Re: mother/child reunion
In a message dated 11/3/00 2:17:34 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: umping in and grabbing them is not the solution. You have to go upstream and find out who is throwing the babies in the river. Who you find upstream will be the immature, unsocialized, sociopathic parents who shouldn't be allowed to have babies." Harsh realities abound. Sexuality, like drugs, know no boundaries and affect each community whether it is acknowledged or not. I have no doubt that you knew children as young as 11 and 12 having sex for it is a fact of life. The truth is, it has been for some time. When sex occurs, the probability of impregnation looms extremely high, especially if education, compassion, and common sense are lacking. The solution however is not determining who should or should not have babies, therefore such a notion is null and should be voided. I do agree that existing institutions should rally around educating society generally about the reality of sexuality. I strongly disagree that all who fall prey to pregnancy are immature, unsocialized, sociopaths whose right to choose should be arrested. Case histories exist of America's finest and brightest being trapped in the very same phenomenon. If you look a little farther up river you will find that the old "double standard" in American ethics stands behind this phenomenon. We sell, rate, and persuade everything by sexual connotation, and age is not a deterrent. Then after convincing all that sex, or its appeal is the very essence of existence, we balk at education, birth control, or any matter encompassing the notion of responsible sexual nature. This reality is just as harsh. So harsh in fact that many want to ignore its truth. If we would save our children (parents and offspring alike), we must embrace the truth and arm them with it. When they fall (prey), every effort to heal the rift with as natural a setting as is possible is the better solution. If not, we move into phase II: throwing more and more finance into a failed solution and compalining even more. Robert Anderson Minneapolis IP Candidate, House 61B
mother-child reunion
It's not your routine-type issue for this list, but the recent Strib front-page article on the trial involving the teen-ager who nearly killed her child touches on what seems to me core issues for the city. This sort of stuff happens more than we care to think about in the city. This one made headlines because of shock value but, in my opinion, it wasn't even the worst case of the day, let alone year. We now have open courtrooms in juvenile cases, yet this treatment of kids in chaotic settings gets little media coverage. There is no constituency for reform of a system that desperately needs it. No one talking about intervening in families that are dangerous to kids. At the very least, this plays out in schools, public safety, courts, corrections, the mental health system and quality of life. Anyone want to talk about that? Dennis Schapiro Linden Hills
Re: mother-child reunion
In a message dated 11/2/00 6:21:22 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We now have open courtrooms in juvenile cases, yet this treatment of kids in chaotic settings gets little media coverage. There is no constituency for reform of a system that desperately needs it. No one talking about intervening in families that are dangerous to kids I have not read the Strib report and so my response may seem a bit awkward. I am not even certain which mother-child is referred to. However, the question raises quite a stir. The gist of the post is seemingly indicating a reunion of the "family" here, a fact that begs another question: what would be more appropriate? As I understand it, a child gave birth to a child and, in panic, fear, confusion, or God only knows what ever state of mind, attempts to hide the fact. I will quickly add that I am not trying to trivialize the matter; it is a grave circumstance to me, the father of six, with 19 grandchildren, and myself being sibling to a family of 34 (22 boys and 12 girls), childbirth is serious and sacred. So, let us skull out the options. A. The court could punish the mother with confinement for the "crime" and place the baby in another setting. The net effect being 2 persons in care of the state with uncertain outcomes for each. B. The court could remove the mother from her parents, recognizing the trauma, provide the mother with counseling and training for childcare, eventually allowing the 2 a reunion to grow up together, with the same outcome-2persons in care of the state with uncertain outcomes. C. The court could provide couseling for the entire family (grandparents, parent, and child), allowing for reality to settle in and providing a nurturing environ for both children with minimal financial assistance and a chance at a healthy, normal life. Of the options mentioned, which has the most desirous outcome? Where is King Solomons wisdom when you really need it? More importantly, what set of facts do we tackle first in presenting resolution to problems of this magnitude? Constituency of this nature is encumbent on society generally (is there a village capable of raising a child) however, hard questions must be answered first. What leads to teen sexuality in the first place? We know that to be the source of STD, un-wanted pregnancies, shattered lives, and abandonment, but how do we dis-mantle the machinery that gives rise to it in the first place?? These are hard questions, and cannot be answered without involving all factions (families, communities, schools and other institutions, adolescents). Likewise, we must bring to the table marketing, entertainment, social values, morality, and employment, even before we can begin to address effectively this phenomenon. It can be done but, in today's world, it requires strong, committed leadership and across the board discussion with intent and actions. Robert Anderson Minneapolis IP Candidate, House 61B
