law targets parents who expose kids to drugs (topic-related spam only)

[dragon wench]

Alta. law targets parents who expose kids to drugs
Emma Poole, CanWest News Service; Calgary Herald
Published: Wednesday, November 01, 2006

CALGARY - Police in Alberta will be able today to charge unfit parents with exposing their children to drugs under a new law that is the first of its kind in Canada.

Under the Drug Endangered Children Act, officers can seize and hold for two days children found living where drugs are being produced, such as methamphetamine labs and indoor marijuana grow operations, or sold. Police also have the power to charge the family members who put the children in harm's way.

''It gives us another tool in our belt to penalize people,'' said Staff Sgt. Monty Sparrow of the Calgary police drug unit.

In an interview Tuesday, Children's Services Minister Heather Forsyth, who spearheaded the law, said officers across the province are seizing children every day from homes where adults are cooking, growing and producing illegal drugs.

''The law is clear and concise and makes it clear that children who are involved in these situations are abused,'' said Forsyth. ''It recognizes that these children are victims and need protection.''

Last Wednesday, three Calgary children two of whom were in school at the time were found to be living in a marijuana grow-op.

Police said the basement of the home had been converted into a 157-plant grow-op with toxic fumes being vented through the closet of the upstairs master bedroom into the attic.

A crib where the youngest slept was less than a metre from the closet, said Sparrow. Several chemicals were also found in the home.

The discovery, he added, is a ''perfect example'' of why the new legislation is necessary.

Sparrow said the service's biggest concern is in homes with grow-ops, where cocaine is being cooked to make crack-cocaine, and where weed oil is being produced.

Children exposed to toxins from these processes are found to suffer from medical problems such as chronic respiratory illnesses, neurological damage and cancer.

Others dangers, such as the inhalation, absorption, or ingestion of toxic chemicals, fires and explosions, and abuse and neglect are also connected to the production of drugs.

Staff Sgt. Jim Rorison of the service's child abuse unit said officers in Calgary have already received training on enacting the new law.

The charge willfully causing a child to be a drug-endangered child carries a maximum fine of $25,000 or 24 months in jail.

Forsyth modelled the new legislation after several similar laws in the U.S.

She expects the legislation will result in an increased numbers of people who report this type of abuse to police.

epoole@theherald.canwest.com

Calgary Herald


On the surface of it.. this does not seem like a bad thing. Clearly, kids should not be existing in homes that are effectively meth labs or similar... I shudder to think what the effects of that would be on any child..

But.. legislation like this also makes me somewhat uncomfortable, and I see it as a potential slippery slope. It really was not so long ago that First Nations people here were deemed unfit for parenthood and their children were taken away to residential schools... Later, other so-called "undesirables" had their children placed into the care of the state. Equally, in the same province (Alberta), enforced sterilization was not actually struck off the books until the early 1970s....

As I said, children obviously need to be protected, I would never argue with that. However...I'm uneasy at the potential implications of something like this. Historical precedent has already shown the more extreme side of this type of legislation. What is to say it cannot happen again?

Thoughts?

[Fljotsdale]

Hm.
In principle, it seems a good thing. After all, we remove children from the 'care' of abusive parents; and homes where drugs are made/grown are abusive environments.
Parents willing to expose their children to such danger are, in point of fact, abusive parents.
So it seems to me that there is no need for further legislation: just remove the children under the child abuse laws.
It might also be pointed out that since the parents making/growing drugs are taken into custody under drug laws, the children would go into care anyway - so, again, what is the need for this legislation?

[Dowaco]

So it seems to me that there is no need for further legislation: just remove the children under the child abuse laws.
It might also be pointed out that since the parents making/growing drugs are taken into custody under drug laws, the children would go into care anyway - so, again, what is the need for this legislation?

Exactly. Another example of too much government wasting your tax dollars, just enforce the laws you have.

[dragon wench]

Hm.
In principle, it seems a good thing. After all, we remove children from the 'care' of abusive parents; and homes where drugs are made/grown are abusive environments.
Parents willing to expose their children to such danger are, in point of fact, abusive parents.
So it seems to me that there is no need for further legislation: just remove the children under the child abuse laws.
It might also be pointed out that since the parents making/growing drugs are taken into custody under drug laws, the children would go into care anyway - so, again, what is the need for this legislation?

I do agree regarding your comment about abusive environments... Exposing kids to something like a meth lab *is* incredibly destructive to a child, psychologically/emotionally, as well as physically.
As I said, I'm not arguing on this point at all. Rather, I'm concerned about the possibility for a law like this to become a slippery slope. I feel that a stringent series of checks and balances should be implemented alongside such legislation thus ensuring it remains highly specific to situations where children are very clearly in danger and/or being abused.
I suppose the other thing that strikes me is legislation of this nature is very much a heavy-handed bandaid solution. In addition to creating laws like this we should also be tackling the root causes that lead to drug ops. Meth labs take relatively few resources to set up, for example, and all too often they are symptomatic of wider and systemic issues, like poverty.

Regarding the seeming redundancy of this law, I was considering that myself. I'd hazard the reason for it, though, revolves around custody. Presumably the point is to prevent relatives (who could also be involved in the drug op) from obtaining custody, and also, to ensure that parents who eventually gain parole cannot take back their children.

[Dowaco]

Regarding the seeming redundancy of this law, I was considering that myself. I'd hazard the reason for it, though, revolves around custody. Presumably the point is to prevent relatives (who could also be involved in the drug op) from obtaining custody, and also, to ensure that parents who eventually gain parole cannot take back their children.

It is plainly wrong to presume the guilt of a relative of a criminal.

