Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So OP, your question is should you allow a child to be abused? I would say no, you shouldn't. Child Protection Services are probably very different to how they are viewed, and I'm sure they do the best they can. We in Britain currently have far more children going into care than ever before, some are are without doubt unnecessary, but would I let a child continue being abused? nope.

Unless it was a horticulture class of course. . .

The only time I've ever called CPS was back in 2007. I lived in a little 1 bed apartment with my wife and newborn at the time, in a little 4-plex string of apartments.

My wife noticed that the kids next door, who ranged from 2-7 years old, were home alone all day every day. At one point, the eldest locked the 2 year old out of the house because he wouldn't stop crying. When asked to speak to an adult about it, the 7 year old cursed at my wife and slammed the door shut.

I called them that same day and reported neglect. Never saw those kids home alone after that.

Mannahnin wrote:. It's not morally defensible to accuse a person of abusing their kids on the basis that they got angry at an adult and called that person names.

That's missing the context entirely. The two adults in question here are the parents and the teacher. The parent is inquiring about why his kid is failing. The professional opinion of the teacher is something along the line '' your kid needs to learn to express himself''. Depending on how it was phrased, that's the kind of thing that might sound incredibly pinko to some people, but it's a perfectly valid point. A kid that is too shy will lose points on his grades. Alternatively, a kid who express himself very well but isn't necessarily brilliant will succeed better on some grades (that was my case). The parent didn't like it because it wasn't a clear cut path to success. Instead of asking for someone else's professional opinion, another teacher, a psychologist, etc, he ''tells her to go feth herself'' and take off with the kid. This coming from a parent who's initial concern is supposed to be to see his kid succeed.

The context is a lot more complex than ''they got angry at an adult and called that person names''.

OK Now your just making gak up. He called her a "fething loon". And he wasnt looking for a clear cut line to success, he wanted to know WHY he was having a conference for his son. Rather then giving actual answers, she said EXACTLY what I posted. He needs to think with his heart and is a young sapling in nature (paraphrasing on that last one) Im baffled how you keep missing these points. Ignored, your an idiot.

KingCracker wrote:OK Now your just making gak up. He called her a "fething loon". And he wasnt looking for a clear cut line to success, he wanted to know WHY he was having a conference for his son. Rather then giving actual answers, she said EXACTLY what I posted. He needs to think with his heart and is a young sapling in nature (paraphrasing on that last one) Im baffled how you keep missing these points. Ignored, your an idiot.

They are missing it because it doesn't sound believable. However i've ran into enough of such round these parts (Austin) that I could see it occurring. Was she a young/new teacher? Older teachers wouldn't talk like that. Having said that, the truth is a three edged sword and he might have gone into it in less than a cooperative frame of mind.

KingCracker wrote:OK Now your just making gak up. He called her a "fething loon". And he wasnt looking for a clear cut line to success, he wanted to know WHY he was having a conference for his son. Rather then giving actual answers, she said EXACTLY what I posted. He needs to think with his heart and is a young sapling in nature (paraphrasing on that last one) Im baffled how you keep missing these points. Ignored, your an idiot.

Oh sorry, I missed the ENORMOUS difference between calling someone a 'fething loon' or telling them to 'go feth themselves''. Big deal. And 'SAYING EXACTLY' and 'paraphrasing' are two contrary attributes, you can't have both. I thought I was already on your ignore list? I mean, it's fine... it's not like I need Dakka's conservative Prima Donna's opinion, there's a truckload of more coherent ultra-cons in here to play with... ehm... discuss with...

In this thread we pretend the only sign of a child in trouble is the parent punching them in the face in public.

Child abuse, in it's myriad of forms, is not a new phenomena, and we as a speicies have been studying it for some time. We have found common indicators that pop up in these situations and we teach others, such as teachers, to keep an eye out for them. The trick is that it rarely is as overt as a parent punching the kid in the face in front of a crowd, so it comes down to whether one wants to not say anything and find out the kid was being beaten or to say something and find out that it that it was just the parent having a bad day. It is sometimes a murky situation.

So were you at the incident KC or was it related to you through your brother? I'm not picking sides, I just need to know how many layers of separation we are looking at between the incident and it being related to us.

Ahtman wrote:In this thread we pretend the only sign of a child in trouble is the parent punching them in the face in public.

