You keep saying "objectively harmful" I'm not sure what the basis of this claim is, unfortunately.
I would argue that mentally fit parents with no prior history of cruelty towards their child should be in a position to determine what constitutes harm to their child in cases like this. There is no objective standard at play
-
-
The only realistic argument for the state to make here is that it doesn't see this case as worthy of financing any further since the child is unlikely to recover. The best interests of the child, etc, is pure moral cover for this
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.