Home
Recent Entries Friends Archive User Info Tags elephant news
 
 
 
 
 
 
Yesterday I got into an unpleasant discussion with another LJ user on the topic of Child Protection Agencies and the removal of children from their homes wither upon the determination of, or while the situation is being investigated whether the child is safer being removed from the parents or the current place of residence.

Based on my experience working with children who have been temporarily or permanently removed from their homes and working within the system of special education, and in particular with children with emotional trauma, I claimed that it is a no-brainer that children should be taken out of situations in which they are abused, neglected or harmed in any way, and provided with medical and psychological help to make it possible for them to become functioning members of society. To the claim that separation from parents is a traumatic experience that should be examined in its own right, and might not be worth the damage to the family, I responded that if such a dramatic action is required, the trauma of separation in almost cases is diminished by the trauma sustained by leaving the situation in the present condition. To that reply came demands for statistics, insults about the quality of my arguments, and not so veiled insinuations that I am a brainless minion in a system I don't understand who is just following orders. I was also told that I am in no position to judge or be involved in any situation that concerns the separation of children from parents because I do not have children of my own.

After that I was directed to a discussion in which the author, and numerous others, elaborately explored their fears, concerns and terror in the face of loosing their own children to a brainless, medieval organization whose sole purpose is to break up families and tear children away from their parents for no reason whatsoever, or because of some freak accident. (my favorite suggestion was "why can't we let the POLICE handle those kinds of situations"). They saw CPS as a huge looming monster peeking into windows and making stealthy Stalinist reports on innocent people who are unable to protect themselves from the system, and have no one to turn to for help if they are "targeted to be next". It took me a while to pinpoint exactly what was so grotesque about that position, but I think I got it -

To all concerned and terrified parents, parents-to-be, conscientious objectors and other "innocent" bystanders - THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU, and it is not even about YOUR rights.

This is about the children who are starved, beaten, raped, burned, tied up, put away in cages, poisoned, frozen, made ill, molested, left alone for hours, not treated for illness, given drugs or alcohol, and psychologically abused by threats or screaming, or kids who have to live in dirty and dangerous shelters because the parents are too drunk, too sick, too incompetent, or too absent to even acknowledge having a child. This is about the three year old who has her head held down in the a toilet full of feces for misbehaving by her mother, and at the age of 11 still has a pathological fear of water to the point that she will only drink things that are not clear.

This is not about the child who comes in with a few bruises and a social worker investigates your family. NOT ONLY SHOULD YOU NOT BE TERRIFIED if that ever happens - you should be grateful for the fact that such a system is in place - because your child could be getting those bruises from bullies on the way from school - or from a teacher - or from a family member - and is too scared to tell either you or the teacher about it - and next month those bullies will drag him into a dark alley and rape him. Then you can explore the nature of fear for the rest of your life if your kid actually has evidence of being hurt and you find out about the incident - but most likely he'll follow the normal path of being ashamed and hiding it at all costs, and if you wonder why he suddenly turned into a violent depressed dysfunctional shadow of himself, you should think about whether or not you took too much upon yourself when you deemed your rights as parents holy and impenetrable, because you knew better than anyone else. And if you accidentally drop your child and he breaks his arm and the doctor calls DSS - someone SHOULD talk to you and determine whether you ARE COMPETENT enough to care for that child - because if you are not, and you drop him again, you are not anyone any favors.

This is about the children who, if they came to your playground, you would grab you kids and run - because these are the children that hit, and bite, and steal, and lie, and in almost all cases it is a direct result of trauma to which they were exposed to either by their primary caretakers or because of neglect on the part of their primary caretakers - and they only way to give them a fighting chance of survival is if I do something about it. Even it's something small, like being their teacher, and believing that they have a right and the ability to learn things in school just like regular kids, even if they are sitting there replaying the scene of their drugged out mother falling out of a five story window over and over again in their head for the seventh year in a row. And it's going to happen within the framework of the imperfect but definitely functioning system, that really doesn't care about you or your privileged spawn shivering with terror of being separated, or proudly marching down the street waving the red flag of statistics. It's going to happen within a system that will go through changes slowly but with the sole purpose of finding the best ways of protecting children at risk, and doing it to the best of their ability (and not worrying about you).