I don't see anyone doing that. Let's try to keep this polite and constructive.

Ahtman wrote:Child abuse, in it's myriad of forms, is not a new phenomena, and we as a speicies have been studying it for some time. We have found common indicators that pop up in these situations and we teach others, such as teachers, to keep an eye out for them. The trick is that it rarely is as overt as a parent punching the kid in the face in front of a crowd, so it comes down to whether one wants to not say anything and find out the kid was being beaten or to say something and find out that it that it was just the parent having a bad day. It is sometimes a murky situation.

It's usually as overt as bruises and behavioral indicators from the kid. But certainly, we can use other evidence than witnessing a kid get hit. And yes, it's sometimes murky. But getting angry and blowing up at a teacher or other person (like a coach) who has control over your kid, when you think they're being an idiot, is something a LOT of parents do, and is not really indicative of being abusive toward your kid. Anger issues are certainly correlated, but this kind of incident is most certainly not by itself justification to allege abuse. Alleging abuse is a serious thing, and responsible teachers don't do it lightly.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

KingCracker wrote:OK Now your just making gak up. He called her a "fething loon". And he wasnt looking for a clear cut line to success, he wanted to know WHY he was having a conference for his son. Rather then giving actual answers, she said EXACTLY what I posted. He needs to think with his heart and is a young sapling in nature (paraphrasing on that last one) Im baffled how you keep missing these points. Ignored, your an idiot.

Oh sorry, I missed the ENORMOUS difference between calling someone a 'fething loon' or telling them to 'go feth themselves''. Big deal. And 'SAYING EXACTLY' and 'paraphrasing' are two contrary attributes, you can't have both. I thought I was already on your ignore list? I mean, it's fine... it's not like I need Dakka's conservative Prima Donna's opinion, there's a truckload of more coherent ultra-cons in here to play with... ehm... discuss with...

Wait. Are you saying I'm NOT Dakka's conservative Prima Donna?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:In this thread we pretend the only sign of a child in trouble is the parent punching them in the face in public.

Thats why God invented pepper spray. Did I say too much?

Frazzled wrote:Wait. Are you saying I'm NOT Dakka's conservative Prima Donna?

As long as you keep posting that beautiful gal, you can be whatever the hell you want!


(and no, I would say that I find you a lot more reasonable than a lot of other cons posting up here. When your not unleashing your missile-dogs on me, of course)

Mannahnin wrote:

Ahtman wrote:In this thread we pretend the only sign of a child in trouble is the parent punching them in the face in public.

I don't see anyone doing that. Let's try to keep this polite and constructive.

I don't believe I said anyone specifically used those words, but was exaggerating what is being said for effect. The attitude being presented seems to be that unless the kid has a boot print on their face, people are overreacting and just meddling.

Ahtman wrote:It's usually as overt as bruises and behavioral indicators from the kid.

Except it isn't usually that obvious. Sometimes it is, but not all abuse leaves bruises, and not all abuse leaves obvious bruises either.

Mannahnin wrote:But getting angry and blowing up at a teacher or other person (like a coach) who has control over your kid, when you think they're being an idiot, is something a LOT of parents do, and is not really indicative of being abusive toward your kid. Anger issues are certainly correlated, but this kind of incident is most certainly not by itself justification to allege abuse.

Except we don't know the entirety of the story we are being told. The reaction may have been much more violent and over the top then the version we are being given. Again (and again and again) I will say that I don't know that they were right, but I also know that it is just as silly to pretend that second hand anecdotal evidence means they were absolutely in the wrong either. What if you go and talk to one of the other parents at the meeting and they say he got red faced, flipped over a desk, screamed "YOU'RE A fething LOON!" at the top of his voice, grabbed his sons arm and dragged him out the door? Would that change how you view the incident? What if you then talked to the teacher and found a file full of errant behavior that are common red flags for abuse as well? My point isn't that the school was right, it is that we don't know that they were wrong to make the call, at least not on the information we have.

Mannahnin wrote:Alleging abuse is a serious thing, and responsible teachers don't do it lightly.

And what makes you think this teacher took it lightly? You aren't basing it on any evidence, or a personal knowledge of the teacher. It sucks that his brother had to go through that when it turned out there was nothing, but that isn't evidence that there was malice on the part of the school system, or that they made the call on a whim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Thats why God invented pepper spray. Did I say too much?

