Despite working three jobs, Martinez couldn’t afford rent, so they were evicted.
The agency placed her children in foster care instead of offering housing help, the lawsuit says.
Dear Lord.
The combined long term effects seem to:
- Force women who got pregnant (through consensual activities or otherwise) to give birth
- Refuse to give sufficient maternal leave after birth
- Refuse support for medical costs for the family after birth
- Refuse family support such as affordable daycare
- Refuse free lunches for school kids
- Move money from public schools to charter/private
- Punish women for being unwed and working by taking their kids away
- Kids in the foster system tend to grow up maltreated and malnourished, so they might acquire anti-social behaviour to cope or survive
- These kids tend to end up as felons
- They provide legal slave labour for their state
- They are not allowed to vote
- … as if it mattered, as the voting places in the areas where they might live later have been decreased so much that they’d have to stand in line for a whole day and risk losing their eventual jobs (if they had one)
- Oops, got preggers by trying to keep her job, apartment or hoping for a relationship.
And the circle starts again.
So they take the kids away from parents who can’t take properly care of them because of poverty - and then demand those parents pay for this service?
That is the most American thing I’ve heard today.
It makes absolutely zero sense to require someone to pay child support when the sole reason you took their kids away was because they didn’t have enough money for housing.
The Division of Family and Children Services has said the agency’s goal is reunification, but Telfeyan said charging low-income families child support is a “perverse” practice that “delays the outcome that everyone wants.”
Reunification my ass. Almost every state’s version of CFS uses it to make money, one way or another.
