Supporting Arguments for Parent Licensing
In Hugh Lafollette’s paper, “Licensing Parents” he talks about the need for government licensing of parents. His argument states that for any activity that is harmful to others, requires competence, and has a reliable procedure for determining competence, should require licensing by the government. This argument relates to parenting because it can be harmful to children, requires competence to raise those children, and we can assume that a reliable procedure can be formulated. Therefore, parenting should require licensing by the government. I agree with Lafollette and shall focus on supporting him by addressing the most practical objections: There is no reliable procedure for identifying competent parents and it is impossible to reasonably enforce parent regulations. I shall address these objections and their reasoning, followed by responses that Lafollette and myself would most likely have, thereby refuting the objections.
The first objection to Lafollette’s argument is that “…there may not be, or we may not be able to discover, adequate criteria of ‘a good parent’” (Lafollette 1980, 190). This is a strong and sound objection because who can universally define what constitutes a good parent? Many cultures prefer to raise their children in different ways that others might think is unacceptable. For example, some cultures believe that spanking their children is an effective form of punishment, while others condemn it as child abuse. Therefore, it seems impossible to distinguish between a “good and less than good parent” (Lafollette 1980, 190). In addition, if we did come up with a criteria, it would be too generalized (in order to include different cultures) and therefore, wouldn’t be ab...
... middle of paper ...
... to fairly enforce such a program. This objection was backed by multiple scenarios which demonstrated that most punishments are implausible. In response to this objection, I discussed Lafollette’s idea of removing children and putting them up for adoption. This plan involved orphanages or third party adoption indefinitely or until their biological parents became licensed. I also formulated an enforcement plan consisting of heavy fines and jail time for unauthorized children. Although this plan is harsh, it is fair and enforceable, thereby refuting the objection that there is no way to enforce parent certification. This paper discussed objections and responses to Lafollette’s argument which concluded in the reaffirmation that parent licensing is a possibility.
Works Cited
Lafollette, Hugh. "Licensing Parents." Philosophy and Public Affairs 9, no.2 (1980): 182-197.
Turner, Janice. "Should We Need a License to Be a Parent?" Respond in Writing. Ed.
Since 1972, the issues surrounding the rights of unwed birthfathers have provided America with a highly controversial and morally challenging topic for debate. Prior to 1972, these unwed fathers were given little or no involvement in their child’s adoption proceedings, but because of highly publicized adoption cases in which birthfathers have retained custody of their child many years after their adoption took place, state legislatures have been forced to review their adoption laws regarding birthfathers and create more concrete ones. The laws in Florida regarding birthfathers have changed dramatically over the past several years, with complicating, senseless laws being replaced with more rational and reliable ones. The newest laws, passed in 2003 regarding a Putative father registry provide the most stable and fair support for legal adoption proceedings.
A research I had done before led me to question what “assessing” involved. I also asked if, traditional families were barred from adopting...
Adoption is a process where by a person assumes the parenting for another and, in so doing, permanently transfers all rights and responsibilities from the biological parent or parents. Unlike guardianship or other systems designed for the care of the young, adoption is intended to effect a permanent change in status and as such requires societal recognition, either through legal or religious sanction. Adoption has changed considerably over the centuries with its focus shifting from adult adoption and inheritance issues toward children and family creation; its structure moving from recognition of continuity between the adopted and kin toward allowing relationships of lessened intensity. In modern times, adoption is a primary vehicle serving the needs of homeless, neglected, abused and runaway children (Wikipedia, “Adoption”).
Adoption is in place to balance, to nurture and create a structural environment of safety in which the child can thrive and develop into a productive individual contributing to society. Also, it allows older children to abandon old maladaptive behaviors and make their first steps toward the construction of new behaviors influenced by their new environment. In years past, parents who adopted a child as an infant often debated whether to tell him or her about the adoption. Many children grew up not knowing they were adopted, and the birth mother’s identity was kept secret from those who did know (Ashford, LeCroy and Lortie 249). This paper provides facts on widely acceptance option of open adoption rather than the traditional practice of closed adoption. Adoption separates real biological family members, removing the adopter heritage whether the adoption is open or closed. Open adoption can lead to problems, but there are proven facts that open adoption is the best option for all parties working together in the best interest of the children.
In the United States there are approximately 397,000 children in out-of home care, within the last year there was about 640,000 children which spent at least some time in out-of-home care. More than 58,000 children living in foster care have had their biological parental rights permanently terminated (Children’s Rights, 2014). Due to the rising number of children in foster care and the growing concerns of the safety, permanency, and well-being of children and families, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 was signed into law. On November 19, 1997, President Bill Clinton signed the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, to improve the safety of children, to promote adoption and other permanent homes for children who need them, and to support families (Child Welfare League of America). The Adoption and Safe Families Act also promotes adoption by offering incentive payments for States. During the FY of 1999-2003 the payment to states which had exceeded the average number of adoptions received $20 million (Child Welfare League of America). The ASFA improved the existing federal child welfare law to require that the child’s health and safety be a “paramount” concern in any efforts made by the state to preserve or reunify the child’s family, and to provide new assurances that children in foster care are safe (Shuman, 2004).
