Smoking as child abuse and used in custody battles - Discuss

Is Smoking Child Abuse?
posted by Dan Filler

BBC (among others) reports that California will treat second hand smoke as a form of toxic air pollutant. I assume this will empower a new gang of regulators to join the "war on smoking." I wonder about the effects of these sorts of decisions on smoking parents.

Courts have begun to confront the argument that smoking around children is a form of child abuse. This claim appears to have surfaced repeatedly in child custody battles, but I don't think it has become a common basis for state intervention in families. With findings like those in California, I suspect that more states will seek to intervene when parents smoke at home. State involvement can sometimes take a positive form - counseling, for example - but it can also result in removing children into foster care. When the household problem is smoking, I'm not sure this is a good thing.

Second hand smoke is bad for kids. For children with special health problems, such as asthma, it can be devastating. So there is little question that when parents smoke at home, they are doing harm. This might suggest that smoking ought to be considered abuse per se. But should it?

First, I'm uncertain whether the health effects are serious enough to constitute abuse. Parents do lots of crappy things to, and around, their kids. Does smoking cross the line? Second, I don't totally trust state intervention in families. When the household situation is dire, a state must step in to protect children. Perhaps I'm a cynic, but the repeated evidence of incompetence and neglect by some of these family agencies makes me nervous about their involvement except where truly necessary. Third, I'm not convinced that we want mandatory abuse reporters - doctors, psychologists, social workers and (in some states) lawyers - to report every parent who admits smoking around her child. Mandatory reporting damages relationships with clients, reducing trust and, ultimately, the effectiveness of professional services. This damage is justified only when it prevents truly serious harms.

Then there is the slippery slope problem. Once smoking is viewed as child abuse, prosecutions are likely to follow. And in some jurisdictions, convicted child abusers are subject to Megan's Law notification.

I don't have a problem with parents introducing evidence of smoking in disputes over custodial and visitation arrangements. In these cases, the child will typically end up in the custody of at least one parent. I think smoking around kids is a bad thing. Smoking around a child with respiratory problems seems clearly abusive. But should smoking around a healthy child be the basis for removing her from parental custody? I don't have the answer, but I'm not happy with either result.

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/is_smoking_chil.html


SECONDHAND SMOKE AND CHILD CUSTODY

Secondhand smoke, also called environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), can have an impact on child custody decisions. The possible consequences of parental smoking in a custody case can range from termination of parental rights or a change of custody and restrictions on visitation to the smoking parent receiving custody with smoking restrictions and a requirement for follow up reports to the court.

First, here are a few facts about secondhand smoke that courts have already taken judicial notice of.

http://www.ohiodivorceforms.com/new_page_1.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should smoking be considered? I don't think so myself as smokers can (like I do at home) smoke outdoors (yes, even in the winter). There are so many tons of other things out there in custody battles, does this really warrant merit? Obviously if one has an asthmatic kid and the parent is showing no regard for that (whether it be smoking, perfume, etc and so on) such a thing could be considered but also mitigated.

Given what I said above - SHOULD a judge assume future actions as a reason to deny custody (ie, well, sure you smoke outside now, but you might not - so just in case you might do something bad we will punish you)?

So what do DU'ers think?

...and an alcoholic... and a compulsive gambler... I personally think that ANY behavior that harms the interests of a minor child should be taken into account. That is my opinion based on a childhood of pain and suffering which almost ruined my whole life. At the very minimum I should mention that I had episodes of chronic bronchitis and other breathing problems which have only begun to subside in my mid 30's.

On the other hand, I respect that smoking is harder to quit than heroin, and not everyone with the habit plans on being caught in a custody battle. It's a tough go no matter what, but I have to give my support to the kids first.

The food could lead to obesity problems, diabetes, heart conditions, etc. If a parent wants to smoke, take it outside. If you allow your child to ride his bike without a helmet, is that child endangerment? If you live in a more violent neighborhood, is that a endangerment? It is a rather stupid custody picking point to me.

But if you do smoke, don't do it in the house or in a car with the child. This isn't rocket science. And if it is deemed child abuse or something the courts will decide in a custody case, then quit. I know the timing isn't good, but damn, do you want your child or not.

Why should a parent have to quit a legal behavior in the first place to appease a judge?

Sure - I would quit in a hearbeat in such a battle, but it seems odd I would have to.

how nice of you to "wonder about" drug using parents.

smoking and smoke are TOXIC and children are forced to breathe the second hand smoke by the adult tobacco junkies using around them.

as fire department people will tell you, smoke is the NUMBER ONE killer in fires in the USA, NOT flames.

people who smoke around their kids are poisoning them.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

I smoke, outdoors only, on the back porch like I am right now.

