WSJ: A Law's Fallout: Women in Prison Fight for Custody

[question everything]

A Law's Fallout: Women in Prison Fight for Custody

It Encourages Adoption Of Many Foster Kids; Mothers Lose Contact
Judge: 'Too Much History'
By LAURIE P. COHEN
February 27, 2006; Page A1

(snip)

Under a 1997 federal law, states must move to end the rights of parents whose children have been in foster care for 15 of the past 22 months. The law, known as the Adoption and Safe Families Act, was intended to keep abused or neglected children from languishing in foster care while their biological parents, often drug-addicted, tried to kick their habits.

Since then, the population of women in prison has exploded -- to more than 104,800 from 79,624 -- and now the law is raising difficult questions about what is best for children whose parents are incarcerated. Some say children need to stay connected to their parents during that traumatic time. Others contend the women have demonstrated that they are negligent and unfit and it is better if the state can find the children a permanent new home. Once their rights are terminated, the law forbids parents to see their children, or even know where they are.

Prison sentences for many women are longer than the 15-month period the law dictates, meaning they automatically risk losing their children. Inmates often can't attend hearings on whether their parental rights should be terminated. In some cases they aren't even informed about those hearings, which may be held hundreds or thousands of miles away. The U.S. is the only nation that routinely moves to terminate the parental rights of incarcerated parents whose children are in foster care, according to international family-law specialists.

(snip)

The Act creates a situation that is "a violation of the fundamental rights of parents and children to have relationships with one another," says Tamar Kraft-Stolar, director of the Correctional Association of New York's Women in Prison Project. The nonprofit group will release a report soon calling for changes in a New York law with requirements similar to the federal act. The report argues that the government should make exceptions to the 15-month rule for inmates with children in foster care. It recommends that child-welfare agencies help maintain relationships between children and their incarcerated parents.


(snip)

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114100672380583921.html (subscription)

[qazplm]

1. parents in prison shouldnt have their rights

permanently terminated, but they should have them suspended and have to prove upon release that they are capable of taking care of their children's physical and emotional needs.

[question everything]

4. You do mean "should not" right?

This is especially true for some of the "three strikes" laws that send a pizza thief to 25 yrs in prison

[qazplm]

5. I mean shouldnt

I'm confused since shouldnt means should not, so what are you disagreeing with here?

As for those who state that this law disproportionately harms the poor or minority, well, i dont think it is this law that does that, but the system we currently have where the quality of legal representation is based on how much money you have.

The law itself, if fairly applied, i.e. only suspending instead of permanently terminating parental rights, can work. you have to look to the welfare of the children first, parents second IMO.

[question everything]

6. Oops, sorry, was looking for an apostrophe at a quick glance

of course you are correct
:evilgrin:

[qazplm]

7. Im a bit lazy with the punctuation online

:)

[eyesroll]

2. That's punishment WAY beyond the scope of the original sentence.

And it's disproportionately punitive to single women and (as usual) poor people.

Wealthy inmates can pay good lawyers to stay on the case. Married or partnered inmates' kids stay in the custody of the non-incarcerated. And you don't hear of a man's parental rights getting terminated simply because he's in jail (usually because single men aren't often sole caregivers for their kids).

It's one thing if the crime involves child abuse or endangerment. It's another thing if the kids were never in danger.

[question everything]

3. And to women of color (which encompass single and poor) (nt)