Should Parenting Require a License?

Periodically someone comments here that perhaps parenting should require a license, just as it is a requirement for driving a car or, in some places, owning a dog.

A trio of stories in the news this week make that look like a very good idea.

First comes word out of Butler County, Kan., of Adam Herrman, an 11-year-old boy who disappeared.

His adoptive parents failed to report him missing.

For nearly 10 years.

An anonymous call to the Exploited and Missing Children’s Unit in a neighboring county during the last days of last year brought his disappearance to light, and authorities have spent the past week searching the home of Doug and Valerie Herrman, who adopted the boy when he was 2, as well as the mobile-home park where they used to live.

Adam ran away in 1999, the Herrmans say, after they had punished him by spanking him with a belt. They feared that if they reported him missing, and told authorities about the belt, their two younger children would be taken from them.

That was also why they continued to accept $700 a month from the state for his care, they told the Wichita Eagle newspaper, and why they listed him as a dependent on their taxes all these years.

The couple denied charges of abuse, saying that the only reason Adam was locked in the bathroom every night with a pillow and blanket was because they feared he would stab them while they slept.

The county sheriff says the Herrmans are “persons of interest” in the investigation, but they can’t be charged until investigators unravel what to charge them with. At the moment no one knows if Adam is alive or dead, and there are many questions about how an 11-year-old can simply disappear without anyone noticing.

Also this week, a 6-year-old in Wicomico, Va., who had missed his bus, climbed into his family’s 2005 Ford Taurus and tried to drive himself to school while his mother was home asleep.

According to the Associated Press,

He made at least two 90-degree turns, passed several cars and ran off the rural two-lane road several times before hitting an embankment and utility pole about a mile and a half from school.

The boy told police he learned to drive playing Grand Theft Auto and Monster Jam video games.

“He was very intent on getting to school,” said Northumberland County Sheriff Chuck Wilkins. “When he got out of the car, he started walking to school. He did not want to miss breakfast and P.E.”

The child was taken to the hospital to be checked for what turned out to be only minor cuts and bruises, and officers returned him to school in time for lunch. His parents have been charged with child endangerment, and he and his 4-year-old brother have been placed in protective custody.

Grand Theft Auto, for the record, is rated M, for mature players. (To quote the box, it contains: realistic violence, intense violence, blood, strong language and sexual content.)

And finally, this from Tuesday’s Middletown Journal, in Middletown, Ohio. The day after New Year’s, a family of four — parents and their two young children — entered the local Dollar General Store. As they left an employee noticed that the mother’s purse seemed “noticeably larger than it had been minutes earlier.”

When the employee asked to search the bag the woman ran, dumping stolen contents as she fled. Among those items: wash cloths, small hand towels, a small rug and a book entitled “101 Ways to Be a Great Mom.”

Comments are no longer being accepted.

the first story is extremely disturbing. the second and third can be excused. no permanent damage there just some poor judgement.

People do stupid things, but that doesn’t mean we have the right to interfere with biological processes. Take away rights to parent, next take away right to reproduce, next eugenics, next…?

Seriously, just because humans have “feelings” and are “aware” of their surroundings doesn’t mean that we have a “right” to control what other people do when we don’t like it.

I feel bad for those kids. And yours.

I seriously think that SOMETHING needs to be done about the apparent numerous people who have NO business being parents.

How many times (I live in a large city) have I witnessed a parent walking down the street, with their small child walking behind them, out of the parent’s peripheral vision, sometimes up to 20′ behind them!! In this day and age, in an instant that child could be snatched up, and yet the parent just stares straight ahead, completely obllivious to the child, only giving a cursory glance backwards every now and then. Unfortunately, this is often the same type of ignorant parent that throws junk food/high fructose soda at the kid to “shut them up”, who threatens to “smack the kid” if they don’t stop crying, etc.

It is SO disheartening in my urban neighborhood to see SO many teenage girls pushing their “cute little babies” around, and all the while I know that WE the taxpayers will probably be supporting the mother and child in some shape or form for the rest of their lives. They will probably get special privileges for rent subsidies, food, health, etc.

Then we also see some middle class parents who don’t know the first thing about HOW to talk to their children. They give the kids simplistic answers like “because I said so!”. They stick the kids in front of the idiot box all day, or else allow them to play on the computer/playstation all day, with no comprehension of the damage they are doing to the kid.

