Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

I didn't hear the whole story, but did catch a little bit of a discussion
on NPR - there were two guest speakers. Both seemed to feel that there 
need to a clear list of things that should be checked when incidence of 
child welfare problems is reported and known. Both said this does not always 
happen. There was some discussion about caseloads & whether they were too 
heavy or not, giving the workers too much to handle to adquately look keep 
abreast of each child. I don't remember any clear conclusion being drawn.
The final part of the discussion was about how much drug problems enter into
this kind of thing (if I remember correctly, about 80% of the cases). I think
this girl's mother was a cocaine addict.

I have sometimes felt that there was too much emphasis on keeping children with 
their parents.  Although I think the biggest factor is that there is simply 
not enough common sense used. In situations which sound as though the 
children were in clear danger it has often seemed stranged to me that the
children were left with their parent or given back to their parent, while
in other cases, it seems like the child-parent relationship has been 
interfered with on very little grounds & the silliest of reasons - ie
the woman who was still breast feeding her 2 year old and the child was
taken away because of "sexual abuse".

Leslie

    I can understand the social workers being overworked and overburdened
    with bureaucracy.  But in those cases where abuse has been established,
    action should be immediate, decisive and permanent!
    
    When the child has cigarette burns, broken bones, too many bruises to 
    have been "accidental" and burnt hair, the child should be removed 
    immediately.  At that point there should be no second chances.  The
    parent(s) should be viewed as a criminal(s) and a danger to the child.
    The cause for his/her/their behavior (drugs, whatever) might be of 
    interest to someone involved in any rehabilitation effort but should 
    have no bearing whatsoever on the decision to keep the child safe.
    Ferther, the parent(s) should continue to bear the finalcial burden of 
    raising the child.  No exceptions.  No visitation rights.  Nothing
    except a court mandated child support check every month arriving at the
    home of the foster parents.  These people are dangerous criminals and
    they ought to be treated as such.
    
    -dave
    
    

Re: .2

With due process of law, of course -- right, Dave?

				-- Bob

    >>With due process of law, of course -- right, Dave?
    
    With the same amount of "due process" given the child when he/she was
    being tortured.  
    
    

I think one of the problems is that people are reluctant to break up
families. The standard rule seems to be, only place the child in a
foster situation when absolutely necessary. There are probably several
reasons, one is cost, two is lack of good foster situations, another is
that families have always been important in our society. I think they 
still should be important, but of course, not at the cost of a child's
life, or even at the cost of a child being battered and abused. 

The problem is: it can be fine judgement call on the part of social services.  
That is where the case load issue comes into play. Does the worker have 
adequate time to visit each home on their case list often enough? Do they
have enough time to spend an adequate amount of time at each home? Do
they know what they should be looking for?  Does the child know them well 
enough to trust them to be on their side, and therefore open up with them? 
What are the signs that a child is in real danger? Some are blatant, but 
others are not so blatent.

I don't think it is a simple matter, and I don't think the solution will
be simple either in terms of being absolutley black and white. I also have
a feeling there will always be tragic cases like this where a child slips
through all the safe guards and is badly, badly injured or killed. I would
hope (and I pray) that we would be able to greatly reduce those cases.

Leslie

Re:. 4 Dave

How is that different from saying that a person who is accused of murder
should have the same "due process" as the murder victim?  Or is it
different?

				-- Bob

    >>How is that different ...
    
    In many cases, there's no question about who did the beating.  The
    parent admits guilt yet gets custody of the child for repeat beatings.
    The children are beaten/burned/broken again and again while the parent(s)
    are getting "chances" or are being "counciled".  "Due process" the
    parent in court but only AFTER the child has been removed from harm's
    way, an action that should require no due process whatsoever.  And the 
    parent's "due process" should be in the environment of a criminal
    trial.  
    
    Imagine being the doctor in the emergency room when that 6-year ond
    girl was brought in for the last time.  She has a familiar young face 
    that you've seen several times before.  In the interest of protecting
    "Mom's" rights, we kept sending her back into battle until she was
    finally killed.  Bull!
    