If you ran out I would lend you mine.

Mannahnin wrote:
I don't see anyone doing that. Let's try to keep this polite and constructive.

Wait, a MOD doesn't do anything about someone being called an idiot, and then regulates the most polite and non-confrontational side of the thread?

-1 for you, Mannahnin.

KingCracker wrote:OK Now your just making gak up. He called her a "fething loon". And he wasnt looking for a clear cut line to success, he wanted to know WHY he was having a conference for his son. Rather then giving actual answers, she said EXACTLY what I posted. He needs to think with his heart and is a young sapling in nature (paraphrasing on that last one) Im baffled how you keep missing these points. Ignored, your an idiot.

Well instead of calling her a "fething loon" and storming out he could have asked her to clarify exactly what she meant. Then if he didn't like her clarification he can ask her to clarify again and repeat until she tells him what she means in language which isn't so frilly. That would have been, in my opinion, the more mature and sensible option as it actually has the potential to get an answer from her. Swearing at her and then leaving does not.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wait. Are you saying I'm NOT Dakka's conservative Prima Donna?

As long as you keep posting that beautiful gal, you can be whatever the hell you want!


(and no, I would say that I find you a lot more reasonable than a lot of other cons posting up here. When your not unleashing your missile-dogs on me, of course)

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
I don't see anyone doing that. Let's try to keep this polite and constructive.

Wait, a MOD doesn't do anything about someone being called an idiot, and then regulates the most polite and non-confrontational side of the thread?

-1 for you, Mannahnin.

Moderation by magic 8 ball at times...

CT GAMER wrote:[
Moderation by magic 8 ball at times...

Its how I live my life. magic 8 Ball commmmmmmmaaannnnnd ME!

Frazzled wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:[
Moderation by magic 8 ball at times...

Its how I live my life. magic 8 Ball commmmmmmmaaannnnnd ME!

''Not today''

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:[
Moderation by magic 8 ball at times...

Its how I live my life. magic 8 Ball commmmmmmmaaannnnnd ME!

''Not today''

"Don't count on it"

Maybe I should ask again later?

Frazzled wrote:Maybe I should ask again later?

''Chances are good''

A Town Called Malus wrote:

KingCracker wrote:OK Now your just making gak up. He called her a "fething loon". And he wasnt looking for a clear cut line to success, he wanted to know WHY he was having a conference for his son. Rather then giving actual answers, she said EXACTLY what I posted. He needs to think with his heart and is a young sapling in nature (paraphrasing on that last one) Im baffled how you keep missing these points. Ignored, your an idiot.

Well instead of calling her a "fething loon" and storming out he could have asked her to clarify exactly what she meant. Then if he didn't like her clarification he can ask her to clarify again and repeat until she tells him what she means in language which isn't so frilly. That would have been, in my opinion, the more mature and sensible option as it actually has the potential to get an answer from her. Swearing at her and then leaving does not.

Obviously I wasnt there, so really I have to go by what I was told, but my brother did say that he asked her a few times to explain what she meant by her odd choice of words. Instead of coherent answers, she just continued to do her tree talk. So honestly, I dont blame the guy, I probably would of done the same thing


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

KingCracker wrote:OK Now your just making gak up. He called her a "fething loon". And he wasnt looking for a clear cut line to success, he wanted to know WHY he was having a conference for his son. Rather then giving actual answers, she said EXACTLY what I posted. He needs to think with his heart and is a young sapling in nature (paraphrasing on that last one) Im baffled how you keep missing these points. Ignored, your an idiot.

Oh sorry, I missed the ENORMOUS difference between calling someone a 'fething loon' or telling them to 'go feth themselves''. Big deal. And 'SAYING EXACTLY' and 'paraphrasing' are two contrary attributes, you can't have both. I thought I was already on your ignore list? I mean, it's fine... it's not like I need Dakka's conservative Prima Donna's opinion, there's a truckload of more coherent ultra-cons in here to play with... ehm... discuss with...

