Who ‘owns’ children? And who should step in when parents fail?

By David McElroy · September 16, 2013

Over the weekend, a woman in California killed her two children in a motel room and then wrecked her car in an attempt to kill herself. She then tried to choke herself, but she was rescued. On the way to a hospital, she told police where to find her dead children. We don’t know much about her other than that she lives in Arizona and was driving a car with Georgia license plates.

Stories such as this are gut-wrenching for most of us, because it’s one of our most basic instincts to protect children and save them from harm. We tend to assume this is just a snap decision by someone who’s mentally ill. But other stories are even more horrific — and long term.

When Jonathan Adleta’s girlfriend, Sarah, got pregnant, he wouldn’t agree to marry her until she agreed that he could engage in “daddy-daughter sex” with the girl after she was born. They married and Adleta abused the child. His wife was expected to engaged in sex with a son when they had one in the future. The pair are on trial now after their crimes were discovered. (That’s their mugshots above.)

Parents fail in horrific ways all the time, some of which are criminal acts, but most of which are legal, but still damaging to children. For those of us who reject the legitimacy of the state, this brings up an uncomfortable and difficult question. If we reject the state, who is to protect children? Who is to step in when monsters such as the Adletas hurt their children? And who is to make decisions when parents are making crazy decisions that damage their kids?

I started thinking about this last week when a friend shared an article from a medical journal about a 3-year-old girl with serious health problems because her parents refused to feed her the kind of food she needed. The parents “diagnosed” the girl with multiple allergies and chemical sensitivities. They restricted her diet to chickpea milk, bison meat and salicylate-free vegetables — resulting in a serious vitamin A deficiency.

The parents of this child tried to prevent doctors from giving the girl what she needed and continued to claim she had chemical sensitivities which they couldn’t prove. Against the parents’ wishes, doctors treated the child and then released her to a state child protection agency. Since it’s a medical journal and not a newspaper or court record, we don’t know who the parents are or what happened to the child.

It’s easy for any of us to say that we would try to stop a mother from killing her children if we could. Likewise, it’s easy for us to say that we would stop a father from sexually abusing his daughter if we knew about it. But what would any of us do about parents who claim — without medical foundation — that their daughter has allergies and sensitivities? Wouldn’t most of us simply say the parents have the right to make that decision, unaware of the damage they were doing to her?

Those of us who oppose the state have a serious problem here — and I don’t know the answer. I don’t want to live in a world where stupid or uncaring parents destroy children, but I also don’t want to live in a world where government agencies hold all the power to dictate things to parents.

I can’t claim to have a good position about how to handle such things. As a human being, though, I know I’m not willing to sit idly by and just accept parents doing this to children. I just don’t know the right intellectual framework for justifying the actions that need to be taken to save the children. It’s a conundrum to me.

What are we to say that children are, philosophically? Many people act as though they’re the property of parents. (And I think that was the literal position of society for many years in the past.) I don’t think any of us would say that parents own children today, but what rights do children have? Do they have no rights of their own until they reach some magic age that the state arbitrarily chooses?

Out-and-out socialists seem to take the position that we all belong to the state, so they don’t have a philosophical problem. Progressives tend to believe in government to make decisions for the best interests of children, so they don’t have any problem allowing the state to step in and take children away or make decisions for them. Even conservatives generally believe that protecting children is a core function of government, so it’s acceptable for coercive government to step in, although many of them would argue about when that point is reached. Many libertarians (of the “minarchist” type) would take the same position — that this is a legitimate function of government.

So that leaves those of us who oppose the state without a logical solution. Do we leave abusive parents alone to terrorize and possibly kill their children? Do we trust private community vigilante groups to decide on an ad hoc basis when parents aren’t taking care of their children and assume they’re going to step in with force if necessary to protect kids?

I don’t like those alternatives. They don’t seem realistic or fair to children or parents. But what do we do?

Let’s be honest and say that the state isn’t going away in the next few years, so we’re unlikely to face the issue immediately. But if the state does collapse — as I think it inevitably will — are we going to have an intellectual and practical framework within which children can be protected? Or will it be a terrible time for children in some families to be alive?

