Re: the requirement that the state *provide* an education

Banty wrote:
> In article <vaur84p9ve6ion5o7p8jebca0879k313kb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Nan says...
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:40:17 -0700 (PDT), Beliavsky
>> <beliavsky@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> If parents are using illegal drugs but are not directly involving the
>>> child in their activities (for example by having the child take drugs
>>> or buy the drugs), I am uncomfortable with calling in the police
>>> because of what a child says or because of his/her appearance.
>> Why am I not surprised you'd say this....
>>
> 
> In my county we had a family of five, both parents and three elementary
and
> junior high school aged boys, murdered one night in their home and their
house
> burned down as a cover.  The culprits, who were both recently convicted,
were
> drug dealers who had constant business with the father, who was also a
dealer.
> 
> Their parents were proud, we were told later by associates, that they
"kept
> their kids out of" their drug dealing by only doing deals after their
bedtimes,
> etc.
> 
> So these boys were not directly involved in the drug dealing.  Would you
say
> that were *affected*??!?

Of course, and tragically so.  But they would also have been 'affected' 
by being whisked off into foster care.  And, based on what I've read 
about the whole attitude to illicit drugs in the US (and I will accept 
correction if I've picked up the wrong picture here), I do feel there's 
a real risk that this might happen even in cases where the parents *are* 
providing a loving and decent home to the children despite their drug 
use.  I think that sort of thing, rather than the situation re****ted in 
an earlier post where a child came to school having actually *taken* a 
drug, is what Beliavsky may have been talking about.


All the best,

Sarah
-- 
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell