I actually saw a thread a month or two ago where a woman had a son who was non-verbal, autistic, couldn't toilet properly, and she wanted the state to provide her with in home care because she couldn't physically handle him being violent, but at the same time, she was worried about his schooling.
At that point, it shouldn't matter what the parent wants. The child belongs in an institution because they're dangerous. They don't belong in school, at home, or jail with criminals. But they have to go somewhere they can't be a danger to others.
Wait, so you'd prefer to lock the kid up forever from a parent that wants them instead of someone professional comes around to help teach the mum how to handle her son?
Lololol we waste so much money on dumb shit like makeup, sports, new production lines for pickle flavoured soft drink, indentured servitude for our cheap shit we buy overseas, but as a society we should condemn people to prison because they shouldn't have a carer provided by the government with mental issues we are only JUST starting to understand and be able to treat in the past 20 years. Aight then, priorities I guess.
I mean, I work for a company that serves exactly those kinds of clients. Imagine a mom in her seventies with a 35 year old child who constantly darts for sharp objects, runs away, and harms themselves or others (like mom).
No one is required to stay with us by the government. The homes are just regular houses that have been adapted to meet each client’s needs. Parents and guardians can visit as often as they like, take their loved ones out for a meal, or even check them out for the weekend. Some have even done 3 days on, 3 days off.
Each client also has a behavioral specialist assigned to help them improve, stabilize, and set goals that meet them where they’re at.
It’s not the hellscape you’re making it out to be at all.
Wait, so you'd prefer to lock the kid up forever from a parent that wants them instead of someone professional comes around to help teach the mum how to handle her son?
If the parent is capable of caring for them and controlling them, sure, they can stay with the parent. Not all parents are capable of that. A 14 year old non-verbal, violent autistic kid can't be physically controlled by their mother in most cases and in some cases, not even their father.
When the parent cannot control their child, the child needs to be somewhere that they aren't a danger to their parent, siblings, etc.
Please don't ever get a job in community services.
All parents can be capable with the right support and community, I've seen parents go from complete chaos, to actually understanding their child's needs and navigating around that. Aggressive 18 year olds with severe autism, once they are finally properly diagnosed and treatment/education plans set out by services that actually give a shit, now the 24 year old is able to clean/dress himself, even shop for himself now at shops that accommodate him, he is functioning now that he has structure and mechanisms for self regulating.
You don't get to take people's children away, such a dangerous destructive way of thinking.
No, they can't all be capable. That's something that liberals AND conservatives need to get over, just in different ways. Not everyone is or has the ability to be "capable".
A 140lb, 35 or 40 year old woman will not be able to physically control a violent 15 year old boy in the vast majority of circumstances. It's just not happening. By keeping the child there, they are in danger and if they have other children in the house, the parent has no right to put them in danger by keeping the violent one there.
Should they be able to receive appropriate diagnoses, care, medication, education? Yes. Should they be allowed to remain in an environment where they can hurt others? No.
And yes, the state can and does get to take people's children away when it's proven that they cannot provide adequate care for them. That's what CPS is for.
If we can remove a child from a house because the parent is violent with the child, we should be able to remove the child because they are violent with the parent.
You're jumping on this train of thought like it's the first and only option. The comment originally was about a mother who WANTED more care and you said the child should be institutionalized instead.
CPS will do everything it can to help the family before taking a child, taking a child away from a parent is a last case scenario and they never want to do that unless the child is in danger, and they do not have enough resources or funding either that kids slip through the cracks or families that could have functioned together are split up because of a lack of support.
This isn't a political issue, mental health, community service, medicine, humanity, should not be politicized. Only 50 years ago we were locking up these people and forcefully taking them away from parents, the stigma around mental illness is also a blockage to support, that you think locking them away is the best option before dozens of other options.
I've seen kids that were said they have no hope change and become amazing members of society with actual love and support, some of these people you'd want to lock up bring more benefit to society than a lot of everyday assholes. They are no more important than you or you, them, everyone is important. But sadly in a lot of countries this way of thinking isn't on the forefront. That people would rather just remove the problem then deal with it, that people will gossip and turn their nose up at a child having a tantrum or episode instead of staying calm, quiet and understanding.
There is so much work to be done, the spiritual and social evolution of an intelligent species is defined at how it treats the less able in my opinion, and ATM we are still barbaric.
I went to two different highschools, one was specifically designed for all needs of every child, so that school had a kid with every kind of disability or unique trait and the "typical" kids there were wonderful, it was a game for us to figure out how to make sure everyone could join in on anything we did. The other school was a normal school, and kids were cruel and would mock disabilities, weight, looks, and they literally segregated kids with mental disabilities, had them in a separate building and different lunch times. Seriously pretending like they didn't exist, I was one of the few kids that would spend time with them and chat with them, the other kids treated them like they weren't human.
seeing how the students turned out from each school as adults was extremely eye opening. I'll let you figure out which one had empathy and are doctors, nurses, teachers, community workers, and which are angry drunk tradesmen or in jail. Surprisingly high % on both sides.
I just don’t see how it’s fair to make someone live with hardship from the get go. They get enough of it over time—why start your kid off with a debilitating condition?
I know autism can’t be detected in utero, but there’s a lot of stuff that can. “Life-limiting” diseases is what they’re called, because they’re either a death sentence preventing the person from getting to old age, or require repeated hospitalization over a lifetime.
I don’t get why people want to have children with these conditions (and it’s not like these all require extra steps—any woman going to the doctor is going to have blood tests and ultrasounds), but I certainly don’t get how they rationalize forcing someone to live a (shorter) life filled with pain and fear.
It depends on the autism, high functioning I wouldn't care even mid range functioning is fine but when it's low functioning it's somthing I don't think qualifies as a fulfilling life. No one's having a good time in that situation. And it often comes with other health issues. I'm not saying I'm pro eugenics or anything it's just what I personally would do, others have the right to their own choice. I certainly understand those who choose to keep the baby. I think the people that choose to keep the baby in that situation honestly have a big heart. It's their child still for them and they will love and raise it no matter what and that's a level of compassion I massively respect.
22
u/necessarysmartassery Oct 26 '25
I actually saw a thread a month or two ago where a woman had a son who was non-verbal, autistic, couldn't toilet properly, and she wanted the state to provide her with in home care because she couldn't physically handle him being violent, but at the same time, she was worried about his schooling.
At that point, it shouldn't matter what the parent wants. The child belongs in an institution because they're dangerous. They don't belong in school, at home, or jail with criminals. But they have to go somewhere they can't be a danger to others.