Well, if you could consider commenting on a Facebook status as a conversation….

I rarely to speak to my mother, because, well, she’s a rather silly woman. She doesn’t listen well, believes only what she wants to be true, and is really self-centered. I could probably go on, but it’s hardly worth the effort.

Never mind that we’re poles apart religiously, politically, and a host of other “allys”; she’s very, very liberal, but always sounds as though she’s simply parroting others’ opinions. I don’t think I’ve heard very many original ideas from her, at least not in the last couple decades.

For example, she made much of President Obama’s candidacy and campaign, yet seemed to give little actual thought to his background and experience. She became overly-involved with my son’s issues, and adamantly refused to listen to anyone other than him, even to discounting and ignoring the facts.

Back to today’s interaction: she posted, as her status on Facebook, a small rant on her local paper’s use of the word “elderly”. Now, even I would agree that a 70-year-old should probably not be called “elderly” – maybe “aged” would be a better choice. Semantics, yes, but valid.

Of course, I’m 45; Mom is almost 69. Naturally, she doesn’t consider herself elderly, but I wouldn’t either. At 45, I suppose I’d be “middle-aged” – not a fan of that label, but I am certainly in the middle of my life, hence the terminology.

Mom went on to say that using the word “elderly” was discriminatory and offensive and obsolete – in other words, not politically correct.

Huh?

Are we to become a world of nothing? Everyone the same, no description? Shouldn’t we also stop using words such as “toddler” or “teenager” or “young adult”? By this criterion, even using words like “short” or “tall” should be banned. Should I be offended if I’m referred to as middle-aged? I might not like it, but too bad, that’s what I am.

Here’s the silly part: she also said that some 90-year-olds weren’t elderly – what, then, are they? I’m pretty sure that the only thing left after “elderly” is “dead”. They may not think of themselves as such, but they surely are – elderly, that is, not dead.

She also mentioned, as reference to obsolescence, other “gender-specific and ethnic terms”. She didn’t give examples, but seriously? What are we supposed to call a “man” or a “woman” or a “German” or an “American”? Really? Should we all become genderless clones, nonsexual entities of no country or culture or ethnicity?

Yes, let us bow to political correctness.

Oh, and Mom, if you read this – which I doubt – please note that Elderhostel did not change their name, only the name of their program component. And, while you’re writing letters to the Post, you might want to write to Elderhostel too. In the section on their webpage, where they’re talking about their new name, they urge readers to “turn up their speakers” to hear the pronunciation. Sounds a lot like, according to the way your mind works, they are talking down to older people, assuming they can’t hear or can’t pronounce a simple word. You might want to point that out to them.

One last thought: “elders” were historically the older, wiser members of a tribe. It’s certainly not denigrating to refer to one as an elder, or “elderly”. Of course, in the case of some older folks, wisdom may be implied, but certainly is not assured. Some few merely get carried away with following the herd.

So yesterday we had another FT meeting. Two things initially caught my attention: one, our lovely caseworker mentioned a promotion. I’m still wondering why and for what, but I don’t really care.

Two, she actually asked us to introduce ourselves. For the umpteenth time. We’ve only been meeting for SIX months. Holy cow. Seriously.

And of course, the subject of today’s post: follow-up visits.

I said something about being glad to be done with this and she said, “Oh, no – I’ll be coming every week to visit.” Oh, heck no! I told her that was fine, but I wouldn’t be home when she came. No way. Nope.

Now here’s the deal: my son was taken into custody because he was being a butthead. No two ways about it, but that’s the short version. He was taken away in handcuffs, for crying out loud. Both officers who answered that call agreed that this was the proper procedure, because he was the problem.

He declined medical care. Until he was booked into detention. Then he called me to come pick him up. I said no. By the next morning, he was taken into “protective” custody because of 1) the stories he told and 2) his DJO was out-of-town and her supervisor took charge. Now, his DJO has stated that this would NOT have happened if she had been available. She gets him, she’s not stupid.

After a quick hearing a few days later, the judge ordered him to remain in foster care and set another hearing to determine the outcome of the case.

At that second hearing, the judge said that “these parents have done nothing wrong” but ordered my son to stay in foster care, undergo counseling, obtain an education, and so forth; he also ordered that he remain on probation.

Does this sound like a typical foster care situation? Seems to me that the judge gave us, the family, an opportunity to regroup; it has nothing whatsoever to do with my son being “abused” or “neglected” because he simple wasn’t and isn’t.

Yet, merely because he’s in the foster system, by his own actions, the rest of the family must continuously deal with the state’s ludicrous rules and procedures.

The foster system is in place to protect children. This is a child, and I use that term loosely, who needs no protection, although he has certainly caused turmoil and upset for his family. So why continue this farce? I’m quite sure the answer is “because those are the guidelines.”

What are “guidelines”, exactly? By definition, a guideline is a general roadmap to help a person make decisions. It’s not a hard-and-fast rule, it’s certainly not law.

Apparently, no bureaucracy can function at all without rigidly following the “guidelines” and interpreting them as law.

Now, since this child does not need protection, and this should have been ascertained and incorporated into the order, why in the world should the Children’s Division need to continue to interfere? I’m sure I don’t know.

And I’m quite sure no one will be able to give a coherent answer. We can only hope that the judge continues to exhibit wisdom, rather than following the guidelines like all the other sheep.