I think Mr High Standards should apply for a job in the Ministry of Love. They are always looking for good authoritarians to employ.

You'd almost have to have an extra inning game to cover all of that.

Speak for yourself, lightweight!

I'm 36, and I almost never get carded anyplace except at places that card everybody.

Which happens to be the ball park.

Uh, no, at least not Wrigley Field.

And Misirlou beat me to it in 77, only much more thoroughly.

It is meaningless if you ARE carded at the ballpark. The policy is, everyone is carded.

Uh, no, at least not at Wrigley Field. The signs say they "card under 35," which I suspect (though I won't assume/categorically state, as I am not you) is the case elsewhere.

I got carded today at the RDU airport and I just turned 53. I don't know whether to feel insulted or elated.

I've never been carded in a MLB park.

Feel nothing, kevin. I've never not been carded at RDU. Those folks DO card everyone.

I'd like to know where this alleged general policy of carding regardless of age at MLB parks came from, cause I've not seen this either displayed or enforced at either OAK or SF. Add Sacramento in there too.

This was a minor mistake. Many people acted like horsesasses. Starting with the security guard. He couldn't say "sir, were you aware that the lemonade your son is drinking contains alcohol?"

What a bunch of petit fascists.

Uh, no, at least not at Wrigley Field. The signs say they "card under 35," which I suspect (though I won't assume/categorically state, as I am not you) is the case elsewhere.

Yeah, the most common signs about carding that I've seen anywhere usually indicated 30. Occassionally, I see one that lists 39.

I've always wondered about those signs ("we card under 30"). If you're not carded, it says the clerk thinks you look over 30. Which could upset a number of potential customers. Perhaps carding everyone reflexively is the best policy.

People comply with unusual requests from merchants all the time. How many people give Radio Shack their phone number when buying batteries?

And Best Buy--man that's one of my pet peeves. Though I'll admit, I like watching the 16-year-old cashiers' pupils dilate when I immediately and curtly respond "no" when they ask if they can have my phone number. Apparently they're not used to that sort of response.

The worst part of the story, to me, is that they told the aunts that they had to get a hotel room before they'd turn the kid over to them, and when they complied and returned for him, were told he was put in a foster home. Now THAT is bullsh1t.

The worst part of the story, to me, is that they told the aunts that they had to get a hotel room before they'd turn the kid over to them, and when they complied and returned for him, were told he was put in a foster home. Now THAT is bullsh1t.

Again, I've seen nothing in this to suggest that the government workers weren't just your typical government workers who do stuff just to irritate the people they're supposed to be serving. They have power, they want you to know it and they don't care who they have to hurt to achieve that. They'll be first against the wall.

Yes. Other than that, it's a very funny story.

I gotta say, I'm a little disappointed in the personal shots being directed MHS's way. I don't agree with him, but there's no reason to go Buzz all over him. And I can at least see his point.

Fat kids always get picked on.

I've been to 4 ballgames this year, all in New York, and I was carded once out of the 12 or so times I bought beer.

So what happened at the other 3 games?

You're right. Those must have been alchoholic peanuts, given that only alcohol is sold at beer stands. Funny, I've never had alcoholic peanuts before.

That's because they usually sort themselves out if you can get them into rehab.

The worst part of the story, to me, is that they told the aunts that they had to get a hotel room before they'd turn the kid over to them, and when they complied and returned for him, were told he was put in a foster home. Now THAT is bullsh1t.

Again, I've seen nothing in this to suggest that the government workers weren't just your typical government workers who do stuff just to irritate the people they're supposed to be serving. They have power, they want you to know it and they don't care who they have to hurt to achieve that. They'll be first against the wall.

Either that, or some other inflexible rule that says the child must be turned over to foster care within X hours of being taken into custody, and the time ran out while the Aunts were securing a hotel room.

What would the rationale for such a rule be? One that took discretion out of the hands of a human supposedly trained to protect kids? The kid would be in danger of what if not turned over to foster care within x minutes/hours/days of an incident? Turning into a pumpkin?

If the poor kid wasn't traumatized by the state, this would be a sit-com-ish story. Guy with kid at ball park. Guy buys kid a lemonade (or so he thinks). Guy gets lots of stares from strangers. Guy confused. Kid gets sloshed. Guy realizes. Guy has hell of time explaining to wife.

Sounds like it would be perfect for Curb Your Enthusiasm.

What would the rationale for such a rule be? One that took discretion out of the hands of a human supposedly trained to protect kids? The kid would be in danger of what if not turned over to foster care within x minutes/hours/days of an incident? Turning into a pumpkin?

Who knows. There are plenty of ridiculously inflexible rules in place everywhere, designed to remove any sort of discretion on the part of the lower level workers. As bunyon said, it has nothing to do with the welfare of the child, and everything to do with CYA.

don't think MHS is being self-righteous- he's just showing that he personally has absolutely no common sense or sense of judgment


I very well may be guilty of the second charge. I'd even say likely. I strongly object to first statement.

