The death of two young boys in Queensland from drowning, that has resulted in the mother being charged with manslaughter, has raised concerns from various groups, including the Queensland Law Society. Neglect of children is rarely an issue brought before courts, generally children are simply removed from the family and put into care.
But surely if the RSPCA can charge pet owners with cruelty and neglect, children should be afforded at least the same protection as animals.

I agree that there should be sanctions for neglectful parenting; but in the case of those little boys, is there anything more to it than kids just slipping away in a moment in which the parent was otherwise occupied? I have to say that I was shocked to see last night that the law had stepped in. The slack, vapid interviews with various people purportedly speaking for a 'community' were not at all helpful. The media's penchant for interviewing anyone breathing who happens to be in the vicinity is annoying, to say the least.

Big nana we are not yet told everything, and not every time a woman finds herself in the wrong, is it wrong
We do know 12 hours passed before she reported them missing
Drugs are involved, and maybe the police know what they are doing
The me too movement was much needed, however some stretch the whole issue
Not every woman is a saint
Let the law take it course

Let the law take it course
Belly,
I generally agree with your statement but you should also tell us where we can find an unbiased Law. Where was the Law before these little boys died ?

I read of one aboriginal (Govt funded) organisation criticising Child protection for not removing the children. The same mob would probably have the audacity to scream 'stolen' generation. You can be sure that many Govt. funded organisations will use any incident to justify their funding and existence.

This is a heartbreaking tragedy.

It should never have happened. These boys were 3 and 5
years of age and in a perfect world they should have
been adequately supervised and should not have been allowed
on their own to roam anywhere near a large body of water.

We don't know all the facts. However it does not look
good for the mother. Police uncovered a history of the
boys movements over months leading up to their deaths.
Police say that lack of supervision was systematic
behaviour from the mother of the boys.

Where were social services? The mother had a history of
dealing in drugs.

I guess now the law will take its course. Unfortunately
it's too late for the two youngsters.

Indy we have many conversations bordering on the failure of our laws
Seems another poster has not seen the small bit that has come out about this
Yes the law/Child care authorities rarely get it right
The more damning the evidence turns out in this matter the bigger their failure
This family was known to DOCS
PC that awful thing, overlooks the real dangers children are in, in the name of fairness
We will hear more about this, but even if complacent/guilty the mum will come out far better than the kids did

The boys were aboriginal.

We all know why they weren't taken off their mother.

The stolen generation myth claims another two victims.

Belly said- PC that awful thing, overlooks the real dangers... in the name of fairness.

Answer- Good to see we agree on this point. Free Speech over Political Correctness.

I have watched that beast we know as DOCS fail time after time
In failing they, and the dreadful PC have killed children
Think about that
Killed Children, noted the stolen generation swipe
It too has to be seen in the time it took place
WHITE CHILDREN, OF POOR FAMILIES, GOT TAKEN AWAY TOO
IN FACT irish Catholics, who had too much power within the then Child welfare, just as constant reporters
Nearly had me and my siblings taken
Interesting to know, every one of their children, even a daughter, spent time in prison
Forgotten people? not forgotten not always taken for the best reasons
But what we must look at is why children suffer because now, as then, the wrong people are in charge of them
CM PC is a tool for some to murder truth

Since time immemorial decisions affecting people are made by supposedly "educated' authorities. These social "experts' have been the cause of suffering for so many children throughout time.
Parents are deemed criminal if they discipline an unruly child yet when this child then gets into trouble these "experts" point the finger at the parents.
It really is appalling what these authorities dish out even in these days of supposed enlightenment. It is high time we made these authorities accountable & either dismiss or demote these non-performers !

I read that the mother was in a heavy drinking session when the boys went missing. Presumably she has a record with Child a Protection regarding these children.
My point is though, that animals seem to get more protection from the law than children do.

Dear Big Nana,

I worked for the Department of Community Services
Library years ago here in Melbourne. The Child
Protection Unit was on the same floor as the
Library and we did a great deal of research for
them.

The shortage of staff that existed in that
department at that time was dreadful - they had more
case files than they could handle. The staff were
over worked and over stressed. And of course there
were quite a few famous cases of children dying
while under their supposed protection.