And this is the future of this great country of ours. All these messed-up kids we see, THEY will be in charge when we are old and vulnerable. God help us all.

And your point is?

You could also wirte about Yahoos who leave a gun around for kids to find or crack addicts who leave their kids to fend for themselves for days at a time.

Or is the very act of having a kid (as opposed to having an abortion) supposed to subject parents to some sort of additional governmental scutiny and control? Is this the change we can believe in that we are hearing so much about?

There is no question in my mind that many, many people should not be parents. But there also are not many people I’d trust to devise and regulate a licensing system. And a license might education people about things like basic nutrition, but would it really have made a difference in any of these situations?

What we need is effective intervention when children are at risk, and well-paid, well-trained teachers and daycare workers who can help identify children at risk.

Regarding the first story, getting approved to adopt a child is the closest thing we have to getting a license for parenting. To adopt in most states you need a background check, extensive interviews, home visit by a social worker, etc. What more would a license process involve, and how ever would you enforce such a thing?

I’ve always been amazed that anyone, including people who are obviously incapable of taking care of themselves, can have children at any time. And amazed that the same people that are antiabortion will deny resources to the same children once they are born, with some rationale that the poor “deserve” their state.

I absolutley believe parenting should require licensure. No one has the right to be a parent, for that implies the right to exert their will on another human being (namely the offspring) I get so sick of seeing people who have no business reproducing herding thier broods of goverment dependent spawn around spending my tax money. Not to say that inadequate parenting is restricted to any socio-economic class by any means. There are just as many affluent people who treat thier kids like little accessories or mini-mes and use them as status symbols. Those children are raised with such a sense of entitlementitis and a firm belief that the world owes them something, it’s quite distressing to see a generation of people essentially unable to be empathetic human beings. People should have to take a class, pass a test and periodically prove that they are fit to be entrusted with children.

Wow … I can see how hetero-Christians are such great parents and why I can’t be married to my spouse and raise our child in peace.

I can’t get married??? At least I know where my son is and the last I checked it wasn’t costing the taxpayer a dime that he’s with us.

Good going, idiots.

It seems that so much in our lives nowadays needs to come with a license – parenting, home ownership, relationships. The world is getting crazier and common sense has become a rare virtue.

Social programs to prepare first time parents is a good idea; although, these must be promoted the old fashioned way – make them attractive to potential parents. Licenses themselves for parenting aren’t a particularly great idea, as it’s a step onto that slippery slope, mentioned in post #2. Rather, find motivators, no matter how base they seem, such a tax breaks, a small stipend, free baby-related gifts, that would make the classes more attractive to otherwise reluctant parents. Bad parenting is a cycle – it not only creates potential future problems, but it stems from underlying and past deficiencies. Not doing anything will only benefit those who want to see more of these stories in the news later on.

I agree with “a mom’s” comments – it does indeed take quite a number of steps to be an adoptive parent, as I know first-hand. During the pre-adoption process, I often thought it would be quite ironic if ALL parents had to meet the same requirements as adoptive parents. That being said, there is no way to monitor parents once the child is theirs.
Unfortunately, being able to conceive does not always mean being able to parent. Like any other job, some are better qualified than others.

I think people who want to be parents should have to submit to the same background checks and security measures as those who want to adopt. There are perhaps more people in the world who shouldn’t be parents than are those that should be.

How about mandatory parenting classes, the same way there is a mandatory five-hour course before an individual can get a driver’s license (at least in NY)? Really, the point of this is to help people be better parents – I think that it is a point worth discussing.

From “Parenthood” (that) Tod Higgins (Keanu Reeves):

“You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car – hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they’ll let any butt-reaming a**hole be a father.”

The right to have a child is a human right, much moreso than any documented in the Bill of Privile… er, Bill of Rights. Are these scenarios tragic and heartbreaking? Yes. But no government has any business deciding who can and who cannot pass their genes on to another generation. We’ve been down that road before, and I’m sure it seemed like a good idea when the precedent was set.

ADOPTIVE parents, which the parents in the first story are, is another kettle of fish altogether, and should probably be regulated much more carefully than it currently is.