In which case, how would you know?

But seriously, folks. I don't have a TV, and had not heard of hard leomeonade before today. The sign doesn't mention anything about alcohol. The bottle the dad is holding doesn't say alcohol on it, that I can see. This is a mistake I could have made. This is the kind of situation in which a cop has a lot of discretion. I would have liked him to talk seriously with the father in order to ascertain intention and attitude, then let him go.

And Best Buy--man that's one of my pet peeves. Though I'll admit, I like watching the 16-year-old cashiers' pupils dilate when I immediately and curtly respond "no" when they ask if they can have my phone number. Apparently they're not used to that sort of response.

Yeah--mine too. I've had some get so confused that they couldn't make the sale without entering a number. I suggested to one that she enter her phone number--at that she had to call her supervisor. I've routinely had my social security number requested at medical offices, and I routinely say, I'm not going to tell you. People just go bonkers.

Sounds like it would be perfect for Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Larry got Jeff's daughter drunk on wine that he thought was grape juice in one of the episodes.

Larry got Jeff's daughter drunk on wine that he thought was grape juice in one of the episodes.

Haven't seen that one.

Am I the only person who thinks that the child wouldn't have been taken if the parent in question was his mom instead of his dad?

Am I the only person who thinks that the child wouldn't have been taken if the parent in question was his mom instead of his dad?

This had not occurred to me, fwiw.

This had not occurred to me, fwiw.

OK... agree/disagree?

And Best Buy--man that's one of my pet peeves. Though I'll admit, I like watching the 16-year-old cashiers' pupils dilate when I immediately and curtly respond "no" when they ask if they can have my phone number. Apparently they're not used to that sort of response.

I find that making one up is a better way to stick it to the man. Area code and everything.

I gotta say, I'm a little disappointed in the personal shots being directed MHS's way. I don't agree with him, but there's no reason to go Buzz all over him. And I can at least see his point.

I think he deserves every bit of it. It is one of the more ridiculous viewpoints I've seen espoused, followed by additional, feeble attempts to defend, on BTF. And that's saying something.

Taking a seven year old from his parent. My God. This is blind bureaucracy at it's worst; it's like the INS on Seconol.

Again, I've seen nothing in this to suggest that the government workers weren't just your typical government workers who do stuff just to irritate the people they're supposed to be serving. They have power, they want you to know it and they don't care who they have to hurt to achieve that. They'll be first against the wall.

Oh, please. Most low-level bureaucrats have nothing approaching power and have exceedingly little desire to achieve it. Saying something like that is dearly ignorant of how being in government works.

Governmental bureaucracy is specifically formulated to create a system that is, as much as possible, fair and equitable. Note I did not say beneficial, rational or just. It turns out the best way to ensure equal treatment for a large bureaucracy is to treat everyone equally poorly. Red tape and administrative formalities exist to:

* Provide a system of incentives and punishments that encourages doing things the "correct" way.
* Provide a system of checks and balances so that no one individual has the power to routinely make substantive decisions contrary to policy.
* Make any one member of the system fully replaceable.

Governmental bureaucracy is simply the closest you can come the the bureaucratic ideal. Government workers do what they do because they are conditioned by a system to encourage them to be soulless autonomous and to treat everyone they encounter as a work product rather than an individual. They don't enjoy it; most of them seem to find it rather distasteful. But personal self interest tends to win out most of the time.

I'm going to be manning an ER in about 3 weeks. I assume everybody knows that if a Doctor sees a kid that's been abused and doesn't end up reporting it, he/she goes to jail. There are obvious tell-tale signs of abuse (different consistencies of multiple bruises, stories that don't fit, Mommy says she has space aliens in her head etc.) If a kid comes in with a bleeding mouth and a swollen eye, and I can tell Daddy's been drinking, I'm calling the F!@#ing cops.

If I even remotely suspect a kid's being beaten, I'm calling the cops. I'd rather be responsible for having 10 kids placed in unnecessary foster care for 2 weeks each rather than having a kid being beaten unnecessarily for 3 extra years.

Which brings me back to the security guard. He doens't suspect child abuse, he saw the guy hand a kid an alcoholic drink, he SAW an illegal act, of course he's calling the cops. It's his legal responsibility and his duty as a citizen to call the cops.


The State should have done a much better job though. If two responsible aunts came, they shoudl have handed the kid to her.


Again, I've seen nothing in this to suggest that the government workers weren't just your typical government workers who do stuff just to irritate the people they're supposed to be serving. They have power, they want you to know it and they don't care who they have to hurt to achieve that.

Maybe they were just incompetent.

Which brings me back to the security guard. He doens't suspect child abuse, he saw the guy hand a kid an alcoholic drink, he SAW an illegal act, of course he's calling the cops. It's his legal responsibility and his duty as a citizen to call the cops.

