It does apply to every woman/child/family, and I found it pretty useful. It has been, however, threatened at various points with funding cuts, to the extent that the number and frequency of visits now have to be “prioritised” according to need. A few years ago, every new parent would get a daily visit for the first 10 days. I got two. But then, I’m a middle-class white woman, who had her mother and husband conspicuously around and being helpful and wasn’t begging for more help.

Now, to my knowledge, this has not lead to an oppressive monitoring atmosphere around those households where visits are more frequent because of a perceived need. But (a) I’m not in a position to know, so I could easily be talking ignorant bull and (b) there is a different culture in the UK around social assistance – to a certain extent, it is seen as a right rather than a privilege. It is also ubiquitous. The vast majority of the population use the NHS, even those who also have private insurance. Most people have at some point or another claimed a benefit, even if it was just claiming the dole for a few weeks when you were a student. Etc etc.

There was talk a year or so ago of the Conservative Party adopting a policy like that of Holland, where every household gets a dedicated maternity nurse initially. Now that, in the UK social context, was considered by lots of people to be potentially oppressive and monitoring behaviour. I, for example, whilst happy to have the health visitor come round, would have been extremely unhappy to have had a stranger living in my house.

Which just shows how culture specific it all is.

Women on TANF are, by definition, not childless. They’re poor and have at least one child, otherwise they would not be on TANF. They are women who, for a whole host of reasons, are in a situation where they are forced to rely on public assistance to support themselves and their child/children. I greatly dislike the stigma this culture places so unfairly on such woman but am not nearly as upset by a visiting nurse as I am by the stupid and cruel idea put forth by centrist Democrats and republicans alike that it’s both dignified or possible to raise a child on ones wages from Burger King.

Mandated reporting is a very good thing.

Maybe if the system worked properly, wasn’t terribly underfunded, cared about the people it was supposed to protect, and wasn’t overrun by racists, classists, and burn outs, you’d be right. Maybe if the alternatives to “bad” parent’s wasn’t a foster care system that systematically rapes, beats, and otherwises abuses it’s wards, you’d be right. Thats not the reality I’ve lived. I’m a mandated reporter in the state of Illinois for three disempowered groups and I’ve had to make six reports so far. Every single one has ended badly. Every. Single. One.

It’s a lot better than ignoring “domestic disputes” and pretending nothing bad ever happens to children.

Its neither better nor worse, its simply different and it gives moralistic white people something to feel good about. I’m not talking about ignoring domestic abuse or pretending bad things don’t happen to children, I’m talking about the problems that come with using the potential abuse of children as a cover for applying coercive observation to vulnerable groups.

Yes, sometimes, there are horror stories from it… but the alternative… is even more horrific.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I was directly told by DCFS that they would not investigate a report of a father who had tried to murder his daughter because it had happened more than 72 hours ago and no sexual assault was involved, but that he would be informed that a report had been made. The act of making the report ruined the rapport I had with the child in question, leaving her alone with no one to trust and facing a father who was going to be told that she reported him to the authorities.

I think we can point out the classism in this bill without implying that society should not worry about the welfare of children.

You seem to be making the assumption that the point (or outcome) of this bill will have more to do with protecting children then about controlling people who have been deemed undesirable.

There’s an undercurrent of “leave it in the family” in this thread that is *very* disturbing to me, as that is the mentality that allowed abuse to fester without respite and with so many, many silenced victims.

I haven’t seen that in this thread. Calling out a society on using the pretense (and thats all this is, make no mistake) of protecting children to control their parents is not the same as saying the abuse of children ought to be ignored. No one has said we should keep things in the family, no one has said we should silence victims. I’m all for victims being empowered to speak out and force their abusers to account for their crimes, what I’m against is privileged people deciding what is best for vulnerable groups and forcing the issue against their will. Part of my job is to help victims I see to get the resources they need, but it has to be on their terms and tailored to their needs. Thats not what mandated reporting does.

Society should try to help children, but at the same time, society should not assume prima facie that some people are more likely to be abusers because they are poor.

You can send a person in to help a new mother, and when Dean did that in Vermont I thought it was a fantastic idea. But if you only send them in to help *poor* mothers, you’re setting up the notion that poor mothers need the help because otherwise they will abuse their kids, and therefore they’re likely to be abusers, and therefore everything they do is potentially wrong. Whereas if you just say “all new mothers could use a helping hand and some information”, you’re not defining a class of people as likely to be abusive and then sending social workers in to rescue their children from them.

This continues to bother me…. a lot. Mandated reporting is a very good thing. It’s a lot better than ignoring “domestic disputes” and pretending nothing bad ever happens to children. Yes, sometimes, there are horror stories from it… but the alternative… is even more horrific. I think we can point out the classism in this bill without implying that society should not worry about the welfare of children.

There’s an undercurrent of “leave it in the family” in this thread that is *very* disturbing to me, as that is the mentality that allowed abuse to fester without respite and with so many, many silenced victims. Yes, there are problems between us adults, BUT, I don’t think we can solve those problems by adults ignoring the most powerless of all, the children.

Wait, they don’t want poor women to have abortions but they don’t want them to have so many kids either?
Am I missing something here?

Don’t you know that poor women are overly-sexual creatures who are too stupid/uneducated/crass to keep their legs shut? Abortion murders future priests, but celibacy is holy. After all, instead of spending all that time having sex and popping out babies (on my dime no less!!!!11!1elventyone) they should be spending that energy finding a job and being less lazy so they can get off the dole. Or something. Since when have assholes been internally consistent?

Like others said I would be a lot more comfortable with this if it was for all new parents.