I’m sure you are not serious about whether parenting should require a license. There are clearly major privacy and civil rights issues at play. But perhaps the question you should have asked is, “Should governing require a license?” Our governance system obviously failed these children and families. Adam Herrman was placed with a foster family ill-equipped for parenting, and there was no follow up. The 6-year-old’s father was already ordered by the court system not to leave his children alone with their mother, but the court neglected to consider how the family would pay their bills if the father couldn’t go to work in the morning. And in the third case, it’s less clear, but it seems to me that her choice of books suggests a mother who wants to do right by her children and is forced by our current economy to steal.

So yes, perhaps the people who govern this nation should be licensed as “family friendly” before before more children and families suffer the consequences of poorly designed economic, legal, and social aid systems!

From Lisa Belkin: Yes, you are right, I am not really asking if we should license parents. I was just struck by these stories, one after another this week. They all made me sad for different reasons.

WhatAboutMomBlog.com January 8, 2009 · 4:55 pm

I just wrote today about going with my friend to her mandatory court appearance for leaving her two children in the car while she ran into Best Buy. She was away from her car (locked, not running) for 12 minutes.

The whole situation reminded me of the discussions here and elsewhere about “At what age would you let your kid . . .” Some things are clearly wrong or right, some are subjective, and in all cases the intent of the parent has to be considered.

It pains me that our systems are so imperfect that “doing their best” parents are often criminalized while actual tragedy goes undiscovered or uncorrected.

The world is an imperfect place and every parent is an imperfect parent and every childhood is an imperfect childhood. Looks like some of us like sitting on top of our soap boxes and passing judgement on everyone but ourselves. Yes, the world would be a much better place if everyone thought and acted like me… please.

How about this one. Mom taken ill. No father around. Kids temporarily taken into care because Mom at death’s door. Post-recovery, Mom is informed she is under investigation for child neglect and abuse.

It happened to a British woman on vacation in (to her) a foreign country. Said country was, of course, the USA, in particular that extremely foreign part known as the state of New York. Mom now can’t become a foster mother in the UK because of the bureaucratic snafu caused by overzealous CPS drones.

Common sense: not common in CPS.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that a license would be a safeguard against the dark side of human nature.

Sure we want to protect children, but there is no process that would prevent someone from failing to take care of another human being.

I really think that the darkness will always be there, maybe directed at others or at oneself, but always present. Change comes from within.

That said, some supervision never hurts :)

Anita
//www.ovolina.com

OMG, your child might be twenty entire feet away from you! They could be SNATCHED! OMG OMG OMG

It’s scaremongering like that which has made being a human these days no fun at all. The rate of “snatching” in “this day and age” is actually incredibly low. Your child is thousands of times more likely to get killed in a car wreck, but I don’t hear the nanny state maximalists screaming over parents putting their children in cars.

Two major points:

1) We are a country of over 300 million people, with a Media that is deeply integrated at all levels of society: when weird, unusual, or the absurd occurs, you can count on it to be snatched up and splashed across the nation, and in doing so can create a disproportionate illusion of a situation getting worse. My advice, read Goodsell in his defense of bureaucracy.

2) People are way too focused on this idea that todays environment demands round the clock attention. After living abroad in Germany last year, it shocked me at the philosophy the Germans take towards parenting; the kids are much more independent at a younger age, taking the initiative to travel on a metro to school, the shop, etc. Abductions and such aren’t as prominent, and children are given freedom to learn and play, through pleasure and pain, up until a certain age (I think I remember them saying 10).

License for parenting? Maybe it will come to that (I think of Starship Troopers and how they differentiated between a citizen and a civilian), but it will scare me far more if it is based on the arbitrary and nonsensical presumptions of the American soccer mom.

I couldn’t agree more with posters #11 and #14: Providing incentives to learn to be a good parent makes sense, and providing state/federal dollars to do so also makes a lot of sense. It’s a lot cheaper to train young/future parents — even extravagently — than to cover prison costs for a (future) criminal offender: prevention vs. cure, not to mention a much better life for the parents and children in question.

I’m impressed by a 6-year-old boy who, despite having clearly spent many hours playing video games, is so interested and engaged in his schooling that he took the initiative to try and get himself there of his own accord.

Of course parental licensing is impossible, for numerous practical, legal, and ethical reasons. But it would be heartening if all Americans were encouraged to think carefully about the burdens and responsibilities as well as the joys of parenthood before entering into that state.

Family planning should be just that, and it should be supported by full and free access to reproductive services of all stripes — birth control and infertility treatments, adoption and abortion, counseling and foster care — to ensure that all Americans could meet their family goals and responsibilities in a way most consistent with their own personal values.