Comments on: Ethics question: Should a homeless man who loves his children be allowed to keep them?

By: Malik Good

Malik Good — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:44:05 +0000

Sorry, it you are homeless then you can not provide for the children. You should have visitation but they need structure in their lives. A roof over their heads, bathes, hot meals. they need security. If you are homeless they first thing is to get established in a job, a house or apartment, then show the court you can provide for the children.

By: Maverick 201

Maverick 201 — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:07:18 +0000

In my city in southern Louisiana, there are Homeless Shelters which provide for the Homeless Children. The Children are showered and dressed and provided with school supplies and a bus picks them up for school. The parent is helped in looking for a job and some do obtain jobs and some do not. It is a highly controversial topic. If the children are placed in a Foster home, it might make them more upset. Just because a parent is homeless, the parent continues to love their children. I vote for the homeless parent. The child still loves the parent always.

By: Triston Sawyer

Triston Sawyer — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:47:47 +0000

one must raise the ethical point if it was a women uncle sam would give her welfare+ public houseing.
Depends if he trys to get state-federal assistance or not.
But all in all the streets is no place for a child. The child should be put into foster care untill the father gets back on his feet. But effort should be made for visitation.

By: Curtis Fuller

Curtis Fuller — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:16:02 +0000

No he shouldn’t keep them but there should be generous access and the oppertunity to regain them once there is a home for them.

By: Collin Browne

Collin Browne — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:04:07 +0000

Not enough information. Is the man homeless because of physical or mental disease? Are the children safe? I would not consider living on the street in downtown NYC to be a safe environment; living in an urban campground, with some form of security might elicit a different response. Are the children clean, fed and going to school? Is medical care available? Where are the children when he looks for a job or shapes up for a few hours?

If the above can be answered in favor of the children, I trust the man to know what is best. If he has diminished capacity or just doesn’t face facts, no, he should surrender the children to foster care until such time as he can provide for them.

By: Layton Clarke

Layton Clarke — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:50:05 +0000

No. A parent has financial responsibility for a child until they are 16 years old, and if you can’t support your kids, you shouldn’t be allowed to keep them. What parent would want to force their kids to live on the streets with them, with all the dangers that brings?

By: Keven Fitzgibbon

Keven Fitzgibbon — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:48:58 +0000

Love is great but it doesn’t fill an empty stomach or stop the rain. The care and safety of the kids, in this case, takes president over the wants of the parent.

By: Zechariah Carmichael

Zechariah Carmichael — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:54:56 +0000

No, because if he really loved them he would be looking for a job 24/7, he’d try to make as much effort as possible, and if he really loved them he’d realize he can’t provide for his children and should instead let someone who can until he is ready for them. Streets are no place for children, regardless of loving parents or not… love doesn’t put food in their mouths, clothes on their backs, or a roof over their head; hard work and dedication does.

By: Tara136

Tara136 — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:10:32 +0000

If he is living on the street then no. He needs to be able to support his children with food, clothes, and shelter. I do think he should be able to visit his kids tho and once he can support them I think be should be able to get them back. But living on the streets is not a good way to bring up children or healthy.

By: Hector Todd

Hector Todd — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 05:07:38 +0000

I agree with the first answer.
Most people are homeless because of their own poor choices or inability to look for work or assistance. Even being on welfare would keep them on their feet.
Kids should not live on the street.