Can the court order a paternity test for Cps?
CPS is required by law to notify the father (or mother but she is usually known) that a child that is possibly his child has been taken into custody. If the father comes forward the court will order a paternity test. If he is the father then he can request custody. They will evaluate him and may require him to do reunification services to have the child. It is not about if there is someone who wants the baby, it's about making sure the parents' rights are not violated. And they will not try and "make" the father take the baby. But they do legally have to find out if he is the father and he is legally entitled to request custody.
What do you think when celebrities publically state that they won't vaccinate their children?
I think they are blissfully unaware of the impact their words have on other people as well as yes, being “privileged and willfully ignorant” (See Kelly Shaw). Edit: And they are lucky because even “though” their privilege will not protect their child from these diseases, they have the resources to seek first class medical care. But, other children and families that cannot get the shots due to previous conditions (cancer, delicate immune systems due to other diseases) are more vulnerable because of their decisions. The celebrities do not understand herd immunity as a way to protect the vulnerable. Honestly, I used to think that vaccines were important but I questioned the necessity of getting so many all at once, when a child was forming their impressions of the world, its safety and whether they can trust people, like doctors or adults (that is another question!). But, a friend who works for the Academy of Pediatrics educated me on the development of the immune system and why the timing of these shots is so important to the development of the immunities to the diseases. In addition, there is the history of poor follow through with families in bringing their children to doctor’s offices to get another shot. Add in third world nations and the chance to vaccinate many children against many diseases all in one go and, well….Bingo. I now support it.
The men accusing Michael Jackson of abusing them as young boys waited 8 years after his death to go public. If Michael Jackson hadn’t died, do you think these young men would have come forth?
The men accusing Michael Jackson of abusing them as young boys waited 8 years after his death to go public. If Michael Jackson hadn’t died, do you think these young men would have come forth?Not at all. If they really wanted to build up a credible case, they would have levied their accusations against Michael when he was still alive. At least Michael would have been able to defend himself. The timing of this just looks horrible. It's been a decade since Michael died; why wait so long? There's no honor in what they're doing because the documentary doesn't even feature the opposing side, which automatically creates bias, henceforth throwing anyone who had anything to do with the documentary's credibility out of the window. That's not even getting into the potentiality that they both committed perjury.Even if what they're accusing Michael of were true, they waited so long that it now just looks like a “boy who cried wolf” situation. Also, if you were abused, how does suing for millions of dollars quell the pain? If anyone here had a child that was abused, do you think that that kid's parents/guardians would have settled out of court for millions of dollars or waited til the perpetrator had been dead for ten years before making their move?And where were the parents? Do you mean to tell me that neither one of these gentlemen told one of their parents? They just swallowed it back and suffered from Stockholm Syndrome? If so, why just those two victims? In the age of #metoo, why aren't more friends of Michael’s who were boys (or even girls) at the time not coming out of the woodwork to corroborate their allegations?In America, we tout “innocent before proven guilty”; no evidence was found to implicate Michael of any wrongdoing, yet I still see people on here saying that he was a monster. None of us were there. The only thing we have at our disposal is what we can see with our own two eyes (no evidence of Michael ever harming anyone at any given time in history), but yet, we have people trying to force this “mute Michael Jackson” movement without getting Michael's side of thi-… oh, wait… Michael's dead. Yeah, that’s fair. Let's just erase everything he did for this world based on our own prejudices and conjectures.
"Can a 10-year old be considered a criminal?"?
Yes, I think so. By the age of ten you should know the difference between right and wrong and, if you don't, then your parents should be held responsible. However, if a child is old enough to know its 'rights' it's time it learnt its responsibilities. The main problem is is how do you do instill this into an unruly, out of control child? Even those parents who do try are stymied by Government policies and instant celebrity in the papers. What shame did the parents of 'Little Alfie' who gloried in the fact that he had apparently fathered a child? They tried to cash in!..Now that he has been proved not to be the father, will social workers move in on his parents? I doubt it. The other side of the coin are the young victims of crime. I have no wish to point the finger at the grieving family of Ben Kinsella but what the hell was a 16 yr old doing outside a night club at two in the morning?
What is the way to report a potential pedophile?
I've read one or two answers and my view is, from the UK stand point, definitely get counselling. There may yet be legal recourse, especially if there are others willing to come forward.Please, and this is meant in the best possible way, stop calling him that at once on any type of social media or forum (including this one) and when we have all discussed it you will understand .Just as you can not walk the streets and claim a person is a murderer or terrorist, even though you know it to be true, before they are convicted , the same applies here. This, unfortunately at this stage, is termed slander and in order to get him convicted you do NOT want to put loopholes in the proceedings for the defence to crawl through !No get the counsellor to advise you as to the best action to take and please, and I'm taking no sides here but this is for your own protection, do not use that term unless he is convicted. The only people who know the absolute truth are the perpetrator and the injured party. He's not going to use the term against himself and he sure as hell will make sure you suffer if you try to use it.So, its suspected/claimed sexual/physical abuse until the court strings him up by the gonads, and THEN you can use that term as much and as often as you like.(P.S. for some of my English readers, gonads = BALLS ):-)Thanks for the up vote on this touchy subject.Don't be scared to press the button.