where does it end ?

[Kasz216]

fkusumot said:

Kasz216 said:

The_vagabond7 said:
Plus it may very well be illegal. Looking at the story again, this is the criteria for removing the children.

"the children may be at risk due to the parents' behavior and associates. The parents might endanger the emotional well-being of the children"

Now this could apply to a number of situations, not just on where somebody holds an unpopular belief. But if that unpopular belief does put your children in danger due to being around violent neo-nazis, and being irrevocably harmed emotionally, then it still applies. Kind of a "if the shoe fits" sort of thing.

You can use that kind of reasoning to keep children away from all sorts of groups. Like the poor.

Well sure. It happens every day in family court. Although I don't think being poor is an unpopular "belief".

You miss my point. Poorer people live in poorer neighberhoods and tend to deal with other such perople. As such compared to the rich the children may be at risk due to the parents behavior and assosiates.

Having to work long hours and assosiating with other poor people. (Poor people being more likely to commit crimes then the rich.)

It has nothing to do with beliefs but to show how such loose definitions that don't actually lead to any actual physical proof can lead to almost anyones kids being taken by the state.

Hence why you need to show physical proof more often then not.