I remember
one famous case of a two year old little boy who
was bashed to death by his mother's boyfriend.
It was a gut-wrenching case where the Child Protection
Unit had 100s of pages of reports on this child
being mistreated and nothing had been done to try to
save him. The out cry came only after the child died.
A case of too little too late.

You're absolutely spot on. Children need far more protection
than they're given. We're kinder to animals.

that animals seem to get more protection
Big Nana,
Yes and, not only the cuddly ones, the human animals too !

Big Nana,
I notice that you did not mention the many other cases of child neglect aas you could have. For instance: child sexual abuse as highlighted by the Tennant Creek situation. Or this situation shown below.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/child-rape-sentence-pathetic/news-story/279589a380757e6c0597cb3461158461

I know of your concern as I recall you mentioning the fact that medicos were howled down when they suggested to test the children for STD when testing for other things during the NT 'Intervention'.

I do not know how we can better protect children at present but perhaps in future, when we can turn female fertility on and off, females will have to show they can adequately care for a child before they are able to become pregnant. At present anyone with a womb can have a baby irrespective of their ability or circumstances.

The increasing world population may force humans to make such decisions.

Dear Foxy,

«This is a heartbreaking tragedy.»

For whom?

For you it may seem so, but which would you prefer: being raised by a narcomaniac mother, on a path to a life of crime, on a path to be institutionalised in Australia's notorious hell-holes for juvenile delinquents - or drowning once, suffering physically for a couple of minutes, but then passing on from a cold body of water into a new body of warm water, within the womb of a new mother with renewed chances for a good and fruitful life?

Where from is this assumption as if living is always better than dying? It is simply not true! Perhaps these two boys were only sentenced by their karma for 3 and 5 years respectively, or perhaps they received an early pardon and can now look forward towards a brighter future.

Alcohol has a lot to answer for, and not just among people identifying as aboriginal. This popular drug should be enough to put anyone completely against the very idea of legalising other drugs. It has been said many times that alcohol would not be permitted now, on modern guidelines and legalities.

The old fire water could well have been the cause of the death of two children according to Big Nana's last post. In the meantime, we have to wait for the courts to decide the facts. It is hard to believe that the mother would not be suffering terribly, no matter if she was culpable or not.

I have read many comments on social media, as well as here, about how the mother must have loved those children, regardless of her neglect.
I hate to disagree, but if you love someone you do your best for them, especially helpless children. Addicts love their addictions more than their children. Many mothers love their boyfriends more than their children.
Maternal love is supposed to mean sacrificing yourself for your children. Too late to claim love when they are dead.

Yuyutsu,

I was raised in the belief that human life is
sacred. And these two boys were not given
a chance to live theirs. We don't know how
and where they would have ended up had they
been afforded the proper protections.
Their deaths are a tragedy - the loss of
human life always is.
The fact that you don't see that I find rather
disturbing.

Dear Foxy,

We all, myself included, were raised with the prevailing beliefs of our tribe. This is good enough for children, but as one matures, one ought to use wisdom and logic to test these beliefs.

The boys DID get a chance to live their life. Who said that their lives were not fulfilled at 3 and 5 respectively? Who said that the purpose of their lives was not already achieved? Who said that their lives ought to have been 80-90 years long? Who said that by 80-90 their lives would necessarily be fulfilled, rather than wasted? Who said that rather than drowning, the right thing for them would be to die of a prolonged and debilitating degenerative medical condition?

I understand that you are a Christian: what if, God called these two boys to Him, to His Kingdom of Heaven, because He decided that they suffered enough on earth? This act of God was certainly inhuman, but do you consider it to be wrong?

Yes indeed, we ought not to take other's lives (animals included) and a mature, rational explanation can be made for it, but the simplistic and lazy reasoning as if "human life is sacred", is incorrect and based only on fear and the impossible wish to avoid physical death.

yuyutsu you are far from the average in thinking that way
Not much point in trying to change us
The children deserved much better

Yuyutsu,

Every religious tradition teaches the deep sacredness
of life. After all, if a Creator gave the creation of
life, then we've all received a profound gift to
protect and cherish.

