Thank you all for the help on this topic

[bobz]

Thank you all for the help on this topic

Edited February 11, 2008 by bobz

[AngusThermopyle]

I'm sorry but I don't really understand what you're saying here. Are you saying the kids were removed and he was arrested because he was teaching them at home as a supplement to their schooling? Or are you saying that he was molesting them so they were removed and he was arrested?

Without being clear on this I really cant offer any comment with any real meaning.

[bobz]

Thank you

Edited February 11, 2008 by bobz

[Guest American Woman]

It sounds as if this is the problem:

He punished the child when the kid refused to remember how to read after many efforts with other methods. He was accused "child assault" when the kids teacher notice the hurt in the kid's face and report to the principle and the principle call the children aid society.

Not the home schooling.

Evidently the father punished the child by using physical force and left a bruise on the child's face. That is a justifiable cause for child protective services to be called.

[bobz]

Thank you

Edited February 11, 2008 by bobz

[xul]

February 6, 2008 was the Chinese New Year’s Eve. To Ms. H, this was not a happy time. Her husband has been arrested for child assault and was released in bail program. Now she lives alone with her 3 kids aged 4, 5, and 8. These days she has to walk 3 times in the snow for 50 minutes each, even the 4 year old kid need to go with her twice a day in snow.

Very sad to the 3 kids for they have such parents. The post did not state very clearly but I guess the father was arrested for spanking his children. If what I guessed is truth, I think the principal and police was doing the right thing and the father deserved the punishment.

Spanking is not a correct way to raise our children. In China, I sometimes see some parents, mostly born in peasant families though they may be intellectuals now, spanking their kids to achieve their education----the sequels are that their kids have 5% opportunity to become corrupt communist government offficals and 5% opportunity to become criminals, both of these categories like spanking others, and 90% opportunity to be what like their fathers worked in sweetshop spanked by those 10%.

[bobz]

Thank you

Edited February 11, 2008 by bobz

[AngusThermopyle]

Is the 3 kids deserve sadness because of this father?

I see, well if he's leaving bruises on his kids then its probably correct to restrict his access to them. As for the kids deserving sadness, of course not, they don't deserve sadness. One must keep in mind that it is the actions of the father that caused the sadness. It almost looks like the father would like to be viewed as the victim rather than the children.

The children now suffer some hardships as a result but not because of any government agency or school. The hardships they suffer are a direct result of the fathers actions, he should man up and accept responsibility for his actions and the fallout they created.

[bobz]

Thank you

Edited February 11, 2008 by bobz

[AngusThermopyle]

He should not be punished. although he himself may deserve some education.

I think he absolutely needs some education as far as these matters go. As for wether he should be punished or not, well I'll leave that up to the law. They have facts and details that I don't so it would be futile for me to try and second guess these facts and details.

It doesn't really matter if you believe in spanking or not, this guy didn't spank. He hit the kid in the face hard enough to bruise, now that makes my blood boil. It also seems like a really perverse way to show love, not to mention a really crappy way to teach the child.

I reiterate what I said earlier, the consequences this familly now suffers are the direct result of his actions. The school did not hit the kid, the social worker did not hit the kid, the cops did not hit the kid, he hit the kid. As such the responsibility is his and his alone, no shifting the blame on this one. He should grow up and accept the results of his actions, not try to deflect the onus onto some agency or organization.

[bobz]

Thank you

Edited February 11, 2008 by bobz

[AngusThermopyle]

The father punish his child for solve problem that the kid did not start to learn.

The agency or organization punish the father for punish only.

Actually I would think that if they punish the father it will be so he will learn. I highly doubt they'll be beating the crap out of him as an incentive to learn though.

[bobz]

Thank you

Edited February 11, 2008 by bobz

[xul]

Only the father (and the mother of cause), does the school care about the kid's future? when the kid did not response correctly, the teachers said his eyes are small.

Does the children aid society work care about the child? She doesn't care if he has to walk in snow or not, that is not her business.

I doubt this kind of parents really care of their children's future. What is the future they defined? To be a CEO or MBA something? If their kid fit and like to be a carpenter or plumber, why don't allow them to choise their won lives?

Edited February 9, 2008 by xul

[bobz]

Thank you

Edited February 11, 2008 by bobz

[xul]

Carpenter or plumber still need learn. and English is important.

I agree. But spanking is useless to help kid learn English and other knowledges. It only can make rebellious kids who made their parents, teachers, wishfully not eventually police headache.

I guess there are a lot of Chinese immigrants doing low paying work because their English is not good. Do you think Canadian government have the rights to spank them to achieve their English for their good future?

If they have the ability to earn more legally, they will contribute more both to their own life and to the society through tax. (I don't mean the part to be used to destroy more families.)

Each kids are different, not every one fit for the "future" their parents designed for them. If we allow them to lean what fits them, they make progress rapidly. Parents' duty is to help them to be what fit them to be, not force them to be what not fit them but their parents expect them to be.

I think "designation of kids' future" is the main shortcoming of Chinese culture. In China, there are a lot of these spank-made and unqualified government officials, CEOs, MBAs, doctors, lawyers and judges, all corrupted and dull. These guys contribute both society and even themselves nothing. They were forceably to reach the position they hold by being spanking by their parents, for in China carpenters do not have a decent live and their peasant parents of course don't want their kids to be poor like themselves. But they have no interest in their job but some entertainment I suppose they lost in their childhood. I guess most chinese strolled in Las Vegas casinos are these guys. I want move to Canada mostly because these dull social clambers are taking over China because city born people like my parents and me are only allowed to have one child and these guys always have a dozen of kids so those Chinese like me will become rare species if not be extincted a hundred years later.