Since your new to DAKKA, Ill let you know, that even though your on my blocked list, when folks quote you, it shows me in the quote what you said. TADA!! Also, again, your just cutting and pasting to make yourself look smart, which isnt the case sport. The "SAYING EXACTLY" part was followed immediately by what he said to me word for word. THEN I posted the part I was paraphrasing, to which I actually said "This part Im paraphrasing" Soo....next time, try and not cut up others posts to make your argument seem to make sense, it just leaves you looking the fool.

Ahtman wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Ahtman wrote:In this thread we pretend the only sign of a child in trouble is the parent punching them in the face in public.

I don't see anyone doing that. Let's try to keep this polite and constructive.

I don't believe I said anyone specifically used those words, but was exaggerating what is being said for effect. The attitude being presented seems to be that unless the kid has a boot print on their face, people are overreacting and just meddling.

No one is saying that. What we are saying is that child abuse is very serious, and alleging it is very serious, and people need to soberly assess whether the complaint they are making is based on a genuine suspicion that the person abuses their child, or being angry at the person about something else.

Ahtman wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:]It's usually as overt as bruises and behavioral indicators from the kid.

Except it isn't usually that obvious. Sometimes it is, but not all abuse leaves bruises, and not all abuse leaves obvious bruises either.

Your second sentence doesn't support your first. No one here disagrees with the second one. I made a positive assertion that bruises (or other physical signs) and behavioral issues are the most common indicators of abuse. I've advised you that I have worked in this area. If you want to contradict me, would you be so kind as to offer some contrary evidence?

http://www.nationalcac.org/prevention/indicators-of-abuse.html
http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/prevention/signs.asp

Ahtman wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:But getting angry and blowing up at a teacher or other person (like a coach) who has control over your kid, when you think they're being an idiot, is something a LOT of parents do, and is not really indicative of being abusive toward your kid. Anger issues are certainly correlated, but this kind of incident is most certainly not by itself justification to allege abuse.

Except we don't know the entirety of the story we are being told. The reaction may have been much more violent and over the top then the version we are being given. Again (and again and again) I will say that I don't know that they were right, but I also know that it is just as silly to pretend that second hand anecdotal evidence means they were absolutely in the wrong either. What if you go and talk to one of the other parents at the meeting and they say he got red faced, flipped over a desk, screamed "YOU'RE A fething LOON!" at the top of his voice, grabbed his sons arm and dragged him out the door? Would that change how you view the incident? What if you then talked to the teacher and found a file full of errant behavior that are common red flags for abuse as well? My point isn't that the school was right, it is that we don't know that they were wrong to make the call, at least not on the information we have.

In my opinion, you have to add a lot of extra details to KC's anecdote, all of them damning to his brother, to make an allegation of child abuse in any way justified. It's a story about an adult getting angry at another adult and losing their temper at them. It's not a story where a kid gets abused.

Ahtman wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Alleging abuse is a serious thing, and responsible teachers don't do it lightly.

And what makes you think this teacher took it lightly? You aren't basing it on any evidence, or a personal knowledge of the teacher. It sucks that his brother had to go through that when it turned out there was nothing, but that isn't evidence that there was malice on the part of the school system, or that they made the call on a whim.

I'm basing my assessment on the information presented. Unless we assume bad faith on KC's part, or that there's some other damning evidence against his brother, there is no indication that he did anything abusive toward his kid. And in the absence of any such evidence, it is irresponsible and dangerous to make such an allegation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I don't see anyone doing that. Let's try to keep this polite and constructive.

Wait, a MOD doesn't do anything about someone being called an idiot, and then regulates the most polite and non-confrontational side of the thread?

-1 for you, Mannahnin.

Moderation by magic 8 ball at times...

90%+ of all moderation is done in private. You're both well aware that many things exist which you cannot see. But maybe you're right. Maybe we haven't handed out enough warnings or suspensions from this thread. Maybe we should have some more.

It takes two sides to have a fight. Everyone can heed the request to keep it polite and constructive.

Mannahnin wrote:No one is saying that.

And again, I didn't say that anyone said that, just that people are giving the impression that that is what it would take to consider a person not to be a meddling busybody. The attitude being presented is that the standard for getting involved is almost so high that no one would get involved.

Mannahnin wrote:Your second sentence doesn't support your first. No one here disagrees with the second one.

That is because it was poorly phrased. Maybe I read into your use of the word 'usually' to mean that you thought that it would always be bruises that everyone could see, which is not the case. Even bruises don't always mean abuse either, as some kids run around and get into scrapes, so we are back to 'it can be murky'.

