Somewhat unhappy with the responses since they aren't very logical.
Why would a social service help a parent who doesn't want their help, unless it's forced onto them?
Also, my definition isn't better but there's generally a level of "sufficiency" that everyone can agree on. It's not really something to discuss in a hypothetical situation.
Scouts requires parent interaction. I remember quite distinctly asking to sign up for Scouts and my parents didn't really want to deal with it.
Also, my definition isn't better but there's generally a level of "sufficiency" that everyone can agree on.
That level is already covered in most places by existing legislation on negligence and child abuse. It's difficult to set a stronger standard that everyone can agree on, and even now there are corner cases that are subject to controversy. For example, some Jehovah's witnesses will forgo giving their children life saving blood transfusions. It's an extreme example, but realistic nonetheless.
Why would a social service help a parent who doesn't want their help, unless it's forced onto them?
I take it you don't read...
...else remove the children from the home (if absolutely needed)
Yes, parents should be forced encourage to meet a minimum standard of care for their children. If the welfare of the child is best served by removing them from the dysfunctional family home, so be it.
Yes, parents should be forced encourage to meet a minimum standard of care for their children. If the welfare of the child is best served by removing them from the dysfunctional family home, so be it.
Your relying on the idea that the kids would be better off being taken away from their parents. This isn't always the case even when parents aren't doing their job well. It's not like there are new parents lined up to take care of any child.