What are your thoughts on this article from: Child Welfare Law?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gershom
  • Start date Start date
G

Gershom

Guest
"At the heart of the criticism of family preservation is one overriding assumption: If you remove a child from the home, the child will be safe. If you leave a child at home the child is at risk. In fact, there is risk in either direction, but real family preservation programs have a better record for safety than foster care.
And even when families don’t get special help, two major new studies have found that children left in their own homes typically do better than comparably maltreated children placed in foster care."

Read whole article via this link:
http://www.childwelfare.com/Child%20Welfare%20Law.htm
sorry this link will take you directly to the article, my bad!

http://www.nccpr.org/newissues/1.html
 
There is no doubt that SOME kids absolutely need to be removed from the care of their natural parents, and SOME of those kids need to never be returned. But I appreciate the acknowledgment that this is not always the case. Putting a child in a new family is not a guarantee of safety - it is only a guarantee of a new family. Which creates a situation where the child must deal with the loss of their family of origin. This loss must be acknowledged, regardless of any previous abuse. (My parents were abusive. I still love them. I choose - for now - to not allow them in my life. It's STILL a loss. They are STILL my parents, the people who created me. It does not matter WHY the loss happened. It HAPPENED.)

It can be hard to stay on one subject. So often, we hear, "yes, but...[the parents were abusive, it's better than what they had before, they could have been aborted, they could have been thrown in a dumpster, they could have been abandoned, they could have chosen not to feed the kid (yes, saw that just the other day)]". The only thing this does is take the focus from the reality. None of those scenarios remove the reality. It just minimizes the very real, very valid feelings of loss that these children have a right to feel. All it is, is adults who can't handle emotion running away from their child's reality, trying to minimize, deny, invalidate, explain, etc.

The FACT is that it is better for children to be with their natural families whenever possible. Parents can choose to get help, get better, learn how to not abuse, find other options, and when they DO those things, it is much better for their child to be with THEM. As a survivor of child abuse, I can attest to the fact that if my parents had chosen to get help, to acknowledge that they had a major problem, and if they had fought for ME, even once, I would have been much better off with THEM.

I can also attest to the fact that getting put in foster care is not a guarantee of a loving family. My bff spent years in foster care. Her foster mother made fun of her, treated her like dirt, and used her for the paycheck. When I found out about her experience, that shattered my perfect little view of "what could have been" in a home other than my family's abusive home. I should have been removed from their care, yes. BUT the fact is, that being removed from their care might not have kept me safe. And regardless of whether or not I would have been safe somewhere else, I would have had to deal with missing my family. They had some redeeming qualities - not the least of which is the fact that they created me - and I would have missed them terribly.

I spent a short time in foster care (a few days). I felt exposed, strange, unwanted, and all I wanted was my [abusive] family back. Even now, when I have CHOSEN to kick them out of my life...I miss them. I cry for the fact that they never admitted what they did to me, never tried to do better.

Life with my family - MY family - well, whole, recovered, and with therapy, would have been much better than the alternative. Even if it was a good home...it's still not MY family. Thanks for posting this.
 
The article is totally true. It doesn't matter what issues or 'deficiencies' the social workers *think* you've got, nobody should steal your kid of you, there your kid and you can do what you want and you know better than any social worker.
 
In Nov 2007 Children’s Rights, the nonprofit child welfare reform group, released a report in 2007 advocating FULL reimbursement of expenses incurred by foster parents Richard Wexler (NCCPR executive director) issued a very different take: He told the news media that the idea of giving more money to foster parents, rather than to impoverished birth parents, “is built on a foundation of fear and stereotype.”

NCCPR tends to skew information to encourage family preservation at all costs even in the case of substance abuse.
 
Interesting article.

This part though struck me right away: "... two major new studies have found that children left in their own homes typically do better than comparably maltreated children placed in foster care."

Comparably maltreated.

It's sad the best we can do for kids are 2 options: leave them at home to be abused by their parents or to place them in foster care to be abused by strangers.
 
I think I have to agree with the article. I've heard so many stories from so many people who have had awful lives growing up in the system. If more parents are able to take parenting classes, etc I think it would definitely be better for the children (probably even the parents) to stay in their home.
 
Back
Top