>Saluda, I understand your reference to a psychopathic person
>but do not understand your reference to a psychotic
>person,,,do you mean if a mom or dad has a psychotic episode
>they should have their children taken from them or if a
>person has had a psychotic episode they should not have
>children?

I am replying to your question, AND NOT IN ANY WAY REPLYING IN REFERENCE TO THE GLICK FAMILY THING.

No, I don't mean either of those that you asked about:

"if a mom or dad has a psychotic episode they should have their children taken from them or

"if a person has had a psychotic episode they should not have children?"

There are medications that can control psychosis most of the time. The drug companies are working hard on this.

If a parent has had a psychotic episode, there would need to be some kind of evaluation about the source of the episode - drug-induced or onset on psychotic disease and an evaluation of the safety of children. An example is the gal who drowned her 5 children in Texas.

If it were a temporary thing - such as drug-induced psychotic episode, such as use of pcp - then custody should be given to the closest MATERNAL side family member who has been found able, capable, and willing to give care to the children, and if the the mother is willing to undergo rehab, then follow up that closely to make sure she has completed rehab and can pass a set of psychological tests and a psycho-social interview about parententing, in the least.

Whether or not people who have had a non-drug-induced psychotic episode should have children:
This is way out of the ball park of this forum. The person should seek both psychological and genetic couseling, imho.