Ramone, I agree with you up to a point, and this is where it is good to have some regulation.  Bear with me here, because I can already anticipate you railing against the government, but if we have laws regarding which things are too terrible to allow the parents to have any right to their children anymore--if we have some consistency--then we eliminate the potential for the type of abuse that you are speaking about--where someone's rights are taken because of a mistake, or because they belong to what someone else might deem a "cult."  Who decides what is a "cult"?  According to many on here, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult--so should their children be taken from them?  We get into some gray areas in some of these issues if there are not standardized answers to these issues.  If every agency decides for themselves which parents are fit and which are not, you'd have a more messed-up system than we have right now.  No, what I think is that we need to reform the laws we already have.  And I think we need to take the children's wishes into consideration.  If a child is begging and pleading not to have to spend time with a parent because they are afraid--we need to listen to them.  Most children maintain a deep desire to be with their parents even when a home is wildly dysfunctional--I have seen this in cases where you would think there would be little connection left--but if a child expresses fear or a desire not to be with a parent, I say God help the person who sends them back without listening.

As for Charles Manson--he did, in fact, father at least one child, who was adopted after the arrests and never knew who his father was until recently.  I read this in the news sometime in the last year.  I would have major issues with a child being put through that--what it would do to their self-image to maintain a link with someone like that.  Even learning this news as an adult had a major impact on this man--wondering if he could have inherited some "evil gene"--think what it would do to a child, if they visited someone like Manson in prison, with his wild, demonic eyes, and hateful speech--I think it would shatter that child's self-esteem and ideas about the world forever.  I do agree that there are things that deserve the severing of the parental relationship.  But I also think there needs to be some kind of oversight so that these things are not just decided at the discretion of a multitude of agencies or individuals.  And this is where government comes in--and laws.  And back to what we initially said--I think the laws need to be strengthened to be pro-children.
Interesting the divide here--it seems the women are pretty much consistently in agreement--maybe because we have an innate calling to protect children. 

Ramone, I am talking about both men and women.  Some of the Manson "girls" also had children, and I feel the same way.  If someone stabs a pregnant woman to death, they have given up their right to their children.  Period.  I don't care if they are man, woman, or extra-terrestial, that acted severed their rights just as it severs their rights to be in the community.  This is not a gender thing--one of the children I've known had the most problems with her mother, and I would have supported her father seeing her but not her mother until her mother got herself together.  This is what I'm saying--we HAVE to think of the children's safety over and above a parent's "rights."  As HB said, children are not posessions. 

I do not believe anyone has the right to deny parents access to there children for any reason.  I do believe that if there are certain issues that would required controlled visitation then let it happen but not denial of visitation . No Not at all. But when the child is old enough to make there own decision ok.

We have opened the door just a crack regarding this issue many years ago and now you can drive a semi through it , all in the name of child protection.  I find it , again as  control people want over others.. Lets face the facts , we all know there are people who want to control and some of us have even been married to them and it's no differant in this situation. 
It's always made to look good from the governments point but in the end it's a snare of the devil.  We Christians need to get better understanding of the worlds ways and stand against this stuff .  The word of God constantly talks about this stuff and we seem to think it's not going to effect us .
I have read on this thread that once a problems adult always a problem ed adult , not so as always we forget the God equation , no it doesn't happen very often but it does and can happen.   God is and always will be the God of a second , third , forth and every chance he can give you before he gives up on us.

Bro HS, my apology to you. In trying to quote you, I ended up deleting and modifying your original post, it wasN'T done intentionally. Pls forgive me. I need to do something abt this, as it seems to be getting the best of me again!
I did almost the same thing to Clark, the other day.

You had disagreed that the Gvt has a God-given authority to intefere with our lives.

______

Bro HS, you seem to be speaking in very general terms on Gvt's inteference with our lives. I do agree that it should have as little as possible to do with individuals, especially given that we Christians would be obedient and a yielding people to God.  However it's allowed room(which you may call, inteference), only, when can it do that?

Indeed, we're to obey God first. Yet, when we choose Kings and Queens we opened ourselves to some other authority. From our forerunners, it as the same case and then like topday, God regards Gvts, which doesn't include the ungodly, immoral, unjust stuff some of these do. And you know what, when these authorities do what is of God(which they're supposed to do), it's a good thing. I find it's when individuals fail to obey God in their lives, that often they find the Gvt on their cases. I could be wrong.

Pls see what uncle Paul wrote in his Epistle to the Roman Church and also what Uncle Peter says in his 1st Epistle -- both concerning the issue of Gvt/authority. It(the Gvt) is an institution ordained by God just like the family/Church is/are.

And let's not forget that we live in pluralistic societies.

Blessings to you,

NEWMERCIES

Good points, Dorothy.  And not only does it not serve a GOOD purpose--in fact, it is emotionally damaging to the children, and possibly lethal in some cases. 

How would all the divorced people on here like to be REQUIRED to spend time with their ex-spouse, even if the spouse was physically or emotionally abusive?  How is it that people who are so opposed to the current government will still accept the role of the government in divorcing, rather than just walking away without that intrusive government piece of paper?  Where is the mercy for the abusive ex-spouse, if you are not willing to spend weekends with them?  Children should have the same rights as adults in terms of being safe from those who would harm them.  They are not chattel, they are people. 

I'm in general agreement that the government has way too much controlling influence in how parents raise their children.

This particular case, I disagree.

Child porn is at the top 2 of my list of horrible sins and crimes. Right behind murder.

Child porn is not the same as "porn" where consenting adults are doing whatever.
Child porn is a crime in the highest degree. Those 8 year old girls are not consenting to be raped by 55 year old men.
And who is recording this dastardly activity?

Once several years ago before I discovered that you do NOT click on links you receive in your inbox, I stumbled onto a child porn site.
It was the kind of experience that you stare in disbelief at your screen for 30 seconds trying to figure out if you are really seeing what you think you are seeing…
Then… the rest of the night, you can't eat your dinner and you can't sleep.  You realize the horror those children are going through.
They are, literally, 5 year old girls, 10 year old girls,  having sex with old men, with someone there taking pictures.
Sometimes it is 5 and 10 year old boys having sex with old men.
What horrible, horrible crime that is.

People don't watch that stuff without having serious, serious problems.

People that want to watch child porn should not ever be allowed to be around children..
I don't care if it the government making rules or anyone else. It is the way it should be.  

A man that was convicted of child porn should not be allowed near children, and it doesn't matter if it is his children or anyone else's.
There is no other way to look at it. And just to say that government has too much control over us doesn't justify this serious mistake.

In this case, the children come first. Who cares if we don’t like big government? Children come first. Period.