And yes, there are clear guidelines about when and how and for what reasons things are done the way they are done. In many situations parents who are doing the damage to the child do not see the whole picture - either because they are limited, or stupid or incompetent. If does not need to be deliberate harm. But it does not mean that the child does not need someone to advocate for him.

As far as the cost of mistakes, or taking things too far - those are difficult issues and they are right to be raised. Good, nurturing parents should not have to fear outside intervention into their lives and the lives of their children. But demands for scrapping the existing system at the expense of children who are being saved by it, is not only irresponsible and selfish, it is grotesque. This is a system that can only be made better by support and intervention by concerned parties who know and understand how things work, what is at stake, and who primarily worry about others before themselves. And it should be done on the other 355 days of the year, not when a controversial event is happening that lets you scream and point fingers make demands, and point out faults and imperfections.

If you want to help, help. This IS a delicate and vulnerable world, in which a huge amount depends on luck, and love, and understanding, and hope, and of course, tried and true practical actions. This is a system that to a large part runs on "those who care" and "do what they can". Mostly, because no one outside of the system wants to touch it with a twenty foot pole, and those who are in it, do it because they care, and not about themselves. If you want to help, even if to take time out of your busy schedule to compile any missing statistics, which I am sure would be extremely helpful for any objective evaluations, that would be great. If you don't want to help, with all due respect, stuff it.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Алиса, можно я это переведу и дам ссылку? У меня одна знакомая недавно поругалась во френдленте ровно по тому же поводу.
da konechno mozhno....
Aliska,
i thought up long and hard before replying, thought up very long replies, and point-to-point replies, and what's-not.

However, all of it can be summed up by this:

if even a fraction of the CPS and people associated with CPS think along the lines of what you've written here, I'm terrified, for myself -- and for the child i am about to "squeeze out", even though, of course, this is not at all about me.

That's all.
no, i guess i can't shut up.
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation

this is of what this mindset reminds me.
No, it's not about you, and if you terrors are realized at any point of the life of your soon to be born child, I'll take the damage done to you and your family under account when formulating my opinions.

I also think it is rather cruel and insensitive of you to use language that refers to a situation that you know caused me a lot of grief, and that I very much regretted being a part of , and "squeezing" it into conversation. It feels very much like a deliberate stab in the back.

Yes, most people who work with or for or around CPS think along the lines that I do. Though most of them are a lot less educated and intelligent, and aren't as willing to consider opposing sides or arguments.

it is a no-brainer that children should be taken out of situations in which they are abused, neglected or harmed in any way

You mean that the only children that may be left at home are those who are not harmed by their in *any* way? Any way at all? How many would that leave?

THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU, and it is not even about YOUR rights.

And it's going to happen within the framework of the imperfect but definitely functioning system, that really doesn't care about you or your privileged spawn shivering with terror of being separated

Fair enough, but is it really that "grotesque" to be protective of ones rights in dealing with a system that starts with the premise of not caring about you or your rights?

This is about the children who are starved, beaten, raped, burned, tied up, put away in cages, poisoned, frozen, made ill, molested, left alone for hours, not treated for illness, given drugs or alcohol, and psychologically abused by threats or screaming, or kids who have to live in dirty and dangerous shelters because the parents are too drunk, too sick, too incompetent, or too absent to even acknowledge having a child.

What about children whose parents raise their children in a religious tradition that is at odds with "the guidelines"? Is not feeding your child milk or meat abuse? What about cutting off your son's foreskin while putting wine in their mouth when he is a mere 8-day-old baby? Made ill how? Not treated from what illness? You make all of these sound so clear-cut. And as for threats and screaming, I think that most of my Russian Jewish "privileged spawn" friends are still dealing with decades-old trauma based on that. Should we all have been institutionalized long ago?