A mother's job is to protect her children. This mother
obviously did not do her job as her children drowned.
A 3 and a 5 year old child should not go
unsupervised near a broad expanse of water.

Whether this was for the best, and whether they were
called by a higher authority - is debatable. However
the law now will decide this case. To me it is a tragedy
because it could have been prevented.

Dear Belly,

I cannot change you anyway, but I can challenge your ideas, which is what we all do in this site:

Are you afraid perhaps that by letting go of this branch, of this false, illogical belief as if "human life is sacred", you would suddenly become a monster, a murderer? Don't you trust your own loving nature?

The statement is incorrect, so why rely on it? I can give you better, broader and more solid reasons as to why you should not kill others!

about 100000 unborn babies murdered each year. Barbaric! Futures stolen like these 2 poor kids. Oh well keeps the industry getting tax payer money!

"Maternal love is supposed to mean sacrificing yourself for your children".

Unfortunately, many woman are more interested in drinking like men, being 'equal' to men; and the maternal instincts are not there anymore. They are positively encouraged to turn nature and traditional behaviour on it's head. 52% if child murders are committed by women. Women use abortion as a matter of convenience. What used to be is gone for good; it's all part of the end of the West. The barbarians gave won.

Dear Foxy,

«Every religious tradition teaches the deep sacredness of life.»

Actually not. This is a modern interpretation, you do not find this in scripture. What you find instead is "Thou shalt not kill" and similar variants, with which I fully agree.

Besides, your initial claim was that "human life is sacred": Life and "human life" are different.

«After all, if a Creator gave the creation of life, then we've all received a profound gift to protect and cherish.»

Again a modern interpretation, that "life is a gift". You find this in modern poetry, but not in scripture. Rather, life is an unpleasant duty, if not even a curse.

«A mother's job is to protect her children.»

Indeed, though "duty" is more correct than "job".

Now what is a mother supposed to protect her children from?
It often includes death, but not always. At times a mother needs to protect her children from worse things.

On the balance of probabilities, this mother failed to perform her duty towards her children, but wasn't this failure already made long ago when she went on drugs?

And what about the father? Where is he? Why were these children growing up without him?

BTW, one's duty to God comes before one's duty to family, society or anyone else.

«A 3 and a 5 year old child should not go unsupervised near a broad expanse of water.»

Unless God wants otherwise. Retrospectively in this case, He did.

«However the law now will decide this case.»

I was not referring to the secular law at all in this thread. Waste of time - it is arbitrary and was never based on spiritual principles.

«To me it is a tragedy because it could have been prevented.»

You have a big heart, Foxy, but you should also use your intellect.
The fact that it happened proves that it could not be prevented.
Perhaps you mean that similar cases can be prevented - maybe. Desirable? who knows. In most cases, I think, it is better for children to drown than to be raised by a mother on drugs.

yuyutsu we have spoken before about your different way of thinking
And yes we differ, I would not have it any other way
Those kids in my view deserved a longer happier life, here on earth
As I believe in no God, but totally in what everyone is said to have thought, I can only fall back on reality

Yuyutsu,

I'm not going to argue with you about religious
beliefs.

Family law in Australia tells us that children have
the right to be safe. To be treated with affection.
To be educated. To have medical care. And, be
protected against cruelty and abuse.

Parents have the duty to protect their children's
rights until they are old enough to make their own
way in the world.

The authority to make decisions concerning and
affecting the care, welfare, and proper development
of the child is known as "parental responsibility."

Family law in Australia defines the responsibility that
parents have in relation to bringing up their children.
These include:

1) To protect your child from harm.
2) To provide your child with food, clothing, a
place to live.
3) To financially support your child.
4) To provide safety, supervision, and control.
5) To provide medical care.
6) To provide an education.

The mother in question has been charged with manslaughter.
Her case will be heard in court in May. The courts will
decide the outcome.

Dear Belly,

«Those kids in my view deserved a longer happier life, here on earth»

Possibly.

