THE RUGGED INDIVIDUALIST                     

CPS,Spanking and the LAW

It is not against the law if you spank your child in this country. However CPS may take your kids away and have you arrested. This is almost never reported in the news. But if you look online and search. You can find parents that have gone to jail for disciplining their child. And the poor child has been traumatized by going the foster care. Even if it is a good foster care, any parent knows severing the parent-child relationship and thrusting a child with strangers is, traumatizing. This progressive ideology that the government should step in and stop corporal punishment. Is against 6000 years of recorded human history. Almost every nation religion race and creed has Spanked their own children. This is the parents decision. The right of the individual to raise his own sons and daughters. Without a social worker.

 Even though the criminal law states anyone acting as a parent or a babysitter can use corporal punishment, (see below right )people are still arrested and their children put in foster care. As part of the procedure to Try and get your child back you have to comply with what is in the "best interest of the child"
  a few examples of best interest of the child

  • The parent has to agree that CPS was right to take their child.
  • For the child to be given prescription drugs to calm down
  • months, maybe years in foster care.
  • keeping a child from their parents
  • not placing with relatives immediately
  • Being lied to
  • termination of parent child relationship
  • expedited adoption
  • billions in tax money to wage war on dad and mom.
  • Telling the child how bad their parents are for showing discipline.

Is it any wonder there is an epidemic of people living on government welfare. How can you teach your child to grow up and be a rugged individualist when this progressive ideology is forcefully rammed down our children's throat.



If CPS was around in the 50s. We would all have foster parents

§ 9.61. PARENT-CHILD. (a) The use of force, but not  deadly force, against a child younger than 18 years is justified:
(1) if the actor is the child's parent or stepparent or  is acting in loco parents to the child; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is necessary to discipline the child or to  safeguard or promote his welfare.
(b) For purposes of this section, "in loco parentis"