In many situations parents who are doing the damage to the child do not see the whole picture - either because they are limited, or stupid or incompetent.

I would go a step further and say that most of the psychological damage done to children is done by parents who do not appreciate the full scope of their actions' consequences, and necessarily because they are stupid or incompetent, but first and foremost because they are human...

Good, nurturing parents should not have to fear outside intervention into their lives and the lives of their children.

Yes, and people who are not terrorists shouldn't fear about having their phone conversation tapes. Same exact fallacy, only worse, for at least a person who is innocent will take a lot of brainwashing to be convinced that he really did plot to blow the world up. A parent accused of psychologically abusing her child is never quite sure that she is innocent...


This is a system that to a large part runs on "those who care" and "do what they can".

Aliska, my dear, but is that not the very definition of a Stalinist society?

If you don't want to help, with all due respect, stuff it.

Вот и поговорили :) I only wish that I could say I have an alternative system to suggest. Do you know how similar or different these services are in other Western countries?
What about children whose parents raise their children in a religious tradition that is at odds with "the guidelines"? Is not feeding your child milk or meat abuse? What about cutting off your son's foreskin while putting wine in their mouth when he is a mere 8-day-old baby?

no, i don;t think either I, or anyone in their right mind would legally be able to prove it to be abuse.


Made ill how?
how about by laying in their own feces for a few weeks?

Not treated from what illness?

how about ADD?

You make all of these sound so clear-cut. And as for threats and screaming, I think that most of my Russian Jewish "privileged spawn" friends are still dealing with decades-old trauma based on that. Should we all have been institutionalized long ago?

DO I make them sound clear cut? Or is that your interpretation?

As far as for how we were raised, I think the next generation speaks for itself. Whatever we are doing different, especially those of us in Civilized countries, have both personal experience to work with and a legal system that protects children, or at least attempts to. I think it's a win-win situation.

Aliska, my dear, but is that not the very definition of a Stalinist society?

no Maks, it is not. You are still not making any effort to take the focus off yourself and understand what I talking about.



Edited at 2008-04-24 06:50 pm (UTC)
Aliska, I totally disagree with you here.

First of all, you are building what's called a straw man argument.
You take the most extreme case of child abuse -- beating, rape, caging,
poisoning (!!), vay vay vay -- and use it in order
to justify what is essentially a blank card for the CPA actions, and to
dismiss very valid concerns about CPA's excessive interventive powers.
Indeed, one's rights when fighting against CPA are very different: the
parent's are not innocent until proven guilty. For the extreme
case that you described, of course, it should be no brainer for CPA
to intervene. However, I personally know cases where CPA intervened
into the life of families over some IDIOTIC reports
of child abuse. "I was next door, and I heard the kid scream loudly." -- and yes, even with such flimsy reports CPA is often *required* to investigate, and this means not only coming and talking to the parents, but also to the neighbors, to the teachers etc., thoroughly ruining the reputation and poisoning the life of the family. And this type of cases are much, MUCH more frequent than the crazy-sadistic-parents-psychopaths case that you are using to argue your point.

You limitation is in that you know
what it means to be hurt by parents (since you work with such kids), but you do not know what it means for a child to be ripped away from loving parents due to an overzealous and incompetent CPA agent. Because you are not a parent yourself.
Well, I am sorry Areg, but I think that IDIOTIC reports are worth the risk. I think that a hundred ruined reputations are worth the effort to find that kid who is being kept in the cage. Because you know what? On day that kid will get out of that cage, climb over the fence and stab your kid in the throat.
The most important argument that you have is "it's not about you".
but sadly, it is. It can affect ANYONE, any strong, happy family and it did.
You are right, many parents ARE terrified and they have every right to be.
Something needs to change.
If I may say so... I feel that only becoming a parent will change your opinion.


I find this particular argument incredibly astonishing (as much as it is popular among people involved in CPA).