If they indeed deserved a longer happier life, here on earth, then no problem - surely they will have it, only they will need to have it in new bodies instead of those that drowned, mothered by a drug-addict.

Suppose they were to keep these bodies that drowned for longer, do you think that they could also have a happier life?
- No: longer indeed, but not happier. Now they have a chance to have BOTH longer and happier lives with the good parents that they deserve!

Dear Foxy,

You know this prayer:

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference."

I once thought that I can change things politically.
I no longer believe so.
Hence I do not wish to waste my time on that which cannot be changed.

Secular/civil law is as it is, arbitrary, illogical, idiotic and unprincipled, but this foolish gang who call themselves "the state", they have the guns and are anyway legislating and enforcing whatever they want: neither you nor I can do anything about it.

Hence you may have noticed that I am nowadays less active on OLO. I concentrate on religious, spiritual and moral issues, trying to leave politics aside. While I may at times comment in a politically-oriented thread, it is not the political aspect that I comment on.

So on this particular thread, I was silent regarding how the state treats this mother, but only commented about your personal grief that «This is a heartbreaking tragedy», saying: "grieve not. These two boys are now in a better place". If you insist on grieving then you should grieve for that mother which is now in a horrible mess.

Know my view is confronting, wish I could, ever again, believe in a God
But others bought faith in to this thread, not saying that was wrong, unlike a poster who insists HIS thread stays on subject
We wander, we drift in to other subjects, see no wrong in that
These kids, may have been safer in the community and lifestyle of their mothers people 200 years ago
But it remains my view no God ever existed,that we have moved on from the very different spoken word and God, we needed in the dark after leaving our caves
That we humans would be/could be, far better if we became one

Yuyutsu,

Thank You for explaining your position.

I did not understand what you were trying to say
and for that I sincerely apologise.

One of the best examples of protecting the
sanctity of life comes from the predominantly
Eastern faiths - Hinduism, Buddhism, and
others which all teach "ahimsa" the key religious
virtue and guiding principal that all life is
God given and therefore sacred. "Ahimsa"includes
both compassion and non-violence, believing
that all living beings share the spark of a
divine spiritual energy that we all take part in
a symbiotic interconnected web of life.

Once again Thank You for explaining your position
more clearly to me.

You will have to forgive me if I don't respond to
you for a couple of days. I am going to have
laser-assisted cataract surgery today at 12 Noon
so I won't be able to post for a few days.

Have a nice day.

Thread told us some parents are being criminalised
But neglected to note some parents are criminals
My thoughts remain, DOC s neglects its duty, it leaves children in bad homes
Failing us all

Belly,

By "all", if you mean the Australian community, you're right. These parents bring shame on our country.

Maybe it's not so much that some parents are criminals, but that their behaviour, their callousness, is criminal. It's surely criminal to wilfully neglect one's children to the point where they are in grave danger.

In the death records for the Pt McLeay Mission on Lake Alexandrina, there was a death of a child from starvation, in 1955, in a family living thirty miles away, with the father on good money working on the railways. I knew the family a few years later and he was still a phenomenal drinker, knocking back nearly a gallon of port each night. Having lived a sheltered life, I'd never seen anybody so drunk every weekend. I thought he was an elderly man but he was only about forty then. Of course, he died only a few years later.

Cheers,

Joe

quite a few parents introduced their own kids to drugs. docp have no hope of keeping up with these ones. I personally know some. Secularism is a putried ideology.

The mother has been charged with manslaughter; so we can all go back to minding our own business and let justice takes its course. No matter what happens, the two poor little buggers are gone.

Loudmouth my memory tells me, and it lies these days, we shared an interest in this country's first nations peoples welfare
I still and forever will
Could tell of thousands of reasons SOME far from all, fail
But in truth in the same numbers we have failures in all races here
A special failure, like the flue, runs deep in DOCs, it shortage of staff or not, fails too often
We are talking about two kids, two boys who lost a future that could have been great
No one has the right to fail them
No one has the right to call for forgiveness without true change from a group set up to protect them

Dear Foxy,

I hope your surgery went very well.

