Why are parents not paid when they have their children taken away?

Answer 1

Children are not possessions, like a television or phone. Children cannot ever be made to be possessions. Such "ownership" would imply children are no better than 1800s African slaves who were bought and sold at the will of their owners. When children are taken away from parents, it has nothing to do with ownership. It is because the parent or parents cannot or do not fulfill their legal and moral responsibilities to care and protect that child. When a child is taken away, the law should be that the parent must still contribute financially to the child's upkeep--after all, the parent-child is family; the State is not "family". But the idea that parents should in any way receive payment when their children are taken away is ridiculous and offensive since it would make children have no more value than a box of books or a pair of old tennis shoes! If you consider this question further, just what "price" would anyone ever assign to a child...is that the wholesale price, retail price, or would you also have a "sale" price. Would one age of child be "worth more" than a different age..if so, then why and who would make that determination. In slavery, the prettier and younger the girl, the higher the price. The stronger and more muscular little boys brought more money to the owner. But littlest, skinniest, weakest, least muscular, less likely to be able to work would be sold as groups for cheaper prices. Along that line, you must also understand just what it means emotionally to know you have been "sold" for a price. The oral histories concerning slavery and today's sexual slavery where children are kidnapped or sold bear witness to the extreme emotional consequences of realizing you body/mind/soul are only worth X number of dollars. So, there are moral and psychological reasons we do not "buy and sell" children, or "pay parents" when the State must intervene and remove children from a neglectful or abusive home!