Here’s another little-known statistic. Did you know that most of the children being taken from the home by CPS are White? Bet you didn’t. Why, you might ask? The adoption and foster care systems are designed to house the children in a safe environment and the government (although not admitting to this) would more easily place a White child than a Black child and the more affluent homes in the United States are White households. Therefore, the racial undertones of the CPS-collection system scoops up by far more White children than Black children. That solves their problem of placing these children once they’ve been absconded with and helps the government to pat themselves on the back for a job well done after they’ve destroyed a family in a single, catastrophically unfair, frightening, and sometimes violent home invasion.
A woman I know actually had her children taken from her home with the help of her pastor at her church, despite the fact that she had a steady job and paid her bills. Because she smoked marijuana, the state replied to the complaint against her by an anonymous source, waited for her as she exited the church, put her in handcuffs and took her two children, right there in the lot of the church while the pastor told her not to resist.
It appears that this thinking has worked its way throughout the Child Protective System, because data in recent years shows that from 75 to 80% of children taken from their parents are not taken for any kind of abuse.
The majority of children continue to be taken for “neglect.” In many cases, neglect simply means “poor.”
In 1993, Bartholet wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times, entitled “Blood Parents vs Real Parents,” addressing the controversial case of “Baby Jessica” who was returned to her biological parents after a lengthy court battle, during which the child lived with an adoptive family.
She called for laws to change and even called for a reinterpretation of the Constitution to protect the rights of the family with whom Jessica lived over those of her biological parents:
The law should stop defining parenting in terms of procreation and recognize that true family ties have little to do with blood. First, the Constitution should be interpreted to protect the interest that Jessica and the DeBoers have in preserving their relationship….
Finally, lawmakers in states throughout the country should take the DeBoer case as a signal to rethink the way their policies define family.
Courts, legislatures and welfare agencies ought to recognize that families are tied together not by blood but by the bonds of love.
Professor Elizabethe Bartholet joins Professor James Dwyer in teaching rhetoric that argues for the “best interests of the child” in protecting them from abuse and neglect, all the while ignoring the fact that one of the most basic needs of the child is to have a bond with their parents.
Their philosophy results in the abuse of children who are taken unnecessarily from their parents, and often are placed into situations where they are more likely to be abused.
Of course, there’s the question of God-given rights to the parent versus what the state believes is government-granted permissions. Government radicals actually believe they are the administrators of children and parents are only allow permitted to receive these children in their homes from the hospital by the good graces of the state! Read on the following page how this philosophy has gained national superiority over natural law!
Lenin, Mao and Hitler had exactly the same beliefs. That fact this woman gets anywhere near our children is a travesty. This woman should be barred from education because she knows nothing about. I served 30 years in our military and defended this country against the domestic enemies of our freedoms. This is the face of that enemy.
And you want us to trust you with their education? God forbid ! What a soviet style doctrine from someone who obviously is not a parent!#TheLeftIsLost
She should never get near our children!