All parents should be evaluated by Child Protective Services within 1 month of their child being born...

All parents should be evaluated by Child Protective Services within 1 month of their child being born. If the home environment, e.g. unsafe living conditions, lack of food, parents are drug addicts etc, is unfit for a child, the child should be taken and given to adoptive parents. Adoptive parents should be educated, screened for drugs, and go through child development training to prove they understand how children should be raised.

Parents should be checked at a random time during each subsequent calendar year to ensure the environment is still fit for children.

Literally what is wrong with this?

>pic related if you're tempted to reply "lol this only applies to niggers and spics"

>>pic related if you're tempted to reply "lol this only applies to niggers and spics"
that's why you posted data in raw numbers and not rates, dipshit?

>given to adoptive parents

There are nowhere near enough people willing to adopt. That's why children are stuck in orphanages and foster homes until they turn 18. Adoption is a nice warm fuzzy solution to unwanted children, but it just doesn't work out that way.

What?

I think people would be willing to adopt if the system were changed somewhat. As it is you have to be like 10 times better of a parent to adopt kids as a regular biological parent has to be, because they're so afraid of someone getting a kid just to make them a sex slave.

Plus there'd be a way higher proportion of newborns with this system than our current one, since I imagine most unfit parents are pieces of shit from way before they got knocked up. Thus that initial 1 month visit would show they need to have their kids taken immediately.

hmm thats weird. African Americans have half the rate of White's, yet are nowhere near half the population of White's

Really this graph needs to be relative to percentages of populations.


To answer your question OP. Adoption is hard and expensive. There's already too many kids in foster homes/group homes, in the CPS system.

Instead, we need a technology that forces sterilization at birth, and gives you back your fertility at 23.

Imagine how many societal problems would be solved if we prevented such a large % of unwanted children from ever being born.

He means abuse numbers as it relates to the percent population of each of those races. There are more white people than blacks in America so it will look like whites are more abusive when you look at raw numbers, but when you put it in perspective of how many whites vs blacks there are, it looks differently.

>12% of population
>50% of child abuse cases
Niggas pls

I don't think it would work. For one thing, the people who are good and have their shit together will just make their own children rather than adopt. It's already this way. Also, if you raise the standards needed for a couple to adopt, that will shrink the pool even more. However, it may help to curb unfit parents from making more kids since they would be taken from them, preventing them from collecting welfare. People are very very lazy and selfish though, so I don't know if people would plan that far ahead.

Adoption shouldn't be that hard or expensive. I mean, if we're talking about removing kids from shitty homes, how much better off do they need to be to have a decent shot at life? If they merely opened up to single parents and poor people they'd have a way bigger adopting population than the current exclusive group.

What do the rates matter? I'm not making any racial judgements. The only reason I even brought it up was to try to head off derailment under the guise that "this doesn't affect white kids, let the niggers burn". Clearly there are huge numbers of white kids being abused as well, as the numbers show.

Kids should be raised by the state. Fuck families, they're reason we can't have any fun. Alternatively, create entire cities only for families and raise them there.

That's straight out of the communist manifesto.
Are you a Mexijew?

Only if the terms are strictly defined in advanced. I don't want you coming 5 years later and telling me that I'm unfit because I don't give my son dresses to wear.

>just make their own children

There are literally millions of couples in the US who are trying to have kids but can't. Fertility clinics are huge and expensive, and lots of people can't/won't pay the money for the treatments. Then there's the people who do pay but can't conceive anyway.

I didn't really make it clear about what I meant with the passing a course thing. I actually want to LOWER the standards. Have some kind of minimum threshold (I named education and lack of drug abuse as the qualifiers, but even a high school diploma should be fine as long as they go through the aforementioned training, which could easily be free.)

>not adjusting for population percentage
>niggers and spics account for ~25% americans
>have higher percentage of abuse cases than whites
>proving the point that niggers and spics can't into parent

Can't tell if this is sarcasm. Ideally the state would have little to know interaction with parents and children, but it's clear that our individualistic society isn't conducive to pressuring shitty parents into shaping up. This is the only short-term solution; hopefully it would immensely lower the amount of shitty childhoods and thus in a few decades the whole program can be abolished.

Hand off the authority and in 5 years a bureaucracy will change the rules, forcing you to put your son in a dress, and it will rather be more like 18 months.

Giving your son dresses should be grounds for instant revocation of parental rights.

its expensive and not worth it cause i said so

whites are 69% of the population; yet we account for less then 50% of the abuse.

white's abuse the least.

Again, I'm not here to argue which race is best at parenting. All I needed to establish was that there are, in fact, abusive white parents, a lot of them actually (in absolute terms). Thus a change in the system would improve those kids' lives, as well as minorities.

you know, there's a strong shortage of white children amongst people that wish to adopt, what if we made all abortions go through an adoption registry?