Just to be clear, the first part of this is simply false; one has no "legal responsibility" to report a crime. The only exception is that a few specific professions -- school employees, medical professional, social workers -- have to report suspected child abuse. As for duty as a citizen, feh.

The premise is also flawed; the fact that it's a crime does not automatically make it abuse.

Just to be clear, the first part of this is simply false; one has no "legal responsibility" to report a crime.

BUT SEINFELD WAS RULED GUILTY

It's also nice to know that if Niepronte suspects child abuse, he won't call the cops because he has no legal responsibility and no sense of duty towards society to do so.


The premise is also flawed; the fact that it's a crime does not automatically make it abuse.

That I will have to agree with. Corporal punishment within reason does IMO have a place in parenting.

I gotta say, I'm a little disappointed in the personal shots being directed MHS's way. I don't agree with him, but there's no reason to go Buzz all over him.

Well, this isn't a one-time thing. He makes similar retarded comments all the time (threatening to beat up people who don't stand for the National Anthem; blaming the mentally ill for being mentally ill, etc).

Come on, it says it does on the bottle. It may have been an innocent mistake, which even if it was it was damn careless.

My initial reaction is how can a guy be that oblivious.

But you know, if you Look at the bottle
it's not all that easy to tell it's got alchohol. I don't find the father unbelievable.

Though I'll admit, I like watching the 16-year-old cashiers' pupils dilate when I immediately and curtly respond "no" when they ask if they can have my phone number. Apparently they're not used to that sort of response.

Gotta call BS on this, at least from my experience working as a cashier at Lowe's (Home Improvement) for two summers. People wouldn't give me their numbers all the time -- I told them "no prob" and put in a fake number.

Well, this isn't a one-time thing. He makes similar retarded comments all the time (threatening to beat up people who don't stand for the National Anthem; blaming the mentally ill for being mentally ill, etc).

Yeah, I'm sure Matt blames the mentally ill for being mentally ill.

I think he was just talking about you specifically, in which case he would be correct. And him laying a sound thrashing on you wouldn't be a bad idea either.

I think those attacking the father also have some major missing perspective on what they observe on a daily basis.

It would be a believable story even if Mike's had "It's alcoholic!!!! Don't give to kids!!!!!" all over the bottle.

What percentage of people even look at the label everytime they drink something. We rely on prior knowledge. I know my car is red because it was red when I bought it. If it was green tomorrow, I'd probably notice because of the visual shock. But I do not look at my car each day and notice that it is red. I do not inspect how many tires it has or read my license plate number.

Now, I do read the hell out of every label, but that's because it's a hobby of mine. When I ask others what's in stuff, 95% or so have no idea.

I would be that if you used the same color scheme and handed someone a Coca-Cola bottle that says "With real cocaine" more than half would just chug away unaware. And a portion of the rest would notice and chug away.

Of course, the Mike's Hard Lemonade knowledge is special because some people drink alcoholic beverages all the time and have intimate knowledge of the genre. I can't speak for the people here, but the desire to see people's families broken apart for not possessing that knowledge is likely in many cases due to one's own insecurity about possible alcoholic tendencies. (Note: NOT the knowledge itself--knowledge is awesome, but the desire to see others punished for not having the exact same knowledge)

It's an astonishing lack of empathy.

Finally, I'm wondering if people think the vendor should be punished (not the actual person selling, but the vendor). It seems that "Mike's Lemonade" is a ridiculous disingenuous advertisement of the product that intentionally removes the most important element. Then again, "Hard Lemonade" may have been no more helpful in any case. I'm not sure. Maybe it's my own lack of empathy for advertising in the first place.

It's also nice to know that if Niepronte suspects child abuse, he won't call the cops because he has no legal responsibility and no sense of duty towards society to do so.


Which is not what he said at all. Unless you think the only reason people only do things when they have a legal responsibility.

Gotta call BS on this, at least from my experience working as a cashier at Lowe's (Home Improvement) for two summers. People wouldn't give me their numbers all the time -- I told them "no prob" and put in a fake number.

Well, kudos to you. You're apparently made of stronger stuff than the ones I've encountered.

Finally, I'm wondering if people think the vendor should be punished (not the actual person selling, but the vendor). It seems that "Mike's Lemonade" is a ridiculous disingenuous advertisement of the product that intentionally removes the most important element.

I agree. There was extremely deceptive advertising all around, and someone should be punished for it. At a place where non-alchoholic lemonade is sold regularly, and children are present, a sign is posted advertising lemonade where there is virtually no indication it is alcoholic. A father asks for lemonade for his son, with his son by his side with no mention by the vendor that it is alcoholic. He is given a bottle where any mention of alcohol is printed in very small letters, which pale in comparison to other words written on the label. It was just asking for this type of mistake. Someone should be held responsible. At the very least, this product should be banned from the ballpark until procedures are in place to make this situation much less likely to happen in the future.

The State should have done a much better job though. If two responsible aunts came, they shoudl have handed the kid to her.

