Saturday, 19 June 2010

Is Province Liable for Foster Mom's Live-in Partner?

From Here...
We'll call her RD.
Her new foster mother, M, it seems, was going through difficult times of her own. She was a single mom, newly divorced, raising two children of her own as well as four foster children.
M also had a new live-in boyfriend, a 27-year-old unemployed auto mechanic and car thief named Thomas Svekla.
Svekla had a drinking and drug problem -- he'd been in and out of court-ordered rehab at AADAC's Henwood Treatment Centre. Svekla had a criminal record, though not a long one. He'd amassed convictions for drinking and driving, property theft, and, more ominously, assaulting a prostitute in downtown Edmonton.

This story is symptomatic of the crisis in our society that most people just don't recognize, or at least acknowledge. There is a general moral breakdown, a degenerating moral attitude that is much deeper than most people will admit.

In the above story, the root of the problem is not that this guy (since convicted of killing a prostitute) had such a record. It is that this foster mom had a live-in boyfriend. That in itself should have disqualified her from being a foster parent.

I have said before, on this blog and in personal conversations, that the most devastating moral issue today is not the increasing acceptance of the gay rights agenda. It is the acceptance of common law, or live-in, or shack-up relationships as equivalent to marriage. This accepting attitude, whether it is a symptom, a cause, or a result of society's decreasing adherance to a right sexual morality, has, and will continue to have, devastating results -- results that many will not attribute to the real cause. So called (or actual) child poverty, for instance, is a cause celebre in many circles, often liberal, but they cannot admit that the real root of the problem is single parenthood, which often results from of sexual improriety of one kind or another, either, may I opine, sexual activity outside of true and proper marriage, or the ending of a sexual relationship where one or both partners were not committed enough to each other to stand up before God and witnesses and vow to remain together for life.

So I sympathise with RD. I suspect others do as well. But the anger is directed toward the wrong people, at least it is for the wrong reason. The moral outrage is not that this particular foster mom had this particular live-in boyfriend, but that she had one at all.

Take Care

No comments: