I think that no matter what it is - if a person doesn't want help they will not apply what they learn. And when they quit getting the help they need to try and get better.... well - then where do they expect to be? I also believe that if somebody loses their rights, they should be made not to have any more kids - they just will keep having them and others raise them. For all it is worth - this is what I believe

I certainly agree,l Sara. It sucks.

You need a licences to do just about everything in the world but to have children and that is the one area where people need too.

Omgosh I just thought about something;after the first child u have that u neglect or allow someone else to raise;they should make it mandatory to get ur tubes tied,if its a dad get those things clipped!but listen here's the catch if girls and guys stop having unwanted babies they wont have a job!even though they know some of their tax dollars are coming out to support the people in front of them;eventually welfare would fade out!Ya think?something to think about;jobs and money,goverment money;Clinton tried to stop it,it worked in my situation I had two boys out of wed lock after the second, the program highly recommened I get my tubes tiedand told me they pay for it and then I had to work my way off the system or they were gonna cut me off!I told the Lady fine shut my file youll never see me again,Ill find a job on my own and I did!and on top of that I never saw a dime of child support;after u get off afdc they dont care if u get ur child support,my ex got one income tax return the state took every dime!I worked,I worked forget him forget the system;it works for some and other's it dosent?

I think they also need to review their sterilization policies. I knew from the time I was a teenager that I did not want children; yet no doctor would tie my tubes until I had reached my 30s. Finally, when I married my husband, who had three kids, the doctor was willing to do it.

To me, as long as you're of legal age and sign all of the papers you should be able to get it done. After all, you can abort a baby at any age - why can't you prevent it altogether?

I have a feeling that Pinky would not have had her tubes tied, so maybe it's a moot point. She waited until she had three kids, then did it. But thank God she did!

You make an excellent point, Sara. Without getting into the abortion debate, doctors perform abortions at all stages of fetal development. Why don't those same doctors offer sterilization to the same clients at the same ages? I had my tubes tied fairly young. I was 24 and had given birth to 2 children and was also raising my then husband's son from his first marriage. My doctor looked at my situation and said he'd tie my tubes because I had 3 children. I was married and my husband had a good job. We could've "afforded" another, but our doctor knew we felt like our family was large enough. I guess the thing about forced sterilization, while we all have very legitimate reasons to feel the way we do, it could quickly become a very slippery slope.

I think doctors are afraid the woman will sue them if she gets her tubes tied, then changes her mind. I think that's a pretty stupid reason, especially since the procedure can sometimes be reversed. And also, I think many women know whether they want kids or not.

Back to the question you posed, "why so many chances"..........and you said that you don't really know any drug addicted parents who ended up getting their kids back. That's what really scares me about my situation. My GS's bioMom has been given over a year, so far, by DCFS, to get her act together. Both she & my son have been. Now that my son is getting unsupervised, but she is not, she is once again talking about going into detox, etc. Why does it take getting down to the wire? Why does it take the threat of "next court date if goals aren't met, rights may be terminated." If a parent is really serious about wanting ot parent his/her child, wouldn't losing them to start with be enough motivation to get them moving, and moving fast & hard, towards their recovery? If it's taking THIS MUCH pressure to get her to move towards recovery, what are the CHANCES she'll actually MAINTAIN sobriety IF she pulls it off for a few months?????????? It seems to me that these need to be the questions the courts are asking.

I wonder how many kids have been abused, neglected, or murdered because some judge thought it would only be fair to give the bio parent ONE MORE CHANCE.

And might I add, God bless the judges who are sick and tired of situations like these and are standing on the side of the best interests of the CHILDREN, because although we don't hear nearly enough about THEM, there ARE judges out there who ARE looking out for these kiddos.

GMaWill, one of the major "symptoms" of drug and alcohol addicts is their short-term thinking. It's all they can do. They're impulsive and can't prepare for longer-term consequences.

Some people believe this is a result of drug use and drinking in the teens, before that part of the brain has fully developed. They're sort of stuck in adolescence forever.

This is why they never take action unless they're being threatened with IMMEDIATE consequences, and probably why their "recovery" never seems to last...

I agree with everyones statements here, especially GmaWIlli, when she asked about how many kids have been abused or murdered by parents just because the judges want to give them one more chance. It's sickening when this happens because it does happen more than we think.

I would like to add, that in my case, my dd has talked the talk, but hasn't walked the walk yet either. She "says" she's not using anymore, but I don't know what lie she really and truly wants me to believe this time. She won't ever have her priorities straight. For example, just today on her yahoo im message, she has, party like a rock star. I put on mine that it must be nice to party like a rockstar when you have no responsibilities. She will never change, EVER!. I have come to that understanding and conclusion. Ugghh this is for another post tho.

Anyway, Sara I agree with you 500,000,000 %. Enough is enough. Their chances should be forfeited when they get busted the first time because we all know that if they didn't care enough to stay clean in the first place, then they won't care enough to stay clean for "their" children.

I think most of them who even act like they want their children back only plan on doing what they absolutely have to in order to get them back and then have no intention of doing the right thing once they do get them back. They will try to fool the system, do the minimum, hide the truth, etc., all while "saying" they really want to parent their child. I don't think most of them even have it "in them" to make and maintain the changes they need to make. I really don't.

"Their chances should be forfeited when they get busted the first time because we all know that if they didn't care enough to stay clean in the first place, then they won't care enough to stay clean for "their" children."

You know, sadly I think this should be true for the OVERwhelming majority of all of these cases. If they didn't care enough to stay clean in the first place, or GET clean once they found out a baby was on the way, & they continued to use drugs despite the begging and pleading of friends and family members for months or perhaps YEARS before someone finally stepped in and took the kids, then WHY should we have any faith whatsoever that once the pressure is off and the Eagle has turned it's eye, that they will actually maintain any sort of positive change they've managed to stage for family services????????? I'm sure there are a few exceptions to this rule; but I'm talking about the overall picture. The odds are NOT in the kids' favor that mom and/or dad will get them back & stay on track & be good parents once the pressure is off & they start getting comfortable thinking they're not being watched so closely anymore. They will keep the kids away from people whom they know will be looking for problems and go about their lives the way THEY think it should be.

I'm sure it would be totally unconstitutional (although I don't know why), but if a mother or father has one child taken away because of neglect or abuse or drug addiction, they should be sterilized right there and then. Or, at the very least, injected with that five-year birth control.

There should be NO second chances to screw up the parenting. Not only would that prevent more children from being put through the system, not to mention the wringer, but it would also prevent many of us "of a certain age" from having so many little children in our care.

If my husband and I had to raise one grandchild it probably would have been a breeze. Everything, from running errands to finding babysitters and paying for clothing, etc., would have been pretty easy.

But two, three, and even four grandchildren? That is SO over the top it's unthinkable. Not one of our friends or relatives can figure out how we're keeping our sanity. Of course it's God helping out, but still...

And to think that for grandparents raising three kids already, what if the bio can still have more? I can't even, in my wildest dreams, imagine what we would do if Pinky got pregnant again. On one hand it would be SO unfair to let that child go. But on the other hand we already have three of her kids.

Sterilization should be a requirement, whether temporary or permanent. But it should be the kind that isn't up to THEM (like the pill).