what exactly are you getting so defensive about? social services would not exist if it wasn't in it for the children.

i really hope that you do get into field so you can see what the job is really like from the other side. i get that not EVERY social worker is effective, but you are making very broad generalizations.

I have dealt with numerous social workers in my life, only ONE actually helped me and was decent to me. Only ONE talked to me like a person and not just another child in the system. I have said before and I will say it again. I never said ALL social workers are bad, I said Many. Many is a term that can be defined by the person. I never threw out a percent, or number. YOU are the one walking in here getting defensive. Not me. I dont care if you 'agree' with me or not. Thats not my goal.

i honestly don't care if you agree with me or not either. it's obvious that you are completely unwilling to see anything outside of your own experience, which is unfortunate, but i am putting it out there for other people that there is more than your limited view and experiences.

And because the kids stay in the home...this happens...

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9516/texas-mother-charged-with-murdering-her-infant-daughter

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EYEvVxN_Wl4J:www.magnasententia.com/node/100+Did+Casey+Anthony+ever+have+CPS+called&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.texasforward.org/2010/05/cps-system-strained-by-complaints-2009-hiring-freeze/

yes, this does happen. the reason why things like this happen is usually because of drug use or mental health issues, so yes, sometimes kids are removed from homes and put into big bad foster care. ;) we have enough to do without going after people who have "loving" homes.

I agree...wholeheartedly

I understand your point of view, but what about the people that are on welfare who do abuse the drugs, and the people who are on a waiting list who don't do drugs and have children?

If you qualify for welfare you get it. I have never heard of a state that puts you on a waiting list to get it. Especially if there are minor children in the home.

Come to Texas.

Mindi - if someone gets welfare and they spend it on drugs, the child suffers. If the drug abuser is not given welfare, the child still suffers. At least the 2nd way, the taxpayers would not be wasting money supporting drug abusers and get the money to true people that need it the most. That's the way I see it.

I dont agree. Not every who uses 'drugs' are making their children suffer. There are many people who are on drugs that help them who would be denied help just because of what they are taking. I do not think someone who smokes weed cannot care for their children. I do not think someone on methadone cannot care for their children, but with this system that is what you are saying.

I have already stated that in order to get cash assistance you have to actually WORK for it, though volunteer hours, so if they are unable to care for their children, they wouldn't be able to get cash assistance anyway. Food stamps are completely different. You can sell them yes, but 99 percent of people on food stamps would buy food for their children, regardless of if they are on drugs or not.

The good thing is this would never be passed anyway, there have been people introduce it, but its never gotten any further, because most Americans see it as an invasion of privacy.

Mindi, I agree with you that not everyone who smokes weed can't care for their children. But if they are on welfare and are needing assistance that badly, where the hell are they getting the money to pay for their weed or other habits? That's my whole point - if they can pay for weed, they don't need to be on assistance as far as I am concerned.

I agree with Mindi

Hell yes I think they should pass a drug test. Here's my reasonings.

1)Taxpayers can pay for it. It'll decrease the amount of people on welfare, so therefore we'll probably have a bigger budget.
2)As far as the child starving because of it, I guess their parents should have thought about that BEFORE they were doing the drugs. If you have $$ to blow and waste on drugs, it's money that needs to go towards your child anyways and it would be better suited to go to your child instead of my taxes going to feed them while you're out smoking dope or whatever else you're doing.
3)Needing help is fine - get the help, then get the f--- off the system. After you're out of the system and making your own bills and buying your own food, then you can smoke all the damn dope you want.
4)If you're doing serious drugs and depending on welfare to take care of your kids, you probably aren't the best parent to BEGIN with, and your children would probably fare better in a foster care environment instead of in a dope/drug/addict environment.

I love this... :)

I agree with Mindi, the only ones that are going to suffer are the children. And us tax payers are gonna be the ones ending up paying for the drug tests, as if we dont pay for enough already.

So true about how we are already paying for enough; especially when it comes to supporting other families who need the help.

what's more expensive: one or two drug test per family or $400-500 a month per family?

Its not just one or two drug tests per family, its the drug tests, then someone tests positive for weed and the kids get pulled. Do you know how much it is for foster care for one month?? The foster care parent gets food stamps for that child for the month, they get a check for between 800 and 1200 a month PER child depending on the age of the child. They get 200 dollars per child for new clothes every 3-6 months depending on the age, and then they get medical care. On top of all that, they get paid mileage for all the driving they do with the child in the car. So for a weed offence, instead of 500 a month you would be paying much much much more then that. Not to mention all the things you get when you age out of foster care.

I'm sorry, it doesn't matter WHAT drug it is. If a parent is on drugs, they should not be allowed to have their kids. I don't care about the cost, the kids are more important.

So then what do you propose we do? We can't really spend anymore money that we don't have.

Oh, I'll be the FIRST to say I have no solution... like I said, either way the kids suffer. Leave them with stoned parents, or take them away... which is the lesser of 2 evils? KWIM? MY point was that it doesn't matter WHAT drug the parent is on, just because it's CHEAPER to leave the kids with the parents, doesn't mean it's the better choice.

I get what you're saying, and it's completely valid, but the situation isn't as simple as things being done in a cheaper way. It goes beyond that. There's just no money to fund a drug testing program, nor is there money to initiate government-reported CPS cases against people who receive welfare AND are on drugs.

Basically, it's not that the government is choosing the cheaper option.

Never said that the government IS choosing the cheaper option. Just responding to other's posts and opinions here.
Lets face it, though, the government chooses to spend on things when there's no money... and will continue to do so.

What about a mother who has MS and uses cannabis illegally to help control her symptoms? If she otherwise cares perfectly well for her children, does she not deserve to have those children? Will they be better off being taken from her and put into care?