When dose some one else have to right to step in and take the child away ? can any one do this to some other persons child? is this moraly right ? what do the children feel about the full thing ? we have to ask them also ?

I think that first and formost that parents are responsible for the welfare of their children. I would hope that other family members (not immediately but extended) should stand up and take the kids from the environment. If the parents will not let them then yes I think other measure to take the children should occur. There are people who can function properly and still be addicts but when do you draw the line.

First off, the child's best interest is what everyone should be concerned with. The child should be taken away when they're no longer be cared for properly or are in danger of being harmed. I'm not sure what you mean by "can anyone do this"? Children's Services has the right to do so. Anyone else doesn't have the right and would be arrested for doing so. :P

I think the child's opinion should be taken into consideration, but keep in mind their age. For example, any child, no matter what, is going to want to stay with the parent. A teen's opinion would be more valid. If children were able to make decisions for themselves, they wouldn't need parents in the first place.

So, yeah, I think it's morally "right". I don't see how going on knowing a child is in danger and not doing anything could be considering okay. And making this decision doesn't mean it's going to be permanent. In fact, allowing the parent to focus on recovery rather than trying to care for a child is probably a good thing not only for the kid but for the parent as well.

I too would hope a family member would step up and help, though, rather than having the child be put in the care of Children's Services.

Certainly Child Services has the authority to remove a child from a home. I guess the question is When should this be done? For instance, is this a 2 parent home and if so are both parents addicts or just one? Has there ever been any evidence of abuse or neglect? the fact that a parent has a drug or alcoholo problem alone should not warrant automatic removal.

Many of my friends have addict parents and they resent them so much for it. I don't even think people with addictions should even be allowed to have kids. So yes, children with addict parents shouldn't have to be forced to live their lives surrounded by addiction; it's just not fair.

If a child’s well being is at stake then the parents have no right to put their children at an unnecessary risk and thus have no right to stop someone taking their children away from that risk and to somewhere safe and secure.

What if the children are not in any kind of risk billy_boy? If the addiction is not affecting the child or children and is completely hidden away from them? Should they be taken away in that case?

It’s unfortunate you have had your children taken away, but like you say sometimes it is the only way to make people realise they have to change.

I don't think that children should be completely taken away from their birth parents for any reason other than the birth parents are harmful to the child. I think that if, both parents are addicts then someone else should have custody of the children but the parents should still be able to have contact with the children, however only when they are sober.

A friend of mine is an alcoholic and though he has never hurt his daughter in anyway, he is not allowed to see her even with supervised visits and that is wrong.

More importantly than what we think, there are rules and regulations that are set down that govern who can be taken and when. Some times children will be taken for the duration of an investigation and may or may not be returned.

The only time children are removed is if they are in danger or if they are being abused or neglected.

A little off topic but can anyone explain to me why the USA was one of only two nations of the world NOT to sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? The other was Somalia if anyone was interested.

What were the specifications of the rights of the child? Does it mean they have to be taken away?

- I think in a long term sense, kids should be given every right to live a happy, normal life. If it means that their parents are inadequete because of addiction, the children should live with an aunt or uncle because it affects the kids in the long run. Children don't like to be less fortunate with their friends and it's not fair for them to have to explain to other kids why they can't live at home with their parents. And for an addict to gain their kids back once they fully recover is a great motivation.

Sometimes having your kids taken away puts the addict in a worse situation. Hopelessness is a common feeling directly after quitting a substance. Also kids don't always want to leave their parents, despite their addiction. Looking at the best interest of the child doesn't always add up, but the best interest of the addict definitely reflects on the kids.

As a parent, and the child of an addict, I totally agree with children being taken away.

In the situation where a parent is an addict, there is no "nice" way to handle the situation. A little hurt to both the child and the parent by removing them could save that child many years of problems later. They key to the situation is that the child goes to a stable environment and is still allowed access to the parent AND that the parent takes steps to recovery with the main goal in the end being that they get their child/ren back again.

A child does not ask to be born into this world, and I don't care how addicted a person thinks they are, if they really want the best for their child then they WILL seek help and they WILL recover from their addiction. As I said I am a parent and I have an alcoholic father, and my firm belief is that the only reason for NOT recovering for the sake of your children is that you really don't want to.

Others may say that view is a little harsh but to me life is about choice. If you look at ANY addiction in the world people are able to recover and regain control of their lives. SO if you chose to let that addiction control you instead of your love for your child, then perhaps you are not the best person to parent that child anyway???

My best friend's parents are both addicts and they both do crystal meth and crank, which might be the worst situation for a child. She's watched her mom be so tweaked out that she's threatened to kill herself. My friend has seen their house get raided by the police and had to go through her dad being incarcerated and she's moved back and fourth between houses so many times that she's lost count. I feel so sorry for her sometimes and I just want to yell at her parents for being such terrible people. In their situation, I'm not sure if her being taken away by CPA would've done her parents any good, but it probably would've made her life easier or harder if she wasn't getting proper care. In this situation, it's best for the childrent to be taken away, but every situation is different.

I think if a parent is of harm to the child then they should be taken away. But if a parent has an addiction but is not around the child when under the influence and keeps the drugs in places the child can never find, and is in no way abusive to the child, then the child is safe to stay with their parents. But if a parent is carefree and has the drugs lying around all over the place, its safer to take the child away but still let the child keep in contact with their parent. You can just deprive a child from his parents no matter how bad they are.