Parole is a whole 'nother issue. If judges gave sentences that were appropriate at the time of the crime, then why commute them? After serving time, the ex-con should be restored all rights including child custody unless a family court has ruled otherwise. Anyway, they should go away for long enough that their offspring are no longer minors.

[dragon wench]

It is plainly wrong to presume the guilt of a relative of a criminal.

Of course it is wrong, and under existing laws it could not be justified. However, I'd hazard this new piece of legislation circumvents the wrongness quite nicely.

After serving time, the ex-con should be restored all rights including child custody unless a family court has ruled otherwise.

Presumably, this is at least part of the reason why the law was brought into effect, to prevent precisely that from happening.
And yes, such parents probably should go away for long enough so that their kids are no longer minors by the time they get out. But, in practical terms, this is not always the case.

Note that I'm not necessarily trying to justify what appears to be a duplicate law, I'm just trying to understand the motivation behind it. The other thing I should mention is that Alberta is the *most* socially, politically and economically conservative province in Canada, and they are not generally given to excessive government spending.

[Fljotsdale]

Rather, I'm concerned about the possibility for a law like this to become a slippery slope. I feel that a stringent series of checks and balances should be implemented alongside such legislation thus ensuring it remains highly specific to situations where children are very clearly in danger and/or being abused.

Ok. I see your point and your concern. But the important thing is to get the kids OUT.
Yes, slippery slope possibilities. It could be used to remove kids from good parents who sometimes smoke canabis. Sure not setting a good example, but not bad people and not people who are into drugs for profit. Yet they COULD be swept up into the net eventually...
But the legislation appears to be aimed specifically at people who are manufacturing drugs for profit in their own homes and endangering their children in the process. I don't think it likely it will ACTUALLY extend to the occasional canabis smoker. If it does, it will have to take in cigarette smokers as well, because they endanger the health of their children with every puff they take, and, personally, I think parents who smoke in the home where children are present ARE abusive, and their children SHOULD be removed from their care. It won't happen. The drug pushers (cigarette manufactureres) have too much clout...
Let's face it - if the manufacturers of currently illegal drugs were also providing a fat profit in taxes for the state there would be no legislation against the manufacture of canabis, cocaine, heroin, etc..

Sorry. I've gone off on a rant...

I suppose the other thing that strikes me is legislation of this nature is very much a heavy-handed bandaid solution. In addition to creating laws like this we should also be tackling the root causes that lead to drug ops. Meth labs take relatively few resources to set up, for example, and all too often they are symptomatic of wider and systemic issues, like poverty.

Yes, I agree. If poor people could earn a decent living they wouldn't (most people, anyway) bother with illegal activities.

[Vicsun]

Let's face it - if the manufacturers of currently illegal drugs were also providing a fat profit in taxes for the state there would be no legislation against the manufacture of canabis, cocaine, heroin, etc..

I think you're mixing cause and effect here. They're illegal and therefore cannot be taxed, thinking about it the other way around doesn't make any sense since there's nothing preventing the government from legalizing narcotic substances and taxing them to high heaven.

[Fljotsdale]

I think you're mixing cause and effect here. They're illegal and therefore cannot be taxed, thinking about it the other way around doesn't make any sense since there's nothing preventing the government from legalizing narcotic substances and taxing them to high heaven.

Not really. I'm not totally stupid you know!

What I was trying to show is that cigarettes are a dangerous drug, and if tobacco were introduced now it would be as illegal as heroin, and all the other rubbish people damage and kill themselves and others with. It is quite illogical for the government to profit from the sale of tobacco, but to ban all other recreational drugs.
And as for governments not being prevented from legalising narcotic substances...! Hell! Can you imagine the outcry from the public?:speech:

It is also illogical to legislate to remove children from parents who manufacture dangerous substances in their homes, but NOT remove children from the homes of tobacco smokers. Tobacco smokers actually damage the health of FAR MORE children than do the relatively few parents who manufacure illegal drugs in their homes. Just because tobacco is legal and makes a fat profit for the govenments does not mean it is less dangerous to children! It's like caring more about a flea bite than for a bite from a rabid dog.

[Philos]

This topic is very hard one for me and near to my heart. My wife and I did foster parenting for about 3 years. Our parents' medical situations caused us to have to stop. But a very large proportion of children who end up "in the system" of child care (at least in this region and I imagine in most places) are there as the result of their parents and drug activity. Although there is certainly the opportunity for government to abuse this and "start down the slippery slope." I feel that legislation like this IS very necessary. On the surface it may sound like duplicitous legislation and unnecessary. But I can assure you it is not . Why, because child protective services need every bit of cause and leverage to help keep children from going back to parents that are destroying them.

Child abuse laws are NOT enough to prevent a child's return to abusive parents. I know this first hand. I am not allow to discuss specifics, but I do know of far too many cases where all the abusive parent had to do was show up it court, promise to take a few parenting classes (they didn't even finish them in some cases), and the child went right back home to same environment. Sometimes this little dance it repeated over and over again. You might think if it happened a second time then that would end it. But the child abuse laws in most states (I confess not knowing much about Canada's) are not strong enough (or have too many loop holes) to effectively prevent a child return to a dangerous environment. That sounds insane but it happens every day many, many times. Giving child protective services another avenue to pursue and use in helping to protect these children is great. If the child abuse laws can't (or won't) put a dangerous abusive parent in jail, then perhaps they can put them away on the drug endangerment.

Three Cheers for Canada!!

[Fljotsdale]

I can't argue with the view from 'the horse's mouth'. There is nothing like personal experience to shed light on a situation.