By: Mia L. Hazlett
I was having a Facebook argument back and forth the other day about this woman who left her kids (ages 5 and 3) in her car so she could attend a Lil’ Wayne concert, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/brittany-nicole-harris-_n_3607527.html
Of course, there was comment after comment bashing this 25 YO mother. Now I’m assuming, and it’s a big assumption, that the father or fathers are not in the children’s lives. It made no mention that he came to rescue his children or that after Child Welfare took them and they placed them in his custody. My argument was with the charges this woman faces, but the father does not: 2 counts of child NEGLECT. I base this solely on the fact if the father has never been in the picture.
I believe we as a society have come to accept the role of the absentee father and absolve him from all responsibility when he decides he wants to have nothing to do with a child he helped conceive. When the mother is stupid and leaves the kids in the car to attend a concert, it is all her fault. I have a huge problem with that. I feel it is his fault too. I feel if we lived in a civil society, we would hold both parents accountable for well-being of their children, who cares if they don’t want to be in their children’s lives. I feel that no matter where this man is, he needs to be held responsible for where his children are, just like her.
Look at it this way, if she can be charged with leaving her kids alone for hours unattended, how does he absolve himself from this situation for leaving them for their lifetime. Is that not negligence? Again, this is all under the assumption that he is not around. This is also assuming he is not now in the courts demanding sole custody of his children. If he/they are, than I stand corrected and there should be no charges against him.
Maybe if in these situations, BOTH parents were charged, we would have a lot less cases of “seed” dropping. It doesn’t mean they have to or will stick around, but they will still face consequences for their children’s welfare. Of course, when I made this argument, all three MEN put the full blame on the mother. Could you imagine living in a world where we don’t have to face consequences because we don’t want to?
You could also look at it this way, imagine you have a lazyass co-worker that won’t do their job, because they don’t feel like it. You end up doing their job for the next two weeks AND yours, because it directly affects you getting your project done. But, because you are not trained to do what they do, you fall short of a commendable product. The boss fires you and not them. They end up not only keeping their job, but also, getting accolades after you’re gone, for fixing your mess. You see you were terminated for the 10% wrong you did, rather than the 90% correct. They were recognized for fixing the 10% wrong you did, even though you did 90% of THEIR JOB correct.
You can agree or disagree, but at the end of the day, the law recognizes him as having full rights as a parent, even if he has never laid eyes on his child. Don’t believe me? If someone were to want to adopt these children, the mother and father would have to sign their rights away. If either one says no, the adoption will not go through.