Should this womans past matter?

[Thumpalumpacus]

A woman who puts her man in front of her kids ought not be a parent again. If the state has to step in in order to make it so, even this libertarian can accept that.

If someone, anyone, even his mother had tried to drown my son, I would happily serve whatever term I was assigned for killing the person. And if I stood by and watched, doing nothing, I should expect the opprobrium of society; and that includes not being entrusted with children any more.  After all, if I failed to protect my own flesh and blood, what claim might I have to be a good guardian?

I am not saying this is what happened, just playing devil's advocate.

But if this woman were so dependent on the man for drugs and he kept her high all the time, impairing her judgement to a point that he had complete control over her, that is a situation which I think a person can come back from and not be 100% culpable for those actions. She is responsible, she was complicit in an unspeakable event, but I don't think she would deserve a lifetime without her own family in this hypothetical.

All I am saying is that I could see a situation where taking her kids now on the sole basis of this past event would be unconstitutional. Now, since the state is saying there is evidence of abuse, then I hope she has her day in court.

If she put drugs in front of her children, that too would be a deleterious mark against a mother, don't you agree?

I'm not arguing that fostering her children right now is constitutional. I am saying that she has no business mothering any other children, and that the state has a duty to observe and regulate any interaction she has with children. That's my opinion; if you add a couple of bucks to it you might get a cuppa joe at Starbucks.