Suing the State

From the Philidelphia Inquirer comes word of someone suing City Hall.

After allegedly starving their disabled daughter to death, the parents of Danieal Kelly turned around and sued the city for failing to protect the girl from them.Andrea and Daniel Kelly, with the help of some greedy attorneys, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the city, state and outside social service contractors who were charged with supervising Danieal while she was under her mother’s care.

The suit was filed a day after the couple was charged in the death of Danieal, 14, who weighed just 42 pounds when her bedsore-ridden and maggot-infested corpse was found in a squalid West Philadelphia rowhouse, where she lived with her mother and siblings.

…There are nine children who lived through the horror of watching their 14-year-old sister waste away.

H/T The Rougblog

I, for one, think this suit is perfectly logical. When the State takes on responsibility for breeding and raising children, why shouldn’t it be held accountable when it fails?

The State had never previously required the Kellys to display any personal responsibility. Why is it all of a sudden their fault just because they inconvenience a few social workers and cops? Isn’t starving their daughter to death simply exceeding the expectations of those who “were charged with supervising Danieal while she was under her mother’s care.”?

Supervising Danieal?? Mother’s care??

“[C]ity, state and outside social service contractors,” told Andrea Kelly that since she was unwilling to accept responsibility for her own life, they’d pay her to have 10 children. When she did that, they had another deal – “You give up your rights as a parent and we’ll make sure you don’t hurt your kids.”

The State consistently fails to live up to such contracts and ought to be sued until it stops making them.

For example: You give up the right to own firearms and we’ll make sure you’re safe. You give up the right to free speech and we’ll make sure corruption is taken out of politics. You give up 6% of your income and we’ll take care of you in your old age.

Lest you think I’m overwrought about nanny-statism and the destruction of personal freedom in this case, let’s look at what’s happening across the pond.

Dangerously overweight children will have to be taken from their parents and put into care because of Britain’s worsening “obesity epidemic”, council leaders have warned….The Local Government Association (LGA), which represents 400 councils in England and Wales, predicted social services teams would have to take drastic action to improve the health of seriously overweight children.

…the LGA warned that social services might have to treat very fat children as victims of “parental neglect” – just as malnourished children are.

It predicted that social services would have to intervene “more and more” with obese children. It added that councils would have to take action against parents who put their children’s health at risk, with the ultimate sanction of taking the fattest boys and girls into care.

…The Government faced criticism this month after it announced plans to warn parents if their child had a weight problem, but banned the use of the word “obese”. The Department of Health is instructing primary care trusts to inform all parents automatically about their child’s height and weight as part of a national measuring programme.

But ministers do not want the word “obese” to be used in the letters after research showed people find it “highly offensive”.

A public health expert, David Hunter, of Durham University, this week warned that rising obesity levels posed as a grave a threat to Britain as terrorism and urged “bold action” by ministers.


Yeah, take them away from their parents and make them wards of the state because they are more dangerous than terrorism, but don’t you dare hurt their self esteem by using the word “obese.” Maybe if they weren’t protected from being called “el-chunko” or “fatty” by their peers the problem would go away on its own. However, that sort of “hate speech” is already prohibited in Britain. The parents would probably sue.

For extra credit, is this British “parenting” initiative A) a different problem from Philadelphia’s or, B) the same problem?

For extra, extra credit, should the United States consider suing the Brits for restriction of trade, since they’ll be limiting sales of Coca-Cola and Twinkies as a matter of government policy? The precedent for this, of course, would be the Democrat suggestion that we sue OPEC into pumping more oil while we refuse to drill for our own.

If we can sue some country for not producing what we want when we want it, why can’t we sue one for not buying what we want them to buy.

The inane idea of suing OPEC for oil is of a piece with the Philadelphia and British solutions to child abuse. The explanation of this connection is left to the student.