Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The story of a Neo-Nazi dad who was killed by his 10-year-old son in 2010 is a tragedy. There were early warning signs that the child would have an abusive and neglectful upbringing. He was born to a mother who used drugs during her pregnancy and into a family who spewed hate on a daily basis, and a father who repeatedly abused the mother and his children. He was born to his parents when they were in their early 20s (father was 22).
Given this young boy's environment at birth and into his early years with is bio-parents, wouldn't he have had a better life had social services removed him and his sister from their home before this tradegy occured? Which kind of parenting yields the best results - Nurture (not bound by biology) or Nature (bound by biology)?
I say "nurture" trumps "nature" all of the time and that "nature" alone does not make the best parents for children.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 01-15-2013 at 05:05 AM..
Reason: Not an *Adoption* topic -- so moved thread to True Crime forum.
Given this young boy's environment at birth and into his early years with is bio-parents, wouldn't he have had a better life had social services removed him and his sister from their home before this tradegy occured? Which kind of parenting yields the best results - Nurture (not bound by biology) or Nature (bound by biology)?
I say "nurture" trumps "nature" all of the time and that "nature" alone does not make the best parents for children.
What about all the children born into this kind of life that DON'T murder their parents? What about the children born of privilege (the Melendez brothers, for example) that DO murder their parents? What about middle class chidren who kill their parents (Kip Kinkel)?
Those cases exist too, but those children didn't have extensive abuse histories. Why did you move my post?
Because it had nothing to do with Adoption, which is where you posted it.
Reference my first question to you: what about all the children born into this type of abusive situation who DON'T kill their parents? Should they removed from their homes anyway?
One tragedy doesn't = large scale removal of children from their birth families.
The story of a Neo-Nazi dad who was killed by his 10-year-old son in 2010 is a tragedy. There were early warning signs that the child would have an abusive and neglectful upbringing. He was born to a mother who used drugs during her pregnancy and into a family who spewed hate on a daily basis, and a father who repeatedly abused the mother and his children. He was born to his parents when they were in their early 20s (father was 22).
Given this young boy's environment at birth and into his early years with is bio-parents, wouldn't he have had a better life had social services removed him and his sister from their home before this tradegy occured? Which kind of parenting yields the best results - Nurture (not bound by biology) or Nature (bound by biology)?
I say "nurture" trumps "nature" all of the time and that "nature" alone does not make the best parents for children.
Children are often removed from abusive homes, but not always. What constitutes a level of abuse that should result in a child being removed?
I knew a family when I was young (babysat for them frequently for years) where there was one bio child and one adopted child. The bio child was heavily favored, and the adopted child was subjected to what i considered to be emotional abuse. However, she was fed, clothed, sent to good schools, not physically abused in any way, and otherwise cared for. Should she have been removed from her adoptive parents' care? If so, would you have her put into foster care? Returned to her bio parents?
She didn't kill anyone, but she didn't turn out well, either, and it was likely due to her upbringing as she had been adopted as an infant. They were really quite mean to her.
Many would say that kids that are raised by ultra-religious parents should be removed. Should the children of Pentecostal serpent handlers in Appalachia be removed? Don't forget that this is not a police state. Generally our courts try to keep kids with their natural parents. You need good documentation and history to actually remove a child from their biological parents.
Even when this is accomplished; it does not guarantee the child a smooth ride through life. Some children will be cycled through many homes and agencies – without bonding. Most parents still have parental visitation rights even after placement.
Frankly, it sounds like this kid did society a favor. Hopefully, he will respond to counseling and go on to lead a normal life. sadly, I doubt it, as it seems the damage is already done.
It is telling that his stepmother loved him enough to initially try to take the rap for him, though. Maybe he's not a bad kid and his anger issues were actually just related to dad and his environment and can be successfully addressed.
The story of a Neo-Nazi dad who was killed by his 10-year-old son in 2010 is a tragedy. There were early warning signs that the child would have an abusive and neglectful upbringing. He was born to a mother who used drugs during her pregnancy and into a family who spewed hate on a daily basis, and a father who repeatedly abused the mother and his children. He was born to his parents when they were in their early 20s (father was 22).
Given this young boy's environment at birth and into his early years with is bio-parents, wouldn't he have had a better life had social services removed him and his sister from their home before this tradegy occured? Which kind of parenting yields the best results - Nurture (not bound by biology) or Nature (bound by biology)?
I say "nurture" trumps "nature" all of the time and that "nature" alone does not make the best parents for children.
Coming from a very abusive home, removed and in to another home I can tell you, not necessarily. Removing them does not magically erase all the damage that was done.
I do agree that nurture is more important but going to a new home does not guarantee good nurturing.
And, in some cases, there just is no help no matter how great the new home happens to be.
Children are often removed from abusive homes, but not always. What constitutes a level of abuse that should result in a child being removed?
She didn't kill anyone, but she didn't turn out well, either, and it was likely due to her upbringing as she had been adopted as an infant. They were really quite mean to her.
I know, which is sad. You really can't tell in cases of emotional abuse. But, in physical and neglect, one would hope we could get better as a society to help alleviate situations like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye
Many would say that kids that are raised by ultra-religious parents should be removed. Should the children of Pentecostal serpent handlers in Appalachia be removed? Don't forget that this is not a police state. Generally our courts try to keep kids with their natural parents. You need good documentation and history to actually remove a child from their biological parents.
This is what a lot of people don't understand. It takes so much to get a bio-parent's rights terminated. It really isn't that easy. In California, 85 percent (one county alone) are returned to their homes. Who knows if any true rehabilitation has occurred? The State can't watch everyone. Also, unfortunately for older children, they are moved around more once in foster care as they are harder to place for adoption.
I was really thinking if he were removed when he was younger, before age three. But as you point out, who really knows if that would have made a difference.
But in general I only feel in true cases of neglect and physical abuse should removal be persued. Religous practices, bad eating habits, late bedtime hours, etc...well, to each his own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLVgal
Frankly, it sounds like this kid did society a favor. Hopefully, he will respond to counseling and go on to lead a normal life. sadly, I doubt it, as it seems the damage is already done...Maybe he's not a bad kid and his anger issues were actually just related to dad and his environment and can be successfully addressed.
This is what I'm hoping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
Coming from a very abusive home, removed and in to another home I can tell you, not necessarily. Removing them does not magically erase all the damage that was done.
I do agree that nurture is more important but going to a new home does not guarantee good nurturing.
And, in some cases, there just is no help no matter how great the new home happens to be.
I guess in this case the damage may indeed be done. Thanks for sharing your story.
I am not crying about the death of this individual. I feel more sympathy for the boy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
