Ashland City Council bans children from homeless shelters

[Prospector]

From Kajo news:


"The Ashland City Council this week voted to ban children from city run homeless shelters.

Homeless citizens and advocates are disheartened by the banning of children from the shelters. The city however, feels they cannot offer adequate protection to children staying in the shelters and that is the reasoning behind the ban.

Several volunteers at city shelters say they will not turn away a child during the frigid winter months."

[TennisMom]

Those children need to be removed from parents who cannot provide a home for them, until such time as they can or are helped to do so. Putting them up in a motel somewhere could be an option.

My daughter, who doesn't have the most money in the world, frequently buys food, sundries and even a toy one time for a family living in their car in the Bi-Mart parking lot in Ashland (Albertson's too). They have a toddler with them, a substandard vehicle full of 'stuff' and appear to have substance problems. She says they are always very grateful and the kid gobbles the food down. It's not right. I'd like to see families helped to find permanent shelter so they can remain together but meantime, it's not right for a child to be subjected to that.

[PonderThis]

I wondered if these children were running amuck through the homeless shelters, given the way a lot of these parents seem to allow their children to do these days, and then chastising those that dared complain. By establishing a policy of it's not really allowed, but here, it's a cold night and stay over here where it's out of the way and try not to attract attention to yourselves might be what they're really aiming for here. Or at least, it's what I'd be doing if I was running the place.

[Leonard]

From Kajo news:


"The Ashland City Council this week voted to ban children from city run homeless shelters.

Homeless citizens and advocates are disheartened by the banning of children from the shelters. The city however, feels they cannot offer adequate protection to children staying in the shelters and that is the reasoning behind the ban.

Several volunteers at city shelters say they will not turn away a child during the frigid winter months."

Leave it to Ashland, the land of the designer water, BMW liberal to find an answer to the homeless children roaming the country.

Their answer is simple, leave the kids at the door and let the parents stay the night. Then after a good nights rest, they can pick up the little pop-sickles on the way out.

[tvguy]

I wondered if these children were running amuck through the homeless shelters, given the way a lot of these parents seem to allow their children to do these days, and then chastising those that dared complain. By establishing a policy of it's not really allowed, but here, it's a cold night and stay over here where it's out of the way and try not to attract attention to yourselves might be what they're really aiming for here. Or at least, it's what I'd be doing if I was running the place.

I read the entire article and children running amok had nothing to do with the decision. It had to do with being open for lawsuits.

[Prospector]

I wondered if these children were running amuck through the homeless shelters, given the way a lot of these parents seem to allow their children to do these days, and then chastising those that dared complain. By establishing a policy of it's not really allowed, but here, it's a cold night and stay over here where it's out of the way and try not to attract attention to yourselves might be what they're really aiming for here. Or at least, it's what I'd be doing if I was running the place.

I read the entire article and children running amok had nothing to do with the decision. It had to do with being open for lawsuits.

I only had Kajo's version and was hoping someone from Ashland had the full story. My concern is not deny anyone during severe weather. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Ashland approve dogs entry into the shelter? Dogs ok, children?

[Tiamat]

Those children need to be removed from parents who cannot provide a home for them, until such time as they can or are helped to do so. Putting them up in a motel somewhere could be an option.

To me that says it's a crime to be homeless. It's true that perhaps the situation you describe needs some attention, but that anyone without a home should lose custody of their child is shocking. (to me)

[Wonky]

Those children need to be removed from parents who cannot provide a home for them, until such time as they can or are helped to do so. Putting them up in a motel somewhere could be an option.

To me that says it's a crime to be homeless. It's true that perhaps the situation you describe needs some attention, but that anyone without a home should lose custody of their child is shocking. (to me)

edit:

Never mind. Damn shame, all the way around.

[chuck white]

With all the drinking going on, it's a good ideas. We don't let children in bars.

[tvguy]

Those children need to be removed from parents who cannot provide a home for them, until such time as they can or are helped to do so. Putting them up in a motel somewhere could be an option.

To me that says it's a crime to be homeless. It's true that perhaps the situation you describe needs some attention, but that anyone without a home should lose custody of their child is shocking. (to me)

I was going to say the same thing. If a homeless person can't provide adequate basic needs like food, warmth or shelter THEN the children should be taken away.
Pretty sure that's already the law. But we don't even know this is true about this homeless couple who had a child.

[Prospector]

What's next, sterilization for the homeless?

[chuck white]

What's next, sterilization for the homeless?

We could set up a homeless camp at Hartford.

[PonderThis]

Would insurance companies be involved?

[Valuesize]

What's next, sterilization for the homeless?

We could set up a homeless camp at Hanford.

Can you set up a homeless camp on a National Park?

http://www.nbcrightnow.com/story/2308915...egislation

[PonderThis]

I think a giant statue of Jesus might be nice.

[Tiamat]

Those children need to be removed from parents who cannot provide a home for them, until such time as they can or are helped to do so. Putting them up in a motel somewhere could be an option.

To me that says it's a crime to be homeless. It's true that perhaps the situation you describe needs some attention, but that anyone without a home should lose custody of their child is shocking. (to me)

I was going to say the same thing. If a homeless person can't provide adequate basic needs like food, warmth or shelter THEN the children should be taken away.
Pretty sure that's already the law. But we don't even know this is true about this homeless couple who had a child.

Tricky definition there. If they go to a shelter, it is to provide food, warmth and shelter. I would say that if they are exposing their child to lack of them that might be true. For instance, if a homeless family lives in their car, are they not providing shelter? If they give the child a jacket and food, are they not providing warmth and sustenance? (The truth is, not a lot of children are part of the drop in homeless shelter crowd.)

[tvguy]

Those children need to be removed from parents who cannot provide a home for them, until such time as they can or are helped to do so. Putting them up in a motel somewhere could be an option.

To me that says it's a crime to be homeless. It's true that perhaps the situation you describe needs some attention, but that anyone without a home should lose custody of their child is shocking. (to me)

I was going to say the same thing. If a homeless person can't provide adequate basic needs like food, warmth or shelter THEN the children should be taken away.
Pretty sure that's already the law. But we don't even know this is true about this homeless couple who had a child.

Tricky definition there. If they go to a shelter, it is to provide food, warmth and shelter. I would say that if they are exposing their child to lack of them that might be true. For instance, if a homeless family lives in their car, are they not providing shelter? If they give the child a jacket and food, are they not providing warmth and sustenance? (The truth is, not a lot of children are part of the drop in homeless shelter crowd.)

On the other hand Tia IF a family uses a shelter to provide food, warmth and shelter for their child then they ARE still doing what they need to do to care for the child.

[PonderThis]

I'm pretty sure that's what she already said.

[tvguy]

I'm pretty sure that's what she already said.

I think you are right. I just posted the condensed version for the readers digest crowd.

[chuck white]

You can't take kids away from people because they are homeless. These people need those kids, to qualify for food stamps and welfare.