Add Ironchef to the list of people holding some very frightening beliefs - that's its not only okay, but that the state should forceably remove a seven year old child from his parents based on the fact that the son was drinking a hard lemonade at a baseball game, and where it was obviousl y likely that it was just an honest error. What if there wasn't an aunt to pick up the child? And you are a doctor? Wow.

@240

Wow, a post from Eraser-X that I agree with so completely...this is as shocking as finding my red car was green some morning.

I'm going to be manning an ER in about 3 weeks. I assume everybody knows that if a Doctor sees a kid that's been abused and doesn't end up reporting it, he/she goes to jail. There are obvious tell-tale signs of abuse (different consistencies of multiple bruises, stories that don't fit, Mommy says she has space aliens in her head etc.) If a kid comes in with a bleeding mouth and a swollen eye, and I can tell Daddy's been drinking, I'm calling the F!@#ing cops.

If I even remotely suspect a kid's being beaten, I'm calling the cops.

The kid was seen by ER docs, and they DID NOT even remotely suspect abuse.

Which brings me back to the security guard. He doens't suspect child abuse, he saw the guy hand a kid an alcoholic drink, he SAW an illegal act, of course he's calling the cops. It's his legal responsibility and his duty as a citizen to call the cops.

Did he see an "illegal act"?
What that father did would be perfectly legal in Ohio,

an underage individual may consume alcohol “if the underage person is accompanied by a parent.”

State v. Pelfrey 167 Ohio App.3d 388, 393, 855 N.E.2d 501, 505 (Ohio App. 3 Dist.,2006)

for instance....

This reminds of when wine coolers came out big in the 80's. There was a brand that came in a 2 liter plastic bottle that looked just like orange soda or Hawaiian Punch. There was a period of time when, as 16/17 year olds, we could easily buy it at grocery stores because it looked like soda and the fact that it was several dollars pricier didn't matter.

246. Traderdave Posted: May 02, 2008 at 11:26 AM (#2766419)

This reminds of when wine coolers came out big in the 80's. There was a brand that came in a 2 liter plastic bottle that looked just like orange soda or Hawaiian Punch. There was a period of time when, as 16/17 year olds, we could easily buy it at grocery stores because it looked like soda and the fact that it was several dollars pricier didn't matter.

Purple Passion!

Frida beat me, but Purple Passion!

Did he see an "illegal act"?
What that father did would be perfectly legal in Ohio,

an underage individual may consume alcohol “if the underage person is accompanied by a parent.”

State v. Pelfrey 167 Ohio App.3d 388, 393, 855 N.E.2d 501, 505 (Ohio App. 3 Dist.,2006)

for instance....

Ah, but he wasn't in Ohio, he was in Michigan, which clearly makes it a case of child abuse.

Seriously though, ignorance of the law not being an excuse, yada, yada..., suppose the father was from Ohio? He and his son drove up from Toledo for the game. Does the state of Michigan still have the right/duty to detain the child? For doing something that isn't even illegal in his home state where he planned to return after the game? I suppose they do, since it would be reasonable and proper to take action if the father were seen beating the child. What if the family was from Windsor? Then it gets even stickier.

I can't rememebr the name of it but it wasn't Purple Passion. It was orangy colored and the label had tropical fruits & beach umbrellas, looked like a Hawaiian shirt. And the bottle shape was exactly the same as a soda 2 liter, the PP bottles have a more boozy shape.

Which is not what he said at all. Unless you think the only reason people only do things when they have a legal responsibility.

It is what EXACTLY he said. He said there was no legal responsibility for him to do so, and there was no moral incentive to do so either, because when I said people should report child abuse because it was their duty to society, he simply brushed it off. If he's only providing reasons for people to NOT call the police during suspected child abuse, you really he's going to do it when he sees it?

The kid was seen by ER docs, and they DID NOT even remotely suspect abuse.

I wasn't talking about THIS kid in particular, just some hypothetical kid that I don't want to see in the future.


This reminds of when wine coolers came out big in the 80's. There was a brand that came in a 2 liter plastic bottle that looked just like orange soda or Hawaiian Punch. There was a period of time when, as 16/17 year olds, we could easily buy it at grocery stores because it looked like soda and the fact that it was several dollars pricier didn't matter.


IIRC, only girls were allowed to drink that stuff.

Add Ironchef to the list of people holding some very frightening beliefs - that's its not only okay, but that the state should forceably remove a seven year old child from his parents based on the fact that the son was drinking a hard lemonade at a baseball game, and where it was obviousl y likely that it was just an honest error.

A 7 year old was caught drinking alcohol with his father's permission (and his father's purchase) at a public venue. Does this not strike you at least worthy of investigation?

I'm not saying "TAKE HIS CHILDREN AWAY" if it was an honest mistake, what I'm saying is that "at the time without knowing any facts they should at least investigate the matter". Once they investigated the matter and the father was cleared of any wrongdoing, they shoudl have given up the kid right away and not delayed it for bureaucratic BS.

