When it comes to government overreach, none is more egregious than that of government agencies removing children from their rightful parents. Of course, there does exist a fine line between protecting the welfare of children and removing them in haste, or for political agenda.

Nothing goes more hand-in-hand than that of the relationship between CPS (Child Protection Services) and pregnant teens. A teenage girl that has been under CPS control in any capacity has a higher percentage chance of becoming pregnant while still a teen. That may not be all that surprising considering a host of other variables involved which influence teen pregnancy, however, it’s the deeper related connection that is problematic. These same teenage mothers show an uptick in the likelihood of having their child taken by CPS.

In fact, any teenage girl who gives birth while in foster care, or several other state-run care options, is most likely to lose the rights to their child. This is creating a cyclical environment for CPS control over children and it is something that’s no longer flying under the radar.

A new study based in the field of Pediatrics followed the lives of 5,942 kids in Manitoba, Canada. These kids were followed for a total of two years and many were from teenage mothers who were in CPS or foster care (note, not all were from mothers who were under foster care at the time of birth). Almost half (49 percent) of the mothers who were in foster care when they gave birth lost their child to CPS. Of those, a quarter of the kids were turned over to CPS within a week’s time relative to the date of birth.

What do the numbers look like on the other side?

Only 10% of children from mothers who weren’t under foster care were turned over to CPS, under 3% of those in the first week. The disparity in statistics is astounding and likely egregious on the part of government agencies. That’s an over 10 times increased likelihood that a kid born of a teen mother in foster care will become a product of government control.

Clearly, teen mothers in general often face a number of tough circumstances, those in foster care have the gravity of those circumstances amplified significantly. The study shows that parenting under the care of foster parents is likely inhospitable. It might also show a short trigger finger on the part of CPS. These newly teen mothers are more scrutinized by social welfare agents, much more than a normal parent would be. Living up to government standards for a teen mom in foster care might be too much of a challenge for most.

The quick placement of kids, or the stat reflective of the first week of life, could be a result of drug use by the teen mother. However, here’s a glitch in the logic: There are studies that say removing a child from a mother hurts the process of drug rehabilitation. The reactionary trigger finger that results in the removal of the child from its mom may be hurting both mom and child in the long-run.

The cyclical aspect in all of this can hardly be ignored. Remember, the child removed is then placed in the foster system, where they are more likely to become pregnant in their teens. And by default of those statistics, they are then more likely to have their child removed from them and placed in the foster system.

The system has no focus on helping teen mothers and their new children succeed. Rather, the state itself feels the best option is to take control of the kids and keep the system churning out more of the same scenarios. In some ways, it creates an environment that fuels the continuance of a foster system. That’s a bigger burden for taxpayers and it clearly isn’t helpful to child and mother.

As is often the case, more government involvement often results in poorer results than if they’d just stayed out of things.

Statistics such as the ones recited above are prime examples of why we believe citizens need to fight to keep their right to bear arms and their right to speak freely. Governments worldwide are becoming more and more authoritarian under the guise of “saving us and helping us.” We got along quite fine without far-reaching government agencies interfering in our lives.

Comments

comments