It probably would be expensive. But while we're making bold unilateral moves, just cut the military budget in half to match China's spending and there's a few hundred billion right there. That should cover it.

I'm probably dumb but I don't understand what you mean.

To actually answer your question. If you look at the data, outcomes are no better for kids taken to child protective services as those kept with their abusive/drug addicted parents. Sad fact. Kids often don't do well in foster care. A better solution is making sure every parent has the resources to take care of their kids. Making sure all poor kids have access to a safe environment and food.

We have enough money to do this but we don't because we are more concerned that their parents might be lazy than we are about making sure their kids get off to a good start so they can exceed their parents.

The stress of being in an abusive, unsafe or impoverished environment rewires the brain early on to favor fight or flight survival instincts over more complex critical thinking areas. Which is why many kids from bad families have a hard time paying attention and doing well in school.

Better short term solution is giving poor families the resources to take care of their kids and then hope after a few generations the kids get better and then we abolish the program. I am a lefty I admit it but I really like the idea you propose of incentivizing government programs and non-profits that are rewarded for putting themselves out of business.

>5x more whites than blacks in America
>2x gross amount of child abuse

HURR DURR WHITES ABUSE MORE

>Literally what is wrong with this?
Besides the fact that the vast majority of the children will never be adopted, you mean?

Bring back the orphanages, most did a hell of lot better than the state's foster care. Private ones run by fraternal societies such as Mooseheart had a tremendous amount of success.

There's nothing "wrong" with making sure children are safe but it should fall on the immediate family/a guardian not Uncke Sam.

That's disappointing to hear. Then again, I'd like to see if the outcomes for adopted newborns are any different than, say, 10 year olds that, as you said, have had years of abuse that damaged their brains permanently.

The problem I have with giving resources is that it's extremely difficult to give enough that the kids' environment is actually brought up to spec.

My original idea was to provide incentives like tax credits in exchange for passing parenting classes or having CPS do random walkthroughs. I suppose that would still improve things, but then again, I can imagine situations where simple education and monitoring wouldn't cut it. For example, a family lives in a slum. Their house is fine inside, and parents are fine, but the instant you step foot outside you're surrounded by thugs and dealers. Maybe there could be a stipend to pay for moving costs to a better area, but then what if the parents are unemployed and can't afford anything more? You'd eventually have to take the kids anyway if you want them to be in a good environment, so why not cut to the chase. It's sad, but then again, mentally-ill people being put in mental hospitals is sad too, but it has to be done for the good of society.

I think having my system would cause the well-intentioned parents to do everything they could to hang on to their kids, while the shitty parents would know CPS is coming any day now and probably wouldn't even fight it if they weren't charged with a crime.

Presumption of innocence and fourth amendment.

Have you read any of the repeated replies I've given to this logic? I guess I should have not even brought race into it, but I thought I was being proactive given that almost every pol thread eventually turns into "lol niggers" anyway.

Yes MOAR government and state intervention

I think it's hard to say with any certainty that the kids wouldn't be adopted. Hell, I'd adopt a kid or two if it were easier for a single male to do so.

>the state should have any say in how families raise their children

That's a fine fantasy but the reality is that immediate family isn't doing a lot of good in literally hundreds of thousands of cases per year.

You strike me as someone who is more concerned with upholding principles than seeking the actual outcome of those principles.

this guy shills a lot. left this place for about a month, and the first day I come back he's still shilling

Just sterilize any woman who delivers a baby with the shakes, and offer free sterilization. If that sounds harsh to you, look up youtube videos of crack babies and tell me that again.

Wow, I did not know blacks and Hispanics are drastically more likely to abuse children than whites, thanks OP. Why do you suppose that is though?

>If that sounds harsh to you

Actually my proposal is less drastic than what I would be willing to support. I just toned it down to be more likely to be accepted.

You want state intervention in the personal affairs of its citizens because you feel you have a better idea of what they should do with their lives.

The further away you go from the source, the less information you have available and less quickly you can act on what you know. That's the primary reason top down organization fails.

Furthermore you have this absurd notion that a bureaucratic body is somehow more morally reasonable and responsible than the parents of the actual child. Your policy would only create legions of broken families and disenfranchised children.

Talk about being more concerned with upholding principles than seeking the actual outcome, look in the mirror.

>create legions of broken families

You don't understand. Kids would only be taken FROM broken families.

Lemme guess. You don't have a solution to the problem beyond "Parents just need to get back to good old Christian values" or some such platitude? I'm all ears if you have a way to fix this situation.

>be black
>be 13% population
>abuse your child half as much as whites 69% of population.
Niggers