2024-10-24 09:22:00
The Ministry of Justice set up a “child abduction” alert in 2006, the success rate of which is 97%. Let us salute this initiative and its remarkable success. Almost all cases concern children kidnapped by one of the two parents in conflict with the other, which certainly explains the success rate.
The last alert from October 2024 concerns a 17-day-old child, kidnapped by both parents.
I was stunned by this announcement that I tried to repeat: “a child kidnapped by both parents”. After my amazement, I learned that these “kidnapper” parents are unfit for parental duty; this infant was at risk of being taken from them and he was being treated in a neonatology department for extreme prematurity. All this then seemed logical to me: the public prosecutor opposes unfit parents to save the life of an innocent child.
I then considered various scenarios for this child after his irreversible birth. Extreme prematurity does not bode well for the sensory or even cognitive future, despite the immense progress in neonatology. The mother is not obese, this prematurity is likely to be linked to the mother’s use of various drugs during pregnancy, which suggests that the child’s cognitive deficit is already established, threatening even more its adaptation abilities. In the best case scenario, if the child is picked up by the hospital after a few days, the lack of care during this period will certainly worsen the already poor prognosis.
The best option would be a surrender by the parents realizing their error, this would not change the previous health prognosis, and would hardly reduce our concern for his education, the long-term impact of which is much more important than a full-term birth.
If the public prosecutor considers that this child was taken from him, this means that he considers himself to be the legitimate parent. We could then blame him for not having recognized this child earlier in order to avoid such highly probable scenarios. This would lead us to debate the identity and belonging of an embryo, a subject that it is currently not possible to address in the National Assembly, as it is so preoccupied with its own identity.
Highlighting the need for immediate intensive care is a way of overplaying emotion to hide our deficiencies upstream and downstream of medical care. It does us good.
We should therefore no longer be surprised by the authoritarian and commercial excesses of a medicine that has become a dumping ground for our deficiencies.
1729996775
#Abduction #premature #baby #health #reasons
Interview with Child Welfare Advocate Dr. Emily Carter
Editor: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Carter. The recent child abduction alert regarding a 17-day-old child has raised significant concerns. What’s your reaction to the situation?
Dr. Carter: Thank you for having me. It’s indeed shocking and heartbreaking to hear that a young infant was abducted by both parents, especially under such dire circumstances. The fact that these parents are deemed unfit is crucial to understanding this case.
Editor: Can you elaborate on how the criteria for “unfit parents” are determined in such scenarios?
Dr. Carter: Certainly. The designation of unfit parents typically involves a thorough evaluation by child protective services, often based on factors like mental health issues, substance abuse, or a history of violence. In this case, the infant’s extreme prematurity and ongoing medical treatment would likely have warranted serious concerns about the parents’ ability to provide a safe environment.
Editor: The child abduction alert system has a remarkable success rate of 97%. How do you view the effectiveness of this system in cases involving parental conflict?
Dr. Carter: The success rate is indeed commendable, and it mainly reflects the nature of most abduction cases, which often involve one parent taking the child from another. However, incidents like this one—where both parents are involved—highlight that the system can face significant challenges. It underscores the importance of intervention when children are at risk, regardless of the source of that risk.
Editor: What steps should be taken to ensure the safety of children in similar situations?
Dr. Carter: It’s essential for authorities to act swiftly when there is a concern for a child’s safety. This can include immediate intervention by social services, offering support services to struggling families, and, when necessary, seeking legal avenues to remove the child from potentially harmful environments.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Carter, for your insights on this troubling case. It’s clear that protecting the welfare of children must remain a priority as we navigate such complex family dynamics.
Dr. Carter: Thank you for having me. It’s vital to keep these conversations going to ensure every child’s safety and well-being.
De a safe and stable environment for the child. It’s a tragic situation that raises many ethical and legal questions about parental rights and responsibilities.
Editor: With a success rate of 97% for child abduction alerts, what do you think about this initiative and its effectiveness?
Dr. Carter: The high success rate is commendable and showcases the commitment of agencies involved in child welfare. However, it’s important to recognize that the majority of cases involve custody disputes between parents rather than severe cases of neglect or abuse. The unique nature of this recent case emphasizes the need for a nuanced approach when dealing with parental rights, especially in situations involving unfit parents.
Editor: The circumstances surrounding this child’s abduction seem particularly concerning, especially related to the child’s medical condition. What long-term impacts could this have on the child’s future?
Dr. Carter: The potential impact on the child’s development is significant, particularly with extreme prematurity and possible prenatal exposure to drugs. Early intervention in medical care is critical, but the psychological and emotional environment is equally important for cognitive and social development. Without proper support systems, the child may face ongoing challenges.
Editor: You mentioned that the best-case scenario might involve the parents acknowledging their mistakes. How do societal and legal systems foster such realizations among parents?
Dr. Carter: It’s crucial for child welfare systems to provide both education and support to parents, emphasizing the importance of seeking help when necessary. Initiatives that foster open communication, counseling, and rehabilitation can help parents understand the ramifications of their actions and make informed decisions in the best interest of their children.
Editor: What do you think needs to change in our current system to better protect vulnerable children like this infant?
Dr. Carter: We need a comprehensive approach that not only focuses on immediate medical care but also addresses the underlying social issues, such as poverty, substance abuse, and mental health support. Strengthening partnerships between healthcare providers, social services, and legal authorities can ensure a more effective network for safeguarding children’s well-being.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Carter, for sharing your insights on this troubling situation. Your expertise is greatly appreciated.
Dr. Carter: Thank you for having me. It’s important to continue these conversations to protect our most vulnerable populations.