Mannahnin wrote:In my opinion, you have to add a lot of extra details to KC's anecdote, all of them damning to his brother, to make an allegation of child abuse in any way justified.

The devil is in the details, and I didn't add that many details, I just changed emphasis. A lack of details is being used to make you fall on one side of the argument, but you don't seem to worried about that. The point isn't that I think KC's brother is an abuser, but that everyone is acting like this second hand story from some guy they know online is absolute proof that the school over reacted when we don't know that. Everyone in the thread said they would err on the side of the child if they suspected abuse, which is what the school did, but they are getting lambasted.

Mannahnin wrote:It's a story about an adult getting angry at another adult and losing their temper at them. It's not a story where a kid gets abused.

That is such a vague story though that it could mean a hundred different things. For one person losing their temper is their monocle popping off, and for another it may mean punching a horse in the face. The discussion isn't about whether he did it or not either, so the fact that we know he didn't is actually irrelevant to the discussion of whether the school had reasonable cause to be concerned enough to call. It is actually a story about what you do when you suspect child abuse, and some signs have been exhibited, but you can't be 100% sure.

Ahtman wrote:I'm basing my assessment on the information presented.

Which really isn't enough to say the school was in the wrong to be concerned .

Mannahnin wrote:Unless we assume bad faith on KC's part

We don't have to assume bad faith to understand that maybe his brother downplayed some elements of the story while the school played up some elements. It isn't uncommon for people to de-emphasise negative elements of a story concerning themselves while emphasizing positive elements without lieing or even realizing they are doing it. It is Rashamon. We sort of know the following:

1. There was an incident at the school where the brother lost his temper.
2. The school called CPS
3. CPS eventually determined no wrong doing.

We don't know the details of the incident and we don't know the discussion between the school and CPS. Anything else is propped up window dressing. I'm not focusing on the end result, but considering the moments before when they were deciding whether they should investigate at all. That moment when you think there may be abuse, the moments between 1 and 2, when there were possible symptoms common to an abusive home but you aren't sure and having to make a decision on whether to call or not. It would be nice if it were always absolutely clear beforehand but to many times it will not be and so it is difficult.

Mannahnin wrote:And in the absence of any such evidence, it is irresponsible and dangerous to make such an allegation.

There were enough indications to warrant an investigation. You don't just investigate allegations you only know to be true beforehand. You investigate when you have enough information to think something is wrong to find out if there actually is something wrong. You seem to be saying because no wrongdoing was found that that is somehow evidence that they never should have investigated in the first place, which doesn't really hold up. Isn't that the way it is supposed to work? You have no evidence to back up that the school was being irresponsible and dangerous in contacting CPS. They had enough information to contact CPS, whose job it is to gather the facts and evidence, which they did. The school can only do so much, they aren't investigators, they can only request investigations.

If his brother thinks the school was so far off base in their reading of the situation that it constituted defamation or false allegations he could always take them to court.

It's Rashamon.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

KingCracker wrote:OK Now your just making gak up. He called her a "fething loon". And he wasnt looking for a clear cut line to success, he wanted to know WHY he was having a conference for his son. Rather then giving actual answers, she said EXACTLY what I posted. He needs to think with his heart and is a young sapling in nature (paraphrasing on that last one) Im baffled how you keep missing these points. Ignored, your an idiot.

Well instead of calling her a "fething loon" and storming out he could have asked her to clarify exactly what she meant. Then if he didn't like her clarification he can ask her to clarify again and repeat until she tells him what she means in language which isn't so frilly. That would have been, in my opinion, the more mature and sensible option as it actually has the potential to get an answer from her. Swearing at her and then leaving does not.

Sure, his actions were not appropriate in the situation. But his outburst was against the teacher and not his child.

If anything he would be an overly protective parent who dislikes hippies.

I probably would have done the same thing in his situation, abiet a little nicer. Something like "You're freakin nuts, stay away from my kid"

Which is the watered down version my brother went with

Dad charged with felony assault for tossing french fries at daughter in a McDonalds' drive through.

Well McDonald's fries could be classed as a lethal weapon...

Thrown hard enough they turn into tiny whips.

Seriously?

A felony?