UNNAMED BABY GIRL - 9 mo / Accused: Mother; Megan Ayers and boyfriend; Bryan Sartor - Holts Summit (Jefferson City) MO

sorry ging, but i have seen more harm done to children by trying to force a family to stay together. a true parent would not put their children in these situations in the first place. imo, the quicker these children r removed and given the help and love that they so richly deserve, the better. im sure u have been reading here in this forum of the instances where children were returned to bio parent and subsequently killed. i have yet to read where returning them worked out for any length of time.

Flash, first I didn't suggest any kids should be returned, although I think it depends on the circumstances. I don't know all of the circumstances in this case, so I will refrain from judgement. If the drugs did indeed kill the baby, then I don't believe in second chances. If the baby died from SIDS like the previous poster suggested, then maybe it depends on other circumstances.... i just don't know.

Second, you may 'think' you have seen more harm done to kids by trying to force families to stay together, but in reality the outcome of kids after they are placed in foster care, or adopted out is rarely commented on in the media, until or unless something goes horrible wrong there, like a foster mother duct taping her kid to death. Also, when reuniting the family does work out, as it often does, it is not reported in the media. So of course you see more harm than good because the good isn't reported. The reason you haven't read it is because the media doesn't report it.

However, studies of kids in the system have shown, and anyone who counsels children from dysfunctional families can tell you, that kids who are ripped from those they have attached to without ever trying to keep any part of that dynamic intact often have behavioral and mental health issues and it can be extremely harmful to the child's pysche. They can grow up unable to trust, unable to form attachments. They can lead dysfunctional families as adults as well, continuing the cycle.

Every day CPS investigates reports of abuse, many of which are rightfully deteremined unsubstantiated. Every day CPS reunites familes that were temporarily pulled apart do to drugs or neglect and these families go on to live happy, non-dysfunctional lives.
Also every day CPS rips kids from their homes, sometimes in error, creating horrible trauma that may not ever get fixed. The decision to remove a kid from their home should not be taken lightly. And when the decision is made there should be an ultimate goal. If reunification is the goal then the social worker must work dilegently with the parents to make sure all requirements are being met. If reunification is not possible and ultimately parental ties must be cut then perhaps some level of supervised visitation and most certainly extensive counseling should be considered. It is important to try to keep the kid's life as unchanged as possible; foster care in the same school district, or perhaps with a family member or friend (if a trusted one can be found).
You seem to be under the impression that removing the kid from the unstable family and putting them in a more loving, stable family is in the child's best interest, and it very well may be, but doing so without taking into consideration the impact that will have on the child psychologically is doing a grave injustice to the poor kid. Furthermore, most kids don't find foster care "loving and more stable", at least not at first. They find it scarey and like no one knows what they're are going through. I'm going to link an article that I read, but I'll do it in the proper place and quit hijacking this thread.

dont bother ging. im probably old enough to b ur mother anyway. i dont take my feelings about children lightly. i also dont feel the need to write a long drawn out explaination whenever i make a comment on a particular case. im very familiar with foster care and have seen the good and bad about it. once drugs and violence have been introduced in the mix, i dont have sympathy for the adults involved. as for the sids comment- sids isnt a normal occurence in a 9 month old child and even if by some small chance sids is the actual cause of death-these adults r still responsible for her death due t o neglect. imho

Flash, I have already posted it. YOu can certainly choose not to read it or to, either way you might find it interesting.

I have not disagreed with most of you have said, especially with regards to this case. I'm not sure what your age, or mine, has to do with anything. I'm also unsure what the statement about long drawn out statements is about.
I'm glad you take your feelings on kids seriously, as do I. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but so am I. I'm of the mindset based on my research that cutting all ties to a family, if not absolutely necessary for the safety of the child, can be extremely, and in some cases, permanently traumatizing.
As for SIDS, I agree, it's highly unlikely the kid died from that at 9 months, however, it's not unheard of. The definition of SIDS is the sudden, unexplained death of a child under 12 months, if I remember correctly from when my youngest was that age. I believe it is most likely to occur before 6 months. I also agree that even if SIDS is the culprite, if the parents weren't so high on drugs maybe they would have thought to check on the kid sooner and maybe the kid could have lived. Either way the parents should be held accountable. Even if the kid died through absolutely no fault of theirs, they clearly neglected their kids and endangered them.

Ginger,

I can understand what you are saying but think it would only apply to very slight nelect cases. Parents doing drugs day in and day out until one of their children dies is not even an option for reuniting the parents with the other kids. There is no room for drugs and violence when it comes to children so when that occurs, in my opinion there is no other choice but to try to find a suitable home for all the children. Depending on how long this mother has been running around with men and doing drugs, I'd be doubtful how close she really is to those babies. They've probably been severely neglected for sometime and are ready for some love and attention.

If mothers are found neglectful because they are poor and struggling to take care of their children, then I think society should do all they can to help keep the family intact. But once a child dies from neglect or abuse, all bets are off in my book and any other children need to be placed elsewhere asap. Of course when there is violence such as death, someone is usually arrested like these idiots, so that's a mute point.

