Two boys aged 11 and 13 made a list of young girls (ages not reported) and sexual acts they wanted to carry out on those girls. The boys’ mother discovered the list and handed it to CYFS in 2006. CYFS sat on their hands and did nothing until it came to light that 28 of the girls on the list had been sexually assaulted or “targeted” (actions not reported). CYFS then leapt into action by calling a community meeting, presumably embarrassing everyone involved. The police are now investigating and the boys are being called “sexual predators”.

To be fair to the initial social worker, (s)he may have been keen to avoid blowing some childish nonsense out of proportion and blighting these boys’ lives with reputations as weirdos. But where was some common sense? Why didn’t the CYFS social worker immediately confront the boys, educate them about the impropriety and gravity of their thinking and warn them of the dire consequences if they acted on any of their fantasies? Advice to the boys’ mother and a phone call to their teachers urging discretion but encouraging careful supervision for a while would also have been appropriate.

And what about the boys’ father(s)? Had he been expelled from the family by the mum who decided after bringing children into the world with him that she would be “happier” with only his money? Did the CYFS social worker think to inform the father and to seek his input into the situation? Most fathers would handle a situation like this effectively, providing some father-son discussion and perhaps punishment or a threat to desist from such behaviour. Oh, I forgot, then he would be a controlling, threatening male whose behaviour would traumatize the boys. Better to do nothing, let the boys carry on their delinquent behaviour until they actually committed crimes and ruined thier own lives. That’s much less traumatic and won’t model control through violence so that must be much better for them, huh?

The case sounds very much like one involving a fatherless family. I guess the mother felt out of her depth in understanding or managing their sexual development that was very much in need of adult male guidance. The mistake she made was thinking that CYFS, the large agency that we pay to deal with child-related difficulties, would act sensibly to solve the problem.

Why is that such an unrealistic expectation? Because CYFS and the laws empowering it are so infected with false feminist ideology. When the underlying beliefs are wrong, the solutions will rarely be adequate. For example, CYFS has for many years, long before Bradford’s lunacy, imposed on us its own “zero tolerance” policy against smacking, threatening parents or actually removing children when parents used physical punishment. Also, CYFS routinely threaten mothers with removal of their children if they don’t end their relationships with men whom CYFS don’t like. Maleness and traditional male methods of disciplining children are defined as bad, regardless of poor research backing for these positions. With such mentality indoctrinated into CYFS workers’ beliefs, no wonder they don’t think of involving a father in dealing with teenage boys’ problems.

Again to be fair, the CYFS social worker probably had to prioritize his or her activities because there was nowhere near enough time to do everything that might be sensible to do. This is a problem of hopelessly unrealistic expectations placed on such services. But instead of reducing the scope of state control, governments constantly expand it. Feminist ideology has again been central in this foolishness. How much more unnecessary work is now coming to CYFS from busybodies reporting their neighbours for smacking or use of other force for discipline? Remember, we will continue to get the stupidity that we don’t vote against.