Should CPS be allowed to intervene if a woman tests positive for drugs before birth?

If she intends to carry the fetus to term, her rights end where the damage to the fetus begins.

 

Window or aisle?

 

Window please.

 

And exactly how are they supposed to intervene? What are they supposed to do? Court order the family member into treatment?

A case will get a RTB disposition if a mother tests positive while pregnant. Depending upon circumstances, that can result in anywhere from no action to removal, most likely FBSS. Why does that need to be changed?

There are cases where women who are habitual users (usually meth) and are not going to stop will be pushing kids out, and CPS is waiting to grab them when they arrive. Those are extreme cases but it does happen. I'm not sure exactly what you expect CPS to do before the kid comes out, though.

 

Then a marginally qualified lawyer or well-intended nurse, doctor or judge would advise her to terminate the pregnancy. You can't subjugate women based on their maternal role, the threat of doing so with this warped logic: which itself is not codified into law, is why abortion will probably perpetually remain legal.

 

The day that judges start ordering women to have abortions is the day that civil society ends.

This is disgusting. You guys don't deserve to be called "liberals". You are freaking Nazis.

 

Advise, not order. And in only in response to ridiculous hypotheticals presented here.

 

Lawyers advise. Judges order. Clarity is important.

And even in the most extreme hypotheticals, even in meth cases, the day a judge orders a woman to abort a baby is the beginning of the end of our free society.

The state will take the baby upon birth before that happens. As it sometimes does, usually in cases where unrepentant moms who have already had multiple prior removals... Yeah, sometimes in those cases CPS will be waiting with a court order almost as soon as the baby is born.

 

Judges have the discretion to advise a defendant prior to issuing a ruling. I didn't say they would order abortions and you don't get to slander the logic or associate it with Nazism. Demonizing and imprisoning distressed mothers is old hat; all the relevant institutions and authorities have examined these problems and are not going to implement whatever nutty solutions you and the OP are fantasizing about.

 

Actually, the legal standard judges use in Texas is "best interests of the child." This is a very broad standard and allows the judge a tremendous amount of discretion. It certainly would allow a judge to rule that the mother either get clean or lose the child. That, in fact, has been codified into law...the Texas Family Code.

 

Er... What do you think I am fantasizing about, exactly?

Your words: Then a marginally qualified lawyer or well-intended nurse, doctor or judge would advise her to terminate the pregnancy.

Oh, well, then, as long as the judge is just advising a mother to abort her baby, then everything's just peachy keen, huh?

Freaking liberals.

 

The so-called liberals in this thread seem to be attempting to have a discussion on how to protect an unborn child from a drug abusing mother and all you want to do is call people names. Godwin's Law proves correct again.

 

I don't know what adult, real world concepts or state of affairs "peachy keen" are supposed to imply; but if yours and the OP's fantasy of preemptively kidnapping from and imprisoning expecting mothers were implemented, it would be ethically and legally prudent to suggest to the mother that she abort the baby that she will both lose and be persecuted for carrying to term. The judge would be suggesting a legal alternative that several women choose of their own accord.

 

Oh, my goodness, you and I are not even having the same conversation. I voted "no" in the poll, LOL. What in God's name are you talking about?

And there is nothing ethical or moral about advising a woman to abort a baby. I know, to you it's probably just a fetus and not in any way, shape, or form a human being. But of course, if that were the case, who gives a sh^t whether the state takes custody of it, eh?

What you propose is a very small step away from court-ordered abortions. Again - disgusting.

 

I agree with this line of thinking. In fact many problems our society faces are related to people becoming parents who aren't fit for duty.

 

As I said CPS will sometimes be waiting at the door with a court order, but that is usually in extreme cases where the mother is known to CPS, is still on drugs, and has had prior removals.

Problem is there's not much you can do until the baby makes its entrance.

 

Eh, technicality. They will have the affidavit for removal typed up, the DA's office will have reviewed it, and it probably already got mentioned to a judge.

Most hospitals will automatically drug test pregnant moms before birth. A positive result is an automatic CPS call. Also, CPS has liasons at many larger hospitals who keep track of the really bad moms.

Er, not aborting a child *is* protecting the rights of an unborn child. Namely, the right to live.

And again, precisely what you expect to do in such cases? No, abortion is not an option, at least not for the State. You can't remove the baby until it's born. So really, what do you propose?

 

Interesting scenario. Do nothing and you are damning that child to a birth defect in all probability. Do something - but what?

I suppose you could give the woman options. One, she can face legal trouble. But to do that you'd have to pass laws against things like drinking while pregnant. With yes, a jail time of 9 months if you are caught with any kind of drug or alcohol in your system. Or, you could give the woman of entering rehab clinic - checking herself in and having to stay completely alcohol or drug free...and the other option would be having an abortion. So those 3 options might make sense for someone caught with drugs in their system. It's up to them - jail time, rehab, or abortion.