The Imperfect Community

[Petulant Pixie]

I agree with you! You know one way to make better group homes and foster homes? Pay them. When I was in Cleveland, the foster parents we employed, as a private company, got $24 a day, and we had a 2 child limit on the homes. The state foster homes paid $7 a day with unlimited children (well, the limit was based on room--so many square feet per person). In Texas, the private foster home agency I worked for paid $12-16 a day depending on the "level of care" required (so they all had documentation saying they were the highest level of care), with unlimited number of children. The kids I saw in the Texas system were not well cared for at all. I wittnessed what I would consider abuse and I reported it and suddenly a bunch of very influential people were questioning MY ability to function. I resigned because it was a very scary situation. There are a lot of people making money off of the private foster home system in Texas, I tell ya that.

If we *gasp* raised taxes, or filtered taxes into good state run foster homes and paid them decently, then there would be more people wanting to do it and the care would be better and it would solve a lot of things.

I agree with everything you wrote though, Kristy! It's hard to be part of that system when most of the people want to help, but the resources just plainly aren't there.

[Anthromomma]

I know that I'm late to the party on this one, so what I have to say is probably irrelevant to the discussion. Interestingly enough, my free time yesterday was taken up by a lecture on the forensics and pathology of child abuse.

Since I can't actually read the proposed bill, I'm obviously going on some supposition here-- but this sounds like political grandstanding to me more than anything else. I think a law like this, if enacted, would be worrying from both an efficacy and enforcability standpoint. Such a law would most likely have an affect on good parents who spanked occassionally-- in other words-- those who weren't actually doing any physical or mental damage to their children, but it wouldn't make bad parents better or curb actual child abuse. And this is coming from someone who is vehemently opposed to corporal punishment. I think PP is spot on with most of her assesment in this thread.

[TreeMom]

The whole left vs right thing aside I am glad I posted the link because I thought there was a lot of interesting and intelligent conversation about this. I didn't want that to get lost in all of this. Thanks guys.

Jessica - What I meant by open it up is that I actually no longer think my parenting is superior. I realized that I am trying (as I have said before) to be the mom I can be to the kid I have. At the same time I think there is much I can learn from others including those who author bills.

I think as usual other people voiced what I was attempting to communicate. I don't think the bill is perfect, I do not think it will pass, but I have no problem with banning hitting a child under three. The same way I have no problem with carseat laws or general assault laws. If I can't hit my spouse then I don't think I should be able to hit my two year old.

Again, thank you all for some really intelligent conversation. I appreciate it.

Kelly

[MainstreamMom]

Well I'm sure you guys know where I stand. I spank. I was spanked. I don't think it should be outlawed, especially in a child up to age three.

Now *personally* I would never spank a baby (under age of one) and would be hard pressed to spank a young toddler unless clear and present danger nesessited it. And actually, I would rarely spank a child older than say, 4. By that age they have other currency. They can actually communicate and comprehend discipline. You can take things away. You can use other methods. Between about 16 months and maybe 3ish is when I think spanking as a way to get an immediate reaction is most effective. Children that age do not understand time outs. They don't get delayed punishment.

[Jessica]