Banty wrote:
> In article
<83cc1910-6d43-4bc3-ab5c-5f76aeb830da@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Sarah V. says...
>> On Jul 30, 1:01 pm, Banty <Banty_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> In article <g6ovi2$5fg$1$8300d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,SarahVaughan
says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Banty wrote:
>>>>> In article <vaur84p9ve6ion5o7p8jebca0879k31...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Nan says...
>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:40:17 -0700 (PDT), Beliavsky
>>>>>> <beliav...@[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.
>>> No one is suggesting searching the house of every student. We're
talking about
>>> cases where the drug use is *so* affecting a student that people
outside the
>>> venue of the home are noticing it on the student. That in itself
means not a
>>> loving and decent home.
>> Although *you* were talking about that, I'm not sure Beliavsky was. I
>> think there's an apples-and-oranges conversation here where what he
>> was actually referring to was the situation where a child is saying
>> things that clue a teacher in to the fact that some sort of illicit
>> drug activity is going on, but where this does not appear to be
>> affecting anything in the child's behaviour or in the parents'
>> behaviour towards the child. I think it perfectly reasonable to raise
>> some queries about the wisdom of calling the police in such a
>> situation.
>
> Good point.
>
> I understand Beliavsky's concern was a broader one. It does bear
discussion if,
> aside from the meth lab issue and the drug use issue (including contact
highs)
> and the issue of clear effects of neglect + mention of drug use by
parents,
> there is mention of drug use by parents by a kid thats not neglected
apparently,
> merits notifying an investigating agency.
>
> That *is* a case like the family in my county though - by all school
official
> and neighbor accounts, the boys were doing fine. It wasn't a meth lab.
>
> They're still dead.
So, how often do tragedies like that happen, out of how many people in
the country who are involved in illicit drug use in some way? What's the
actual risk?
More than zero, sure. And more than the risk to the average US child.
But, then again, the same is true of children who live in ghetto
neighbourhoods, or are of different races. We don't assume we have to
whisk all those children off to be cared for in well-off white
middle-class homes because of the tiny increased risk of a horrible
tragedy happening. All sorts of bad things, up to and including murder,
*could* happen to a child as a result of their parents being involved in
illicit drugs in some way. But that does have to be weighed against the
certainty of negative effects if a child gets taken into foster care.
(Even if you can guarantee the most loving and wonderful foster home in
the world, being taken away from your parents is a negative experience
in itself.) It's not a no-brainer.
Obviously, the authorities should be making exactly those judgement
calls and not removing children unless there's evidence that they really
are likely to suffer greater overall harm from staying in their home
than from being removed from it. And, in fairness, I'm sure that's just
what happens a lot of the time. But I'm not as confident as I'd like to
be that all those decisions are going to be completely unconvinced by
Drugs Are Eeeeeevil hysteria. If the child was showing no obvious sign
of coming to harm, then I do think it's at least open to debate whether
calling the police would be the appropriate thing to do or not.
> And the boy described in this thread with contact highs puts to bed the
idea
> that "just marijuana" is OK.
We don't know whether contact highs were the problem with that child.
We don't know what had happened to get him into that state.
(Incidentally, what bothered me most about that story was that he *went
to school* in that state, not just that he was in it in the first place.
That suggests a level of obliviousness on the part of the parents that
I find quite frightening.)
What I'm arguing here is not that parental marijuana use is harmless and
devoid of any risk, but that the risks are not automatically going to be
less than the risk to the child of informing the police.
All the best,
Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com
"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell
|