Edit: I don't even know how I got put in the "take away the kid" crowd. The government handled this terribly after they were called in, if the investigation clears the father, then hand the kid back. How you folks think that I think it's OK for the govenrment to be taking kids away for honest mistakes (that ended up not harming the kid) is ridiculous.

IIRC, only girls were allowed to drink that stuff.

We happily served them...

an underage individual may consume alcohol “if the underage person is accompanied by a parent.”

State v. Pelfrey 167 Ohio App.3d 388, 393, 855 N.E.2d 501, 505 (Ohio App. 3 Dist.,2006)

Wait, Mike Pelfrey is an Indian and was in the habit of underaged drinking with parents?

I'm not saying "TAKE HIS CHILDREN AWAY" if it was an honest mistake, what I'm saying is that "at the time without knowing any facts they should at least investigate the matter". Once they investigated the matter and the father was cleared of any wrongdoing, they shoudl have given up the kid right away and not delayed it for bureaucratic BS.

This is exactly what should have happened. I'm really not sure how anyone could disagree with this. The security guard needs to take some action because he saw a 7-year old with alcohol. He shouldn't just let that go. The only wiggle room I see is that guard could have just made them pour it out, but taking it just one step further (investigation) is preferred.

Once they investigated the matter and the father was cleared of any wrongdoing, they shoudl have given up the kid right away and not delayed it for bureaucratic BS.

I'm really not sure how anyone could disagree with this.

*raises hand*

I don't want to keep kids away from their innocent parents any more than the next guy, but if "bureaucratic BS" is necessary because it keeps one kid from being mistakenly returned to an abusive situation at the cost of ten kids' "freedoms" being delayed by a day apiece, then I'm in favor of it.

Hey, I'm with you Erik, that's why I said "after the father was cleared of any wrongdoing", he should be returned ASAP.

Make sure the kid isn't being harmed, but once that's confirmed, stay out of the F!@3ing way ASAP.

I'm not saying "TAKE HIS CHILDREN AWAY" if it was an honest mistake, what I'm saying is that "at the time without knowing any facts they should at least investigate the matter". Once they investigated the matter and the father was cleared of any wrongdoing, they shoudl have given up the kid right away and not delayed it for bureaucratic BS.

This is exactly what should have happened. I'm really not sure how anyone could disagree with this.

Well, I disagree with it because it implies that they should seize the kid first and investigate later. Once they've seized the kid, I agree with the statement, but I take issue with the initial seizure. Again, without evidence of imminent harm, there are no grounds to seize the child, even temporarily. If they want to "investigate," fine. Let them do that. That doesn't require keeping the kid from his parents.

The security guard needs to take some action because he saw a 7-year old with alcohol. He shouldn't just let that go. The only wiggle room I see is that guard could have just made them pour it out, but taking it just one step further (investigation) is preferred.

Why does the security guard need to take some action because he saw a 7-year old with alcohol?

Why does the security guard need to take some action because he saw a 7-year old with alcohol?

Agree with the implication. All he had to do was ask WTF was up. If met with a satisfactory explanation, move on to the next drunk.

Well, I disagree with it because it implies that they should seize the kid first and investigate later.

How is that implied? The quoted section says "at least investigate the matter". He even clarified in post 257. "Cleared of wrongdoing" should have probably been done at the ballpark.

Agree with the implication. All he had to do was ask WTF was up. If met with a satisfactory explanation, move on to the next drunk.

I said in my post that at a minimum he should have made them pour out the drink. I suppose leaving it in the hands of the father would be acceptable as well if he felt that the father actually didn't know. I'd vote for bringing the kid and father out of the stands to a place where they could talk, but I'm fine either way.

Edit: I don't even know how I got put in the "take away the kid" crowd. The government handled this terribly after they were called in, if the investigation clears the father, then hand the kid back.

Your second sentence answers the first. You seem to believe that the child should be taken away from the parents, until the investigation clears the parents - even though no sane person would think the child's in immediate danger. You also made this statement:

The State should have done a much better job though. If two responsible aunts came, they shoudl have handed the kid to her.'

In other words, you think the state did the right thing taking the child away from the father. You just should have given him to the Aunts a little sooner. I think this view is both crazy and inhumane. Why should they have taken the boy away from the father in the first place? Why should an Aunt have come to get the child at all? This was not an instance where the child should have been forceably removed from the parents - period.

David Nieporent Posted: May 01, 2008 at 05:53 PM (#2765889)

BBC: I don't doubt it's a tough job. What does that have to do with my point? It's a tough job to secure Baghdad, too; that doesn't mean we should pretend that it is secure just to make our soldiers feel better. There are no points for effort.