Should doing something legal be held against me in a court of law?

Oh not to mention, vaccinations that contain mercury. Or diet products with saccharin. Or living near a farm that sprays pesticides and fungicides and herbicides.

Sitting in those buses with the diesel fumes going can't be good for them either, but we force them to do that. If the child has an illness that smoking agitates, the parent should be held accountable for that. Otherwise, people need to just butt the hell out of other peoples' lives.

...who would weigh this as one of many factors affecting which parent can give the child(ren) a more loving, secure, and healthy home. All other factors being equal, the decision MIGHT come down on the side of the parent who doesn't smoke. Unfortunately, things are never equal.

I'm very much afraid that this one is going to be thrashed out over a couple of decades of decisions, consequences, appeals, P/R, etc., until we reach some kind of uneasy cultural consensus about it. Or until we come up with a quick n' easy cure for nicotine addiction.

Whichever comes first, alas.

pessimistically,
Bright

Other things being equal, I would award custody to the parent who doesn't smoke.

I know lots of people who "only smoke outside". It rains a lot here, and I must assume that they quit smoking when the rain sets in because I never see them outside their homes in the winter.

such behavior without cause? I have a front and back porch that are covered, and a heater out here for cooler nights. Plus, I prefer smoking outside in the cold as it invigorates me :)

The deeper assumption here is that - when tempted, humans will do the wrong thing (ie, smoking inside when they say they don't). Seems almost biblical in the sin area. Believing in the worst even when someone says they won't do such, seems almost cyncial and points to a deeper human condition which is rather ugly.

If they were, there would be no grounds for divorce.

Or on a covered back patio or some such.

for contribution to the abuse/illness of children (and adults) caused by air, water, and soil pollutions because of their refusal to legislate tighter controls.

What next? charging parents that live in highly polluted areas where studies show higher rates of asthma caused by pollution?




Asthma and Air Pollution


http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/asthma/asthma.htm

This page updated March 13, 2006

Asthma is a serious chronic lung disease that appears to be on the rise in California, the United States and many other countries around the world. The prevalence of asthma in the U.S. has increased by more than 75% since 1980; children and certain racial groups, especially African Americans, have experienced relatively greater increases in asthma prevalence. An estimated 11.9% of Californians - 3.9 million children and adults - report that they have been diagnosed with asthma at some point in their lives, compared to the national average of 10.1%. Nearly 667,000 school-aged children in California have experienced asthma symptoms during the past 12 months. Asthma causes breathing problems due to a narrowing of the airways causing the lungs to get less air. Attacks are characterized by a tight feeling in the chest, coughing and wheezing.

Air pollution plays a well-documented role in asthma attacks, however, the role air pollution plays in initiating asthma is still under investigation and may involve a very complex set of interactions between indoor and outdoor environmental conditions and genetic susceptibility. The Research Division of the Air Resources Board has been a leader in developing and supporting research to understand the relationship between air pollution and asthma. Most notably, the ARB-funded Children's Health Study at the University of Southern California found that children who participated in several sports and lived in communities with high ozone levels were more likely to develop asthma than the same active children living in areas with less ozone pollution. In another ARB-funded study, researchers at the University of California, Irvine found a positive association between some volatile organic compounds and symptoms in asthmatic children from Huntington Park. Additional ARB studies are underway and many will focus on the role of particulate matter pollution on asthma. In the Central Valley the ARB F.A.C.E.S. project is examining the role of particulate matter pollution in the exacerbation of childhood asthma.

about how bad the pollution is in Los Angeles and was it as criminal as smoking in bars or considered child abuse to live there.

I wish tobacco was illegal. Right along with crack.

buy the product in every gas station convenience store. Sure, there would be a lot of withdrawl edginess everywhere, but it would eventually lead to a better quality of life for everyone.

Also, its not necesarily the tobacco that is so bad, its all the additives that are. What keeps people smoking is the nicotine. Its not the great taste or the smell of smoke.

If you take all factors into account smoking would be low in the list. First off it is legal regardless of whether it should be or not. It is not hard for courts to decide which parent has the best interest of the child in mind. In most situations they see a spouse who cheats, one who physically abuses, one who does illegal drugs, one who does not show up for court dates, or one who cannot keep a job... and that makes their decision. In the ultra rare situation where none of these apply, well yeah then smoking could be taken into consideration.