> > So this morning I looked at the news, and there was an alert about a California girl allegedly abducted by her mother who has mental issues.

Update: The kid (I originally said it was a girl, but it was actually a boy) was found. With his mother. Unharmed.

> > This is the second time in a week that California has issued alerts for kidnappings that seem to be done by parents. If the state begins broadcasting every parental abduction, we're going to be flooded with missing children reports.

> I don't mean to be argumentative, but why do you classify parental abductions from other ones? It seems that a lot of people are willing to accept abductions done by a parent a lot more readily than ones done by strangers... To me, it seems like any abductions, period, are bad.

Because the parents, for the large part, take their children out of desperation. The know that the state employees who decide the child's future are overworked and underpaid, and that those workers really couldn't care less about the child. Custody is granted, visitation rights are set, and that's one more case out of the way.

Real children have been severely hurt in this process. I saw two little girls under the age of 6 be forced to visit their abusive father. The mother, a truly GOOD parent if I ever saw one, actually had to comfort her daughters and tell them it would be OK. In another case, I know a mother who was prepared to take her children and run, rather than lose custody of them. She wasn't the type of mother to harm her children, either.

So, what does this have to do with the question? It means that, rather than spend all the time, money, and resources to look for the children after their parents have reached the desperation point, the state should put that money toward the earlier phase. Closing the proverbial barn door after the cows are out does nothing more than cover up for a mistake.

Ellmyruh