- the point is that you said that foster homes are bad. period. which means you are insulting ME as a foster mother. which i don't appreciate. my home is poor. it is NOT bad. being a parent is damm hard work - unless of course you are rich and get the illegals/darkies to do the work for you. and being a foster parent is even harder, not just because the kid is hurting/afraid/guilty but ESPECIALLY because you know exactly what the poor kid going back to and there isn't nothing you can do about it

unless you have taken in these poor kids and tried to do the work your own self, unless you know where they came from, you have got NO right to spit on us who try to do right by the little brothas and sistas who been hit/tortured/neglected.

i don't know what you mean by - there are no points for effort - unless you mean why should YOU personally give a flying good goddamm about these kids seeing as how they aren't YOUR kids and it isn't YOUR fault the kids been abused/tortured/neglected

----------------

and the Box sells minute maid lemonaid at beer stands. and i promise you that almost NO man out there is gonna read the label on a bottle of "mikes lemonade" to see if there is alcohol in it.

the security guard SERIOUSLY over-reacted, the cops SERIOUSLY over-reacted, CPS MASSIVELY overreacted. there are plenty of times that CPS goes out to investigate a home without yanking the kid in an obviously not dangerous situation and shoves him off on total strangers.

anyone who thinks that a group of strangers taking a child from its parents and making that child stay with strangers (haven't YOU parents told your kids not to go with strangers) EVEN if it is just overnight and that is no big deal to a kid - is full of it.

because there is absolutely nothing that stranger can say to that kid - who is suddenly not allowed to see or talk to anyone in his family - that will make them not terrified or wondering what they did wrong. and THAT, by the way, is one of the toughest things that a foster parent has to deal with.

you try it out david.

before you fling poopoo at the rest of us

Baseball chick, I'm confused - by the second half of your post, it seems like you agree with David, not disagree with him. I mean, David might of been harsh toward foster homes in general, but its currently Ironchef and TVerik who thinks its no big deal to take away a child from his parents and put him with strangers without any real evidence of abuse.

And MHS. Don't forget him.

2 - suuuuuuurrrrrrrre some guy who really don't watch much of any tv would somehow "know" mike's lemonade or mike's cranberry has alcohol in it because it is sold at a stand with beer and peanuts

Actually, I distinctly remember the first time I saw a commercial for Mike's Hard Lemonade on TV it was ambiguous as to whether it had alcohol in it (though strongly suggestive) and I actually looked it up on the internet.

I'll say that I knew that Mike's had alcohol in it, and that I didn't find the ads ambiguous at all. But Mike's isn't exactly a household name, so it's reasonable that the father had never heard of it. I think the proof of this is that he let his kid drink it in public in plain view of everyone at the ballpark. He didn't try to hide it, because I bet he felt there was nothing to hide. He thought it was lemonade.

dizzy

sorry i wasn't more clear - should have said "change the subject" instead of just the dotted line.

i DO agree with david that it would have been MORE than reasonable, once the poor kid had got dragged into the ER, to let the kid go home after the ER doc said the kid was fine - and then just do a routine investigation instead of reasoning that if a man doesn't read the label on a bottle of lemonade that the kid's life is in danger and needs to get his little self took away...

MHS, tverik and chris wok are not parents. they have never been taken from their parents or questioned by CPS (like bunyon was). and they don't understand from the side of the father OR the side of the kid neither, what that is like.


Sane Joe Bivens Posted: May 02, 2008 at 02:15 PM (#2766624)

I'll say that I knew that Mike's had alcohol in it, and that I didn't find the ads ambiguous at all. But Mike's isn't exactly a household name, so it's reasonable that the father had never heard of it. I think the proof of this is that he let his kid drink it in public in plain view of everyone at the ballpark. He didn't try to hide it, because I bet he felt there was nothing to hide. He thought it was lemonade.


ding ding ding

we got a winner!!!!!!!!

and anyone with an IQ over severely mentally retarded should have figured that out too

Hey! Is that a shot?


edit...I kid!

I know it's not the same thing, but I was trying to put myself into this situation by imagining that the police took my midget porn collection away from me, and wouldn't give it back. I've found that in my reckless hedonism, I care about that as deeply as I imagine caring about family members would feel for the familied.

Hey! Is that a shot?

Dizzy, it's the same thing I got spoke about on the previous page. I was given a triple-shot of NO ONE HERE SAYS FOSTER CARE IS BAD, and then when Nieporent came out with his "some foster care is ok, but it's mostly dangerous as a whole" everyone vanished.

BC and I are saying the same thing, that this example sucked for everyone involved, which David took as an excuse to make sure we all knew that foster care is, on average, bad.

I have a lot of experience with foster care and adoptive families. I wouldn't have chosen the word "bad" as David did, but clearly it is less than ideal. I think the ideal situation is a child in the care and control of healthy and loving parents. (Note that I said nothing about wealth - I have no idea where Lisa's comment about rich v. poor came from.) A foster family, no matter how they try, can not replace that. A foster family can be better than some alternatives, but it can never be the hypothetical best situation.