    
                                      

Dave,

I think there needs to be a balance between protecting the rights of the
families (parents and children) and protecting the safety of the children.
I've heard horror stories about DSS storm troopers swooping in and taking
children based on the unsubstantiated word of neighbors or child care
workers where in fact *no* abuse had taken place.

I agree that children may need to be put into temporary protective
custody, but only where there is evidence that abuse has taken place (not
just hearsay).  And children should not be permanently taken from the
parents until the parents have had their day in court - the burden of
proof should be on the state to show why a family should be broken up.

In clear cases of abuse, though, I agree that the law needs to do more
than it currently does to protect children.

				-- Bob

    Bob and Dave,
    
    What you and I and the rest of us don't hear about is all the good
    that DSS has done in getting kids out of bad situations, and in many
    cases, successfully reuniting families.  We only get the horror stories
    when DSS over or under reacts to a given situation.  Most social
    workers for DSS are underpaid, overloaded with cases, and it is amazing
    given this that more kids aren't critically injured or killed each
    year, or otherwise slide through the cracks.  
    
    Meg, who has known a few intake workers at DSS and their admnistrative
    staff.

    Meg:
    
    You bring up a valid point.  Like anything else, be it the fringe
    groups of faith or social issues, the bad apples get the notariety.
    
    Unfortunately there was somewhat of a scandel up here in Massachusetts
    a few years ago and I don't know if they ever recovered.  DSS pulled a
    young boy out of school without the consent of the parents, without
    notifying the parents, and on unsubstantiated heresay.  Because of the
    awkward situation they got in, instead of doing the right thing they
    tried to cover their tracks and the boy was separated for well over a
    year.  Even the liberal talk show hosts up here were appalled.
    
    -Jack

    jack,
    
    I don't know why you would think "liberals" would be appalled at this. 
    It happens to our kids too, and the damage to a family from having been
    needlessly seperated is dreadful.
    
    what is more dreadful is when DSS fails to do its job, and a child or
    children wind up dead or so severely injured they can't care for
    themselves when they grow up.  
    
    Doses of caution on each side are what is called for.

    If one's perspective of the world was limited to what one sees/reads in
    the media, one would think that catholic priests are professional child 
    molesters.  The DSS and others have saved thousands but will never be
    recognized for it because that sort of thing it seems is not noteworthy.
    
    IMO, a family that beats it's children is undeserving of the child(ren)
    it abuses.  And the people who do the abusing belong behind bars.  If
    we were talking about rape, we'd demand the rapist be caught, tried,
    sentanced and put behind bars.  No 2nd chances to recommit the horrible
    act!  But when the victim is a child, we somehow find more compassion 
    for the abuser, saying that it was the fault of drugs or poor living
    conditions or something.  Why are the children given lower regard?  Seems 
    to me they should be given higher regard as they are teh innocent and
    require the protection of adults.  
    
    -dave

    Sorry.  In Massachusetts, it is a long tradition that anything from the
    government is good...no matter how ghastly it is and anything from the
    Private sector is bad.  Example.  Digital is the third largest Employer
    in Massachusetts, right behind Ratheon and the State government.  The
    Boston Globe is a local communist rag, the ink should be red.  Anyway,
    the Boston Globe in years past for some reason has had it out for
    Digital, never saw any accolades of any kind.  
    
    Things have changed substantially since the Dukakas' administration 
    faded away.  The current governor is doing alot to bolster the private
    sector in the commonwealth.  
    
    -Jack

    With the author's permission, I have changed the title of this string
    for the sake of ease in locating the topic in the future.
    
    Richard Jones-Christie
    Co-moderator/CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE
    

    Another wrinkle in the picture.  I have discussed the matter of
    corporal punishment with others and have noticed those against it
    categorize spankings and the like with beating your kid.  I find this
    an abuse of the term considering what a real child goes through when
    they are "beaten".  It minimizes the trajedy of abuse.
    
    This is something that is taboo to government and it would probably be
    in the governments best interest not to get involved.  The lawsuits and
    litigation would be disasterous.
    
    -Jack

    Equating spanking with child beating is like equating dentistry with
    sadism.  The intent and the overall result is what you have to look at.
    The overall good of the child should be paramount in whatever you do.
    
    -dave