To sum it up, there are people who know better, and you should be grateful that they are watching, because all the happiness in the world is not worth on tear of a child (loose paraphrase from "Братья Карамазовы").

Well, the axiom that saving a single kid is worth it even if involves destroying lives of lots of other people (including lots of other kids) does not seem particularly practical to me.
Destroying lots of people's lives seems even less reasonable when it is done on mere suspicion, rather than after the need to save has been established and proved.

Presumption of innocence evolved for a reason, competitive legal system evolved for a reason - it is well established that even the smartest and most moral people can be wrong. That includes people of CPA, as fine as they are.
I will only say that there are indeed different sets of strong deep-seated emotions associated with both sides of the argument.
I also want to mention that any references to our own experience growing up in the USSR are not relevant here. There was a different reality, different status quo, different "normative" expectations in those days, and it really cannot be effectively compared with our own 21st century understanding of "middle class" parenthood.
actually, I don't even feel very emotional about this. Maybe it's a professional hazard, maybe the fact that I am not personally invested in the issue, though I sure as hell would hope that when I do have kids I would be able to reason and be rational and not assume that because somewhere out there there's an agency that investigates child abuse they are coming to my house with their tranquilizer guns.
I think that you're playing devil's advocate, but at the core of it, I agree with you (of course, I don't have kids so by definition my opinion on anything child-related is worth shit)... I think it's so WEIRD that everybody in the LJ is denouncing CPS and not the ignorant, brain-washed, abusive fundamentalists...
mass hysteria, especially when it involves children, needs nothing more than a target. And, historically, it usually goes for that which speaks the truth or tries to the right thing. It is really fascinating....
I also find it weird that everyone denounces CPS but not Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, and Louis the XVI.
I understand that this most likely has to do with those polygamist cult kids, and I personally am ambivalent about that issue.

Even though the authoritarian cult brainwashing is psychologically abusive, a removal of those kids from their community will IMO most likely be detrimental to them. The reason is that they need cult deprogramming, together with their parents, which is serious business. If they simply are placed out into foster care permanently, which is what most likely will happen, that will be a shock for them. They will experience this not only as a loss of their family and community, but an attack on their values and their whole life by people who they have been led to believe are evil. Talk about a shattering experience.

Since at this point there is no evidence of obvious physical abuse among the detained children, I see no reason why, after the compound was busted, the children couldn't stay at least temporarily with their basically decent, if brainwashed, mothers.

In addition, there is no guarantee of their situation being any better when they get to foster care. I believe this same, or a similar, cult has been raided before, the kids WERE put into foster care, and the results were disastrous: kids failed to adjust and returned to their religion when they got older.

\\\ Good, nurturing parents should not have to fear outside intervention into their lives and the lives of their children.\\\


But they do, and that's a FACT which should give everyone something to think about. You seem to imply that such people are irrational freaks. But many of them do have legitimate reasons for such feelings, having encountered CPS, even though they supposedly had no reason to ever be afraid of that.

On one hand, often enough there are media reports about horrific abuse and\or murders of children, when it turns out that the social workers had visited the family repeatedly and saw no evidence of anything wrong. Additionally, doctors or teachers may fail to report obvious signs of abuse, or their reports are disregarded (examples: 1, 2, 3).

On the other hand, there are just as many reports about "good, nurturing parents" being harassed for no reason -- I personally know of a few such cases. A friend had left her toddler sleeping in a locked car (on a cool day), within her field of vision, while stepping away just a few feet to mail a letter. Police called, CPS report filed. Another friend had to drag her screaming toddler from a store; somebody called police on her b\c they thought she was buckling the child in too forcibly. Police shows up at her door, CPS report filed. A couple of friends -- got a visit from the police when their children played in the snow in the back yard w\o coats (they just didn't feel cold) -- don't know whether a report was filed in either of those cases, but the fact remains. A local raw-food-eating, non-vaccinating, off-the-grid-living family was featured on "The Wife Swap" or another such show. Afterwards they got death threats and plenty of CPS reports from their "well-meaning" neighbors -- being "weird", apparently, is child abuse. A welfare mom already in contact with social workers has sent her 7 y.o. to a corner general store by himself -- investigation opened. I can go on and on.

