[blparent] model state custody bill

[Steve Jacobson]

Jo Elizabeth,

I think this is how we have to approach this.  None of us are perfect, and there may be cases where a parent needs to have some kind of intervention.  
However, it is my belief that if that happens, there needs to be an effort made to define the problem and not just label it as a blindness problem.  That does 
happen.  He drinks because he is blind.  She takes drugs because she is blind.  That is not appropriate.  They have an alcohol and drug problem, not a 
blindness problem.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson


On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:26:10 -0600, Jo Elizabeth Pinto wrote:

>I skimmed through the bill, and the word "solely" is used quite often. 
>Child Services cannot deny blind people rights in guardianship, custody, 
>adoption, or visitation solely because they are blind.  If it can be proven 
>that there are other issues, it sounds as if Child Services will still be 
>free to act.  Of course, there may be some blind people who will try to use 
>the bill as an excuse for why they have been victimized, or a reason to 
>complain, just as there are bound to be social workers who will invent 
>reasons besides blindness to proceed because of their own misconceptions of 
>what blind parents might or might not be capable of.  But as it is written, 
>it sounds like the bill is quite specific about only prohibiting 
>discrimination against blind parents for no other reason than their 
>blindness.

>Jo Elizabeth

>I am somehow less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's 
>brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and 
>died in cotton fields and sweatshops.--Stephen Jay Gould
>-----Original Message----- 
>From: Bernadetta Pracon
>Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 8:34 PM
>To: blparent at nfbnet.org
>Subject: Re: [blparent] model state custody bill

>Kate has a point here. I thought about this myself--it's a ligitimit
>thing to bring up. I can imagine it's tricky for social services and
>other medical and state staff to determine which blind parents are put
>under scrutiny for reasons that pertain to blindness or some reasons
>which may branch from blindness but aren't directly related. I guess it
>has to do with the willingness of the parent to get their issues in
>order and dealt with. You can teach a parent  who is undereducated but
>eager to learn and care for a child. It's markedly different, and I'd
>imagine much more difficult to deal with someone who doesn't feel they
>need any extra education, but clearly do. It's a valid point because it
>measures the difference between a need for enlightenment and child
>endangerment.

>Bernadetta

>_______________________________________________
>blparent mailing list
>blparent at nfbnet.org
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blparent_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>blparent:
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blparent_nfbnet.org/jopinto%40msn.com 


>_______________________________________________
>blparent mailing list
>blparent at nfbnet.org
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blparent_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blparent:
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blparent_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40visi.com