The state does a horrible job of protecting many children. The system we have is horribly imperfect. The law is messy and is applied unequally. And much abuse is never reported. So what we have is lousy. My concern is making sure we don’t end up with something that’s even worse.

I don’t have an answer to this. It’s something I’ve been thinking about for years and it has me stumped. I’m not sure what rights to say that children have and when to say that they have the right to be independent if they want to be. I’m not sure how to hold parents accountable. It’s all a mess of issues that make me very uncomfortable — but they’re issues that must have answers.

If you oppose the state as I do, what’s your solution? How are we to solve this in a post-statist world?

Share on Social Networks

I’m seeing a lot of simplistic and dishonest explanations right now for the current rioting in France. Those on the populist far right claim it’s all about Muslim immigrants to France disrupting the culture. Their message is that this sort of thing is going to happen in the U.S. unless “we defend the border.” On the far left, socialists and their fellow travelers claim the riots are all about wealthy people in France not paying enough taxes, resulting in cuts to government services. The truth is far more complicated, but it’s rooted in the decline of population growth in Europe. There simply aren’t enough young workers paying into the tax system anymore, so cuts in social services were inevitable. There is genuine cultural tension as more and more people immigrate from other countries, but government cuts to education and other services are even more important to what’s happening. The situation is complicated, so don’t let dishonest people with U.S. political agendas tell you that it happens to support whatever they were already promoting for partisan reasons.

Here’s another reason to appreciate the cats in your life: New research involving 93 countries found that places with more cats per person also tended to have happier people. The researchers say the finding fits with previous evidence that living with pets can reduce loneliness and stress while providing companionship, emotional attachment and social support. The study doesn’t prove that cats cause greater happiness, but it certainly adds to the evidence that sharing your home — and your life — with a cat might be good for you.

The company that owns Facebook and Instagram is heavily promoting its new AI-based software assistant called Muse, but people who are using it as it was designed are incredibly foolish. An early adopter of the software discovered that a few days ago when he advertised an item for sale on Facebook Marketplace — and he inadvertently gave Muse full authority to act on his behalf. The software agreed to a lowball offer made by another Facebook user and then gave that man the home address of the man for whom he was an agent. The software told the buyer that the seller was home and waiting for him. When the buyer showed up and waited angrily, the would-be buyer left an angry review for the man. And this angry man had the seller’s home address. It was only well after that that the software reported what it had done and admitted it had made a mistake. I won’t be putting that much power into the hands of any software. I think anyone who agrees to such terms is a fool. And the software’s user agreement says you’re responsible for purchases the software makes in your name. Nope.

Meet my new girlfriend. Her name is Meg. And she’s my little sweetheart. A couple of months ago, a neighbor across the street told me about a new stray in the neighborhood that she and I were both soon feeding. The cat had been very skittish about contact and she had a lot of scabs and parasites in her fur, but a trip to the vet last week revealed that she was otherwise in good health. The vet estimates her to be 1 to 2 years old. I named her for Meg Murry, the 13-year-old protagonist of Madeleine L’Engle’s wonderful book, “A Wrinkle in Time.” (Please read the book. Don’t watch the horrible movie.) Since we lost Lucy almost a year ago, it seems appropriate that we finally have a new little girl to join the household. She’s already captured my heart, but Alex, Oliver and Sam aren’t there quite yet.

There’s nothing socially acceptable that’s as dangerous as drinking alcohol. Most people grow up being told to “drink responsibly” — and all of us see people abusing this drug in one way or another — but the truth is that drinking alcohol is always a terrible risk. The alcohol in these drinks is toxic and the human liver has to work hard to filter the toxins out. What most people don’t realize is that alcohol is classified as a known carcinogen by the World Health Organization — because of the well-established connection between imbibing and various cancers. Many people have taken refuge behind the idea that light or moderate drinking might be safe, but a new study shows that drinking even one drink a day increases the risks of 10 types of cancer. When I was a teen-ager, I looked around and saw the negative effects that this behavior had on a lot of people and decided not to start drinking, so I’ve never even tried this poison. The evidence keeps piling up that I was lucky to have come to that conclusion early.

Related Posts