Yes, and find where anyone even implied that foster care is better than a healthy, loving family. The point was that foster care is better than getting beaten. But I guess not.

I wouldn't have chosen the word "bad" as David did, but clearly it is less than ideal.

Few things in life are ideal. By definition, if a kid is in foster care, things aren't ideal, or there would be no need for the foster care to begin with. So why point out the obvious, that foster care comes into play because family situations are less than ideal? No one said otherwise.

I owe Lassus a coke.

Yes, and find where anyone even implied that foster care is better than a healthy, loving family. The point was that foster care is better than getting beaten. But I guess not.

The point is, and I'm not saying it was you, but clearly some did say that the kneejerk reaction to swiftly move the kid to foster care was the correct one because he might be in danger. My, and david's point is that there was little to no evidence that the child was in danger, and thus removing him to foster care likely put him in greater danger because that lacking evidence of abuse, he was removed from an average home to a foster home, which we have established is worse.

Yes, and find where anyone even implied that foster care is better than a healthy, loving family.

Nor did anyone say that foster care is worse than getting beaten. Saying its "bad" does not mean its worse or equally bad as other unfortunate situations. There have been several posts defending foster care relative to abusive households, and I don't think anyone is disagreeing.

I'll speculate that DMN's dim view of the foster care system is partially, if not completely, influenced by the fact that it's funded by tax dollars.

David's actual words that touched this off were:

Traumatic is the least of one's worries. Foster care isn't safe.

(edit: that is, he didn't say "bad")

And he's right. This statement does not judge the providers of foster care, it simply stated [this is obvious from context] that a child is less physically safe in foster care than in the care of his or her parents. Despite the heroism of many foster parents to open their homes to children in need, foster care as a whole is not a safer place for kids who aren't in real danger at home.

Just adding to DCA's point, it was obvious to me that David wasn't saying that Foster care is less safe than an abusive household, but that it is less safe than a household in which there is no reason to suspect abuse, such as this situation.

I've looked back at the posts that lit me up, and I will say this: they can be interpreted quite easily to mean that foster is bad (i.e. not ideal) and that it sometimes has to be done even if it isn't the better than a healthy loving family. I'm willing to give DMN the benefit of the doubt.

But.

Given's the bent of David's political posts, his use of "sometimes" foster care is better than the alternatives strikes me as withering libertarian tinfoil-headed paranoia. Foster care is not "sometimes" better than dangerous and irresposible parenting. (This is what I took DMN's point to be. If I am wrong, I will gladly and truly apologize.) Neither is is ALWAYS better, based on the fact that foster parents - like regular parents - are certainly sometimes incapable of being proper parents. But it is to a large large percentage better than the ####### ######## crap these kids have been put in by the irresponsibility of the human race that thinks any parent is doing the right thing just becasuse they are the parents. It angers me that David thinks that there is some unknown, unused brilliant libertarian concept that could fix the unfit parent problem and give kids a better option than foster parents, the true majority of whom are giving, loving, excellent people.

And, 278 rings a little too true.

This statement does not judge the providers of foster care, it simply stated [this is obvious from context] that a child is less physically safe in foster care than in the care of his or her parents.

What do you think, Baseball Chick? If this lemonade kid was given to your care in this situation, he would by default be less physically safe with you than with his own parents.

I know I'm taking this to the extreme, but it's that statement that makes me understand why BC got upset.

What do you think, Baseball Chick? If this lemonade kid was given to your care in this situation, he would by default be less physically safe with you than with his own parents.

The question's irrelevant. The fact that foster case is safe with one set of foster parents does not mean it is safe overall, at least relative to an average household.

The fact that you can find a safe neighborhood in Newark, New Jersey does not mean its a safe city overall.

The fact that you can find a safe neighborhood in Newark, New Jersey does not mean its a safe city overall.

Dizzy, I'm not sure that's a good analogy. If we agree that foster care isn't "ideal", but also agree it's better than the abusive home provided by biological parents, that's all there is to it.

There are 10's of thousands of foster care situations in the US. We hear about the handful of bad foster care homes, and nothing about all the good ones, like bbc's.

Also, because I'm too stupid to do it right the first time:

Foster care is solution for irresponsible, abusive, or zero parenting. It is not a solution for regular or average parenting. DMN's specific statement (#190) is that foster homes AS A WHOLE are only sometimes better than the alternative. The alternative to foster care for these children is NOT loving, regular, or average parenting - it is dangerous, abusive parenting. David citing foster care as only sometimes being better than this alternative is what I consider an insulting dig at foster homes as a whole.

There are 10's of thousands of foster care situations in the US. We hear about the handful of bad foster care homes, and nothing about all the good ones, like bbc's.

That's true (although I have no idea what percentage of foster care homes are good ones), but it doesn't make foster care "safe". If there is violence in 5% of foster care situations, and 1% of typical households, you can safely say foster care is unsafe relative to the average household (but not when compared to a household known to be abusive).