Edited February 9, 2008 by xul

[bobz]

Thank you

Edited February 11, 2008 by bobz

[Guest American Woman]

Still only have people care about punishment?

Is there anyone here care of the kid's future?

If the school officials and Child Protective Services didn't care about the child's future, they wouldn't have said or done anything when they noticed the child's bruises. It's because they did care that they had cause for concern.

You seem to completely ignore the fact that the father was abusing his child. It doesn't matter if the father loved the children in the eyes of the law; he was breaking the law by abusing his child. Most parents do love their children, and that includes parents who lose it and abuse them. That's no excuse. Love doesn't erase the abuse and since children have no means to escape parental abuse, society has to look after abused children.

You keep referring to "walking in the snow" as if it's worse than physical abuse. I walked many a mile in the snow when I was a child and have survived it (I also played for hours at a time in the snow). Abuse, on the other hand, would have had lasting effects. It sounds to me as if when you refer to "the education method" that's "not allowed in Canada" you are referring to the abuse. Abuse is not an education method. It seems as if you can't separate the issue of education from the issue of abuse.

The children weren't removed from the home; the abusive parent was removed from the home because of his actions. He's responsible for his actions and the repercussions. If his children are suffering, he has only himself to blame. But the fact is, they were suffering when he was in the home, too. Abuse causes suffering. Hopefully they'll suffer less in the long run now that the abusive parent is being dealt with. That's the purpose of the intervention.

You also keep referring to the children's suffering as if it should have some bearing on the law. The fact is, whenever a parent breaks the law their children suffer. If a parent robs a bank/commits murder/etc. and is arrested and put in prison, the children suffer. You don't think the children's suffering should take precedence over the law and no parent should ever be arrested/"punished" because the children will suffer, do you?

Edited February 9, 2008 by American Woman

[bobz]

Thank you

Edited February 11, 2008 by bobz

[Melanie_]

Bobz, this father is a child abuser. He punished his child by hitting him in the face hard enough to leave bruises, because the child wasn't learning English fast enough to suit the father. You are blaming the child for "refusing to learn", trying to shift the responsibility for the father's actions to the child. Whatever the repercussions are for the father not being in the home, it is his own fault for putting his family in this position, not the fault of the cops, Children's Aid, or anyone else.

When you say that the child only has several days pain, you are wrong. The child also has the emotional scarring of not living up to his father's expectations; he receives a message that he is inadequate. For a small child, who is just developing his self concept, this can have a life long impact, particularly if the message is repeated day in and day out. He has the fear of when and where he might be abused again - children who live in fear become hypervigilent, always worried about when the next blow will fall, and this actually interferes with their ability to learn. He has the burden of blame the father seems determined to pass off to him, as if this were the child's fault. The physical pain, the bruises, are the most visible outcome of abuse, but they fade. The feelings of helplessness, vulnerability, fear are less visible but longer term.

You have said the father loves the child, and no doubt this is true. Think of the betrayal of having someone who claims to love you become abusive. The child will grow up connecting physical violence with love. Love and violence don't mix.

[bobz]

Thank you

Edited February 11, 2008 by bobz

[Melanie_]

You can blame the father. But isolation do make things worse. Makes the family suffers more. Enlarges of the possibility of crime rate in future. It is not good for the family, the kids, and the society.

Is this a correct behavior: there is something wrong, let's make it worse?

The first goal of Child and Family Services is the safety of the child. But there is also a strong beleif in the reunification of families, once there is a reasonable assurance that the child is no longer in danger. If the father can prove that he will not abuse his children anymore, it is likely that he will be able to return to his family.

[Guest American Woman]

I have to accept what you said here maybe right. This is where should let the father know and remember. I think that would definitely not be the father's expectation. We should ask him to stop it. And he has already accepted this.

The father simply saying he won't do it again doesn't cut it. An investigation has to be done. Surely the father had to have known that using physical force against a child was against the law, so why did he do it in the first place? Questions have to be asked and answered. Has the father done it before? Does he need anger management classes?

You can blame the father. But isolation do make things worse. Makes the family suffers more. Enlarges of the possibility of crime rate in future. It is not good for the family, the kids, and the society.

Is this a correct behavior: there is something wrong, let's make it worse?

We can blame the father because the father is at fault. And no, isolation doesn't "make things worse." Isolation prevents him from harming the child again. The child may miss the father, but in the long run it doesn't make him suffer worse. Melanie has already given a really good explanation as to why, so I won't get into that again; I'll just point out that 1/3 of children who have been abused grow up to abuse their children too, so future generations are also at risk if something isn't done. Furthermore, an abused child is twice as likely to engage in criminal behavior, so again, removing the father and protecting the child is not making things worse from that standpoint.

As Melanie said, if the father proves himself to be a fit father, he will be reunited with his children. If he's not a found to be a fit father, the children need to be protected from him. No matter how difficult it may be on the child to be raised without his father in the home, an abusive father is a worse alternative.

[bobz]

Thank you

Edited February 11, 2008 by bobz

[Guest American Woman]

Since I don't work in Child Protective Services, I don't have that information. However, I know that not engaging in abuse would be one such requirement. Beyond that, I trust CPS has standards and guidelines as to what makes a parent fit, and hopefully will apply those guidelines appropriately in this situation.