Ahimsa is indeed a principle tenet of Hinduism and Buddhism. I try to follow it the best I can.

Compassion ('karuna') for those who suffer is another principle, but is separate from ahimsa.

Not only living beings share the divine, and not just a spark: the divine can be found everywhere, the essence of everything. In this sense, sanctity is everywhere, not just in the living, everything is God-given, equally sacred.

Yes, ahimsa can help to protect life, but it is a mistake to conclude that this is its purpose. The onus to observe ahimsa is on the people with a potential to hurt others, this is supposing they want to be righteous, avoid disasters to themselves and grow spiritually. The focus of ahimsa (as well as of the Commandment "thou shalt not kill") is therefore on the potential-perpetrator rather than on their potential-victim, whereas the focus of karuna (compassion) is on the victim.

Yuyutsu,

Thank You for your kind words.

My surgery was postponed until late May.

Which I'm quite happy to have it later.

I've been very nervous about it all.

Foxy while unaware of just what your operation is you have my best wishes
And this advice, I was quite worried about my first of two,
Had both done lense replacements
very very good results and nothing to fear hope it goes well

We have far too many people today, with too much time on their hands. They therefor spend too much time interfering in other peoples lives. From the rubbish about this instance, my mother, & many of those near Bathurst 60+ years ago were all criminals.

I was about 10 when a local farmer gave me a pony for helping round up his cattle. No saddle or bridle, just a halter & some rope. When I got home from school each day I would jump on my pony, & ride over a mile to the river. There I would meet up with about a dozen similar aged mostly primary school kids at a large deep hole, about a mile down stream from the road.

If it was warm we would go for a swim, or swim our horses down a narrow deep channel. We somehow knew our parents would not approve of this, considering it dangerous, so to make sure they didn't know, we would strip off to avoid going home with wet clothes. There was nothing sexual in this, just a bunch oh kids having fun.

We have all changed today. I would never let my kids go riding along public roads, their horses only went on roads, locked up in a horse float, & I doubt the girls I swam with would have approved of their daughters riding down the road or swimming in the river with the boys.

Were our mothers criminals, there were certainly dangers swimming unsupervised in the river. Were we lucky no one was ever hurt? Perhaps one of our problems today is that kids are not allowed to grow up naturally, & are locked away from all harm.

Damned if I know, I was probably as overprotective of my kids as any parent today, but perhaps we are doing them harm with this.

Same type of memories Hasbeen but we lived in far different times
And we knew our borders and what not to do
Just maybe today's parents, to me at least, seem to be a little better even if over protective

Dear Belly,

My operation is on my left eye. It's for
laser-assisted cataract surgery.
It's now been delayed until the end of May.
I'm not looking forward to the op at all.
I'm hoping that they can put me under
during the procedure. But we'll have to wait
and see.

Anyway, Thanks for your good wishes.

Dear Hasbeen,

I feel that a 3 year old and a 5 year old should
not go unsupervised near a large body of
water. I think that we've learned a great deal
over the years - of what not to allow our kids
to do.

Foxy goes without saying we all hope for the best
That seems like my surgery and if it is be comforted it will go well
In fact I remember seeing part of the op as it took place, not much but some
And my first one saw me very very jumpy
BUT on laying down for my second the fella putting me under said * we had trouble getting you under last time,you fought to stay awake*
I have zero memory of that, so it is all good

Dear Foxy,

Thanks for getting back to the topic. Yes, a body of flowing water. A body of rushing, tumbling, crazy-bastard water, full of mud and rocks and branches an god-knows-what. A river in flood: Lane's Law proposes that the force of a current is proportional to the cube of the amount flowing per second: so if the flow doubles, then the force increases eight times; if the flow of a little creek increases by ten times, the force increases ten cubed, or a thousand times; if the flow increases a hundred times, not so difficult for a piddly stream turning into a flood, then the force is a hundred cubed, or a million times as strong. A flow a thousand times larger ? A billion times as powerful, give or take.

How could any 'mother' be so negligent as to allow her kids out of her sight in such circumstances ?

I suppose we'll see what the court decides.

Much love and best wishes for your recovery,

Joe