The uniform adoption act of 1994 was drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL). The Uniform Adoption Act of 1994 seals adoption records for 99 years, makes it illegal to search for birth parents by anyone including the adoptee, shortens revocable consent periods that many states have enacted to a dismissal 8 days from birth of the child (Uniform Adoption Act, 1). This proposal of the uniform adoption act just shows what is wrong with the adoption process, adoptees should have the right to search for their birth parents for medical and personal reasons.
The topic of child welfare is quite a broad one. There are numerous programs and policies that have been put in place to protect children. One of these policies is that of Adoption. Adoption was put into place to provide alternate care for children who cannot live with their biological families for various reasons. One of the more controversial issues surrounding adoption is that of Transracial adoption. Transracial Adoption is the joining of racially different parents and children (Silverman, 1993).
The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 changed the way we approach foster care and adoption. It was the first law that solely focused on children alone, not the entire family. The main objective of this law was to create timelines. These timelines determined the length of time a child could be in foster care before the parents’ loose custody of the child. After parental rights are terminated, the agency is to start searching for a family to adopt the child. In essence, this act took a process that could go on for years and condensed it. This law gives incentives for parents to clean up their act and prove they are changing for the better, through agencies allocated by the Adoption and Safe Families Act, but did not force a child to wait endlessly for their parents to either...
For a mother or father to learn that their adopted child, who they believed was an orphan, actually has a caring and loving family is heartbreaking. Adoptive parents feel guilty. The children yearn for their true home. The biological family feels deceived and desire for their child to return. This situation is far too familiar within intercountry adoption cases. Many children are pulled away from home, put into orphanages, and painted as helpless orphans. The actions perpetrated by adoption agencies reflects an underlying network of corruption and exploitation. This is not for the purpose of discouraging international adoption, but to shed light on the horrific practices taking place behind the scenes. Intercountry adoptions are often tangled
A parent’s parenting styles are as diverse as the world we live in today. Nowadays, parents only want what is best for their children and their parenting styles plays a crucial role in the development of children which will in the long run, not only effect the child’s childhood years, but later prolong into their adult life as well.
At first glance, assisted procreation practices do not necessarily violate a child’s right to identity. The violation lies in the fact that the state is not taking a serious enough stance on regulating the issues that emerge from assisted procreation technologies. The state is voluntarily removing its responsibilities in regulating this field by allowing cases of donor confusion, the implantation of too many embryos and the disorganization of donor files. Instead of imposing criminal sanctions or punishments, the state is too often turning a blind eye.
The universality versus cultural specificity debate both have aspects that make sense and can be applied to childhood development. On one side, supporters of the argument for the universality of parenting suggest that certain types of parenting styles will produce the same child development outcomes in different cultures. On the other hand, the argument for cultural specificity states that different parenting practices vary from culture to culture, and that culture ultimately determines the outcomes of child development. Each culture has specific styles of parenting that instill values on children particular to that culture. Each individual has characteristics of what their parents taught them, which gives every individual their own personality. Both sides present logical information on the cultural impacts of parenting on child development outcomes.
Women’s and men’s would have to have a license at the age when they have a job and can support themselves before they become parents or after having a child if they want to stay with the children. This is because not everyone has the budgets to take care of a baby. Also a lot of people just have a baby to get benefits from the government. Although parents nowadays claim that having a child is a natural part of every human’s life is clear there are those who disagree with these. According to family who are against this state that everyone should be parents even if they don’t have knowledge. In other words, these people believe that everyone should be parents without a license. I disagree with this parent’s view that everyone should become a parent whenever they want because there have been cases showing that some people mistreat their kids or abuse of them emotional, sexually and physically. Parents who disagree with this idea are right to argue that having a child is a natural part of human’s life, but they exaggerate when they claim that everyone should have a kid even if they don’t have the budgets. This is a problem because there are many kids suffering because some parents abuse the children or the parents are not mentally and economically stable to afford the best care for the kid. Also, having a child is too expensive and not everyone has the amount to give a better life to the child. Ultimately, what must be kept in mind is that not
They often are not cared for, are brutalized, unloved, and abandoned. Once these children grow up, they often become seriously disadvantaged. No prohibition would make such parents love their children and want to take care of them. Scholars have acknowledged that children who grow up in such circumstances often become social misfits and take on undesirable behaviors (Watkins, 2005). This could have been averted by ensuring that only parents who have the capacity to bring up children in loving environments are allowed to have them.