We're not really disagreeing here, but what started it was David's assertion that foster care is unsafe. And relative to this particular child's likely home situation, I think it was a fair assertion, no matter how wonderful BBC's situation is (and I have no doubt it is wonderful).

no matter how wonderful BBC's situation is (and I have no doubt it is wonderful).

Except that children in that home are exposed to dangerous levels of Brad Ausmus's hitting and Carlos Lee's defense.

But we surely aren't talking about this particular child's situation any more. It was a jumping off point to debate the merits of foster care. You can't fairly compare foster care homes to "typical" homes. You should compare foster care homes to dysfunctional homes, homes that make foster care necessary.

Wow, I remember as a kid asking my dad if I could taste his beer at a restaurant once. He let me have a sip and I was appropriately grossed out and thought it was awful. I had no idea how much trouble he could have gotten into, nor have I at any time thought it could be construed as child abuse. I was probably like 12 rather than 7, which might make a difference, but still.

Lassus Posted: May 02, 2008 at 04:00 PM (#2766736)

This statement does not judge the providers of foster care, it simply stated [this is obvious from context] that a child is less physically safe in foster care than in the care of his or her parents.

What do you think, Baseball Chick? If this lemonade kid was given to your care in this situation, he would by default be less physically safe with you than with his own parents.

I know I'm taking this to the extreme, but it's that statement that makes me understand why BC got upset.

- and THAT is what get me upset too.

even IF i had an extra bed for a 7 year old, he would certainly be sharing it in a room with 1 or 2 other boys. this poor kid gonna be in a strange house with strange people, sleeping in a strange bed, maybe even eating different food then he used to AND he is not allowed to call his parents, maybe even his friends or grandparents, who knows what CPS tell us. and i PROMISE you this poor kid gonna be either crying, trying NOT to cry, or acting out because he WILL think that this is because he was a bad kid. kids ALWAYS think it is all about them because that is what a kid is and it is how they think

and this is a kid who IS from a good home with good parents, too, and is probably not used to having to be a bad kid to get SOME attention, any attention, even if it is a kick.

so it would be tough emotionally on this kid. and it is tough emotionally on kids who get taken from BAD homes. because it IS their home.

but for people to say that he is LESS physically safe by default in MY home is an effing insult.

- and the sad fact is that most foster homes, no matter how bad are STILL better than the he!! these poor kids come from in the first place

But we surely aren't talking about this particular child's situation any more. It was a jumping off point to debate the merits of foster care. You can't fairly compare foster care homes to "typical" homes. You should compare foster care homes to dysfunctional homes, homes that make foster care necessary.

Except that who is arguing the other side? Who is arguing that foster care is worse than being in an abusive household? Someone saying foster care isn't safe, in a context when we definitely were talking about this particular child's situation, is not the same thing.

Dizzy, again, at some point in the thread, this situation became a jumping off point where the broader issue was volleyed back and forth, like what happens with just about every topic here. It was in those posts that institutional foster care was attacked.

but for people to say that he is LESS physically safe by default in MY home is an effing insult.

No one has said that. Someone has said that, on average, foster care is less safe than a non-abusive household. Not in your household, Not every foster care situation, but foster care in general - when compared to this particular child's situation. Even if 95% of foster care sitations are like yours, and perfectly safe, the statement David made could still be true.

It was in those posts that institutional foster care was attacked.

Which posts? Show me one. The only posts attacking foster care that I can see were made in context of talking about this particular child. My bad if there are others that I missed, but I don't see any.

Dizzypaco Posted: May 02, 2008 at 04:06 PM (#2766742)

...The fact that foster case is safe with one set of foster parents does not mean it is safe overall, at least relative to an average household.

but you are comparing a foster home to THE WRONG THING
you should NOT be comparing it to an "average household"
you SHOULD be comparing it to a household where abuse is going on

because MOST of the kids are NOT like this poor leo kid.
MOST kids have been beated/starved/raped/tortured/neglected
which i HOPE you are not saying is "an average household"

After reading the article, all signs seem to point to "juvenile referee Leslie Graves" and potentially her counterparts involved as the worst offender here.

I'll speculate that DMN's dim view of the foster care system is partially, if not completely, influenced by the fact that it's funded by tax dollars.

Ohoh. I think I'll leaved this one alone.

Watchin' the Celts tonight, Biv?

Which posts? Show me one.

Just got home from work, Off to physical therapy. I'll scour the thread when I get back, but i think it's safe to say that DMN is attacking the system in general, as well as in this particular instance. (I don't completely disagree with all of DMN's post in this thread.)

Watchin' the Celts tonight, Biv?

The first half, anyway. Toggling back and forth between that and the Red Sox.

but you are comparing a foster home to THE WRONG THING
you should NOT be comparing it to an "average household"
you SHOULD be comparing it to a household where abuse is going on

No, in this context you should be (and David was) comparing an "average foster home" to an "average living with parents household" because there was no reason to suspect abuse in this particular instance.