children from their parents. Under Florida law, children can be taken from parents by the Department of Children & Families if there's evidence of abuse, neglect, or abandonment.

''Homelessness, derived solely from a custodian's financial inability, does not constitute the kind or level of abuse, neglect or abandonment necessary to justify removal of a child, unless offers services to the homeless custodian and those services are rejected,'' the court wrote.

...

Under the ruling, DCF will have to return the boy to his mother unless a new investigation turns up any evidence that would justify keeping him in state care.

Miami Herald

[slackmaster]

1. I'd like to know how much money the state spent on this case

And how much shelter or food they could have provided with that amount of money.

[aspergris]

2. It's a good ruling imo n/t

[iamjoy]

3. I Think It Is Neglect

I'm sorry, but exposing a child to the dangers of being outside all the time and not having any shelter or stability is neglect.
I don't think the solution is punishing the parent (by taking the child away or otherwise), I think the answer is to help the parent find a home where she (or he) and the child can live together.

[sandnsea]

4. People who live in shelters

are classified as homeless. It doesn't mean kids are outside all the time, not eating, not clean, not going to school, or otherwise not loved. It just means they don't have a permanent address. That's not neglect or abuse.

[iamjoy]

6. Not All Those Shelters Are Safe

And I think kids do better with the stability of a "permanent" address. But anyway, the neglect/abuse is not by the parents doing the best they can in severe circumstances.

The neglect is by society. How in the heck do we get the point where we have homeless children? (that question is rhetorical)

[JDPriestly]

5. Whether it is neglect depends on whether the parent is willfully homeless

or homeless for reasons beyond the parent's control.

I agree that the answer is to help the parent find a home. Reagan "replaced" funding for public housing with Section 8 housing. The Section 8 agreements were allowed to expire as I understand it. Now, there are many, many more applicants needing subsidized or public housing than there are units. Housing costs are way out of sync with pay scales for ordinary jobs. I sympathize totally with parents who want to provide for their children but cannot do so on their salaries. I also sympathize completely with parents who are disabled or bankrupted and cannot provide for their children.

If the parent had been addicted to drugs or abusive, the court could have taken the child out of the home and would not have justified removal of the child from the parent's custody for homelessness.

I applaud the court's decision.

[iamjoy]

7. I Agree Too

I am glad the court reunited the family because it wasn't the mother's fault. But, I can also understand how some one might have thought that taking the child away was the best thing to do.

Sadly, many government employees in the social services sector are overworked and family law divisions are also under-financed. That leads to judgment errors and they may figure it is better to err on the side of "caution."

[bobbolink]

12. could you please inform us of all the people who are "wilfully" homeless?

:eyes:

[patriotvoice]

8. Nomads. Gypsies. From the plains we came, from the plains shall we return.

There is absolutely no intrinsic right to declare neglect without a thorough understanding of the specific circumstances surrounding the individual. Yes, there are situations where a homeless parent (or parents) can neglect a child. But yes, there are also situations where a homeless parent (or parents) can provide for a child completely.

I am just now back from a week "outside." Since January of this year, I've spent about 25 days under the stars. Feeding myself, cooking for myself, seeing all that is green and good and all that is wasted and evil. I have no doubt that I could raise a child healthfully in that environment. I know what is edible, and what is not. I know what is strong, and what is weak. I know danger, and I know safety. I speak biology, chemistry, physics, law, philosophy, hunting, fishing, fighting, languages local and foreign. I am human, and from the Earth I was raised and from Earth I may raise shelter. To a child, I can teach these things.

A home, and even society itself, is a mere convenience: not a requirement. If there is love, selflessness, and compassion, the child will be tended. If there is greed or waste, the child will be neglected. The circumstances of homelessness may swing that pendulum either way. We cannot pass judgment wholesale.

[bobbolink]

11. You're absolutely right.

It's NEGLECT OF THE DAMNED SOCIETY, AND ALL THOSE "PROGRESSIVES" WHO CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO DEMAND LOW-INCOME HOUSING.

[joeglow3]

9. Look at it on a case by case basis

A few years ago they tore down an old hotel here. It had been abandoned for years and was filled with squatters. When they covered it on the news, they interviewed a family (with 3 kids) that had been living there. They said they were going to live in a park for a while because they shelters "had too many rules." What rules do they have? You can't get drunk? You have to be in by 10:00? You have to be looking for a job? I cannot imagine any rule offending me so much I would have my kids live in a park. These parents needed their kids taken away, as it was clear the parents were not willing to do whatever they could for their kids.

[bobbolink]

13. When you speak with such authority about people you don't even know, and have never met,

you become just one more authoritarian, judgemental looking-down-your-nose at those who are different from you.

Many of us have written much informative criticism about shelters here on DU.... it would behoove you to read it.

MANY times children are much better off in a park than in a shelter.

It's time to come down a notch in your judgmentalism.

[kdmorris]

15. Years ago, I chose to keep my child in the car

rather than go back to the shelter. You have no idea the danger a 2 year old is in at a shelter, until you've lived through it. Until you've gotten no sleep in a shelter because you are so scared for your child, you really shouldn't have an opinion.

What rules do they have? Rules the force a woman who is 3 months pregnant and bleeding to carry trash out, even though she has stated that it's too heavy and will likely cause her to miscarry. Nothing like being beaten by your husband, not knowing if your baby will live, but unable to stay in the hospital because that will leave your 2 year old with this abusive asshole. So, you turn to a "shelter" only to have insult heaped on injury. So, yeah, in that case, they car is way better.

I can't believe the responses to this thread.

[bobbolink]

16. "I can't believe the responses to this thread. " :(

I'm sorry, kd. Welcome to the new world of "progressives", eh?

This is what has been making me nutz.... so-called "liberals" who are every bit as cruel and judgemental as the RW.

I'm so sorry you went through all that. :cry: Those who think there is "help" just haven't seen it like we have.

I wish I could take away that pain. I know what it does to the trust we are able to have in others.

:hug:

[AngryOldDem]

10. This is a common misconception.

And it scares pregnant homeless women to death -- some to the point where they don't want any medical treatment at all.

We try to tell them: If the baby has someplace safe to go, nobody can take that baby from the mother. Period, end of sentence. Living in a shelter, for instance, does not constitute "abuse, neglect, or abandonment." One does not give up one's parental rights because one is homeless.

[bobbolink]

14. "One does not give up one's parental rights because one is homeless."

No, but sometimes those rights are TAKEN away.... And I don't mean from legitimate cases of abuse, neglect, etc. (I seriously doubt those people would actually go to a shelter... they would know...)

I'm glad you're at a place of awareness... believe me, there is a LOT of ignorance... including among "progressives".. and right here at good ole' DU. :(

[TexasBushwhacker]

17. This is hopeful ...

From the article:

"With an eye toward reducing the number of children in state care, DCF received approval from the federal government in 2006 to use millions of dollars in foster-care money to improve services for struggling families that remain together.

The money can be used for rent or mortgage payments, utility bills, car payments, child-care bills, groceries -- virtually anything to help keep a struggling family together if the alternative would be foster care, and the children can be kept safe."

Given that good foster homes are in short supply and it's to the child's benefit to be with their own family, provided that they are safe and fed, it makes sense to spend some of that foster care money to help families financially.

It sounds like this child was taken in an emergency situation where the mother moved to NY without money or a place to stay and called 911. It's within reason that they would want to make sure the child is safe.