I believe that Family Services has tried for years to keep families together but as we read about in many of the cases here, we find so many that slip through the cracks. I can think of the 8 year old girl in another story I read this morning that died from starvation and a broken femur that she never got medical attention for. There were signs and reports on that family but alas they were overlooked until one of the children died. The other 2 kids were nearly starved to death too according to their interviews, and they will do nothing but get better since they have been saved from that horrible situation and monstrous women.

For me the SAFETY of the children always comes first....then the welfare (love and attention) because if they aren't safe, then their welfare won't matter. But let's hope they can find both quickly so they can begin to heal.

babyjustice, I'm not disagreeing with any of what you're saying. One thing I've suggested is perhaps supervised visitation, even if ultimately the rights will be terminated so that the kids have time to find closure and are not just ripped out. I've also stated time and time again that I agree that with drugs and the death of a child the kids should be removed (although i've refrained from making a judgement on the future).
With the attachment issues, even extremely neglected/abused kids find it difficult to be ripped from the only thing they've ever known. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't take them from the situation and give them a chance at a better life. I absolutely believe we should. But these issues need to be taken into account when a social worker is considering removing a child from their home. It's easy for someone on the outside to say what is "best" in a case but it's often hard to convince the kid of that. I advocate more education for foster/adoptive parents. People need to understand that just because a kid has been abused doesn't mean they are now happy to be free of their abuser and in a new "loving" home. Kids are not going to automatically form attachments with their new "parents." Even if they have no attachment to their old parents, the problem could very well be that they are difficult to attach to new people because of the neglect and abuse they went through previously. IF they weren't "taught" attachment as toddlers, chances are they are going to have a very difficult time with it in the future. And new parents have a hard time loving something that isn't really loving them back. CPS workers have to dilegently check up on these kids, offer support to the foster parents. I'm not saying that CPS should always consider reunification. I'm saying that the impact on the child when removing them from their home should be taken into consideration and if the situation isn't so severe contact should be maintained with their previous life (even if only to grandparents, friends, other relatives) if at all possible.

I understand what you are saying Ginger, but how would it work for the children to continue to see their parents, especially when most are in jail due to their heinous acts? It could be quite scary to bring kids into jail to see their crazy mothers plus how can you trust that the parent will act properly and say things that are best for the child. I just don't see how you can regulate such a thing.

I agree that the kids would need to get into immediate attachment programs and have lots of counseling along with the new parents. Keep in mind though, many times children will go to relatives so they may already have a bond and/or rekindle the bond because it's a relative. Not all kids go to stranger foster homes.

It's so sad that so many children's lives are turned upside down in turmoil because of their parents horrble decisions.

BJ, you make good points about jail visits. I don't think i would be in favor of that. But then, I consider that more severe cases and like I said some cases there is no choice but to remove the kid, terminate rights, and offer services for the best possible outcome. It is sad that some adults can't put the best interest of their children ahead of everything else.

The one point I am taking away from this debate is:
Drunk. Sober. High as a kite or Straight as a plumb line, these parents have done something very awful to people (yes kids are people, too) who have no ability to defend themselves or, in some cases, even know that being treated this way is wrong.
I am sorry, for me, if you are behind this kind of maltreatment of the defenseless there are no "do-overs". You had your chance, somehow, some way you blew it. Done. Over. Finito.
An unhappy alive child is much better off than a maltreated or dead one anytime.

Tom I don't disagree. I think my point has been lost. I'm simply stating that a child's attachment to the offender has to be taken into consideration. I'm not saying the kid shouldn't be removed and parental rights shouldn't be terminated, just that the negative impact needs to be reduced as much as humanly possible because re-traumatizing the kid can be eqaually as bad as the original trauma, psychologically speaking, and I for one don't want to traumatize any kid any more than absolutely necessary to ensure their lasting safety.

Gingernlw wrote:Tom I don't disagree. I think my point has been lost. I'm simply stating that a child's attachment to the offender has to be taken into consideration. I'm not saying the kid shouldn't be removed and parental rights shouldn't be terminated, just that the negative impact needs to be reduced as much as humanly possible because re-traumatizing the kid can be eqaually as bad as the original trauma, psychologically speaking, and I for one don't want to traumatize any kid any more than absolutely necessary to ensure their lasting safety.

Ginger,
I think the only way to reduce re-traumatizing children removed from abusive homes is to set up special programs. In serious cases like this, the courts normally will remove the children and place them in safe environments. Maybe that could be one of your objectives as you continue your career in social work--come up with programs that could help children as they adjust after horrible abusive situations.

That is one of my objectives. I think too many social workers don't follow up with foster homes and too many fosterparents are doing it for the wrong reasons ($$$). I don't believe foster and adoptive parents are educated enough about the serious attachment issues that these children can face, whether because they were so abused/neglected that they never attached to anyone or because they did attach to the abuser/neglecter and are being traumatized by being removed fromt he situation... and not always due to abuse/neglect but for any reason. Many kids are removed because parents simply no longer have the resources available to take care of them any more. I plan on continuing on for my DSW which is a clinical based doctorate instead of research based. I intend on either attacking fringe therapies, specifically attachment therapy, or somehow pushing more education to the foster system or both.