First they came for neo-Nazis

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/06/2009 (5969 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A custody hearing into the fate of two children being raised by alleged white supremacists has given little evidence that the kids were in real danger — physical or emotional — in their home. Seized by child welfare authorities after the eight-year-old girl arrived at school bearing a swastika, drawn on her body with a felt pen, the kids now in foster care have become pawns in the attempt by authorities to exert power over people with unpalatable political views.

The father, who admits to having been a Nazi in the past, was deemed the better parent by a psychologist who assessed the parents for Child and Family Services. He has some good skills, a good head on his shoulders and the kids like him, the psychologist told the court this week. The mother — having been described as a woman easily led by others — is of average or above-average intelligence, but has the mental maturity of a young teen, he said. She is narcissistic, self-absorbed and she blames others for her problems.

There is reason for concern about the parents’ substance abuse, cause for CFS to keep watch on that household. But the abuse came to light only upon an investigation launched when the neo-Nazi alarm was wrung. Throughout the hearing there was no evidence that the kids were physically abused, although court heard the children were living in a toxic environment of racism and hate.

The psychologist said he was not so concerned about what the parents think, but what they do. The media, he said, were making too much of the parents’ racist views. That seems to ignore the fact that child welfare workers — not reporters — triggered the seizure of the kids.

The court expert says he’s more worried about the mother’s parenting skills than the father’s and could see returning the children to his care in two years, if he addresses his alcoholism and drug use — and gets himself out of his parents’ house into his own apartment. This appears to be overly prescriptive when the sole goal ought to be ensuring a safe, loving home for children.

This case has revealed much about those who work in child protection. If political beliefs, as odious as they may be, can be regarded as emotionally abusive and can draw a family into the clutches of the child welfare agencies, many parents should be nervous.

Where will the reach of child and family services workers end? Indeed, if a parent is inadequate because he or she is narcissistic and incapable of accepting blame, why not those who compulsively drive their children to fulfil their own unrealized dreams? Hundreds of mothers or fathers may fall under the microscope of interventionists for their personal foibles. It is not for nothing that an industry of emotional therapists thrives.

If CFS can nab every child who lives in an alcoholic household without strong evidence that there is imminent risk, many more social workers will have to be hired.

This case was not about an immediate danger to small children. Relatives testified they felt the children were being neglected, reason perhaps for CFS to work with the parents in the home.

Having torn the family apart, CFS now has a duty to repair it with the least amount of damage to the children. It is hoped the court will say as much, making it clear to CFS that, as the psychologist noted, it is what parents do — not what they think — that should determine their fitness to raise their children.