I heard on the radio today that a government agency is the target of litigation as a result of not intervening to protect a child from parental neglect. This particular child drown and was allegedly unsupervised in a pond at the age of 5. Reportedly, a relative had warned the government agency of neglect in that home and now submits that the agency's failure to act is the reason for that child's death.
So my question is this, "Who decides what constitutes neglect or danger?". I say that the government bears no responsibility in the story above. If we maintain that the government's role is to enforce civil laws for the protection of basic human rights, then it is probable that they had insufficient cause to intervene in the life of the family in the story.
If a relative of mine were to decide that my parenting choices were so unlike theirs that they wanted the government to check me out, I wouldn't want the government chasing me down and turning my life upside down based on that relative's suggestion or plea. On the other hand, if there is objective, substantial, reasonable cause to believe that parents are breaking laws in the way that they run their home, then by all means, the government ought to step in just as they would if I aimed a deadly weapon at a neighbor in my yard or if sacks of illegal drugs were sitting on my porch.
If John Q. Neighbor decides that home-schooled children don't receive proper social training, I don't want him running to the government claiming that my daughter is subject to educational neglect and then having social services come investigate my life.
Let's leave responsibility where the Bible leaves it and then hold the right people accountable when actual laws are broken.
No comments:
Post a Comment