Too many false positives together and too many false negatives mean that the system, well-meaning though it may be, is not working as it should. That may have something to do with it being understaffed and underfunded, but most likely some more fundamental issues are at stake. E.g., I don't know what kind of "support and intervention" you suggest we all provide to help. If it's ratting on your neighbor even more than is common now, then that's sad, because it only further destroys trust and coherence of the community. A real help, however, would be to watch out for one another, for your friends and neighbors, and help them take care of their children and themselves.

Perhaps the system shouldn't make far-reaching pronouncements, directed to general reader, like this one:

\\\ you should think about whether or not you took too much upon yourself when you deemed your rights as parents holy and impenetrable, because you knew better than anyone else.\\\

There is nothing that would make a social worker more of an authority on childrearing than an average parent; and the foster care as an alternative to a family, even with some problems, frankly, often prosto ne katit.

Put all your resources instead to specifically and efficiently target high risk individuals, like the one you have described in your examples, and THAT will be a lofty, noble cause.
Put all your resources instead to specifically and efficiently target high risk individuals, like the one you have described in your examples, and THAT will be a lofty, noble cause.

that's exactly what I am doing.
Too many false positives together and too many false negatives mean that the system, well-meaning though it may be, is not working as it should. That may have something to do with it being understaffed and underfunded, but most likely some more fundamental issues are at stake. E.g., I don't know what kind of "support and intervention" you suggest we all provide to help. If it's ratting on your neighbor even more than is common now, then that's sad, because it only further destroys trust and coherence of the community. A real help, however, would be to watch out for one another, for your friends and neighbors, and help them take care of their children and themselves.

yes. I agree with you. The system is not working as it should when the general attitude of the people who in the category to whom an "accidental" report might happen because of an asshole neighbor or a "well meaning" preschool teacher is not "how do we actually ALL help the kids who need immediate help", but "How do we protect our own hides".

The kids who fall into the high risk category, the ones for whom the system exists are usually black or hispanic, or from the bottom of the social pool, or disabled, or too disturbed to be among regular kids. The unfortunate truth, as it has been for millenia, is that no one really cares for them. Most people who have been arguing with me have never seen them, never talked to them, and in all likelyhood never will. To them, they are abstract entities who simply be existing make their lives inconvenient. I think that's a tragedy. And I think every life of a kid is worth the same, and every child has a right to be safe, regardless of what kind of a family the kid is from.

The way to get involved and help is not an easy one. It mostly involves lobbying for more money for DSS, taking jobs as teachers and social workers, volunteering, working in the system's bureaucracy, and in the terrible incidences when families are harassed by asshole workers or children taken away, even for a short time, in situations when it is grossly inappropriate, take legal action, change laws, establish precedent, take time off work to compile non-existent statistics, etc.


заебал нерусский спам в русскоязычном топе..
Alisa, I think the discussion is taking a turn for the better, so I am sufficiently encouraged to jump in.

You can't really have it both ways: to be able to say "it's not about you" and to suggest that someone should investigate parent's competence after a child's accidental fall. On the one hand, it's clear that you work with victims of unmistakable abuse to whom DSS without a doubt does much good. On the other, you suggest that many parents are imperfect in more subtle ways, and DSS should get involved into their families for that reason, too. Well, this is exactly about not-clearly-abusive parents, so it's about whoever you assert it's NOT about. You said at some point that you'd want your children protected from your behavior if you put them in harm's way. I thought about that comment for a long time. I am guessing you made it in jest. If you know what truly serious abuse is like (and you list examples above), you can't possibly think yourself capable of perpetrating it, right? OK, so here is my modest proposal, also partially in jest: why not leave privileged spawn and its parents alone entirely and focus on drug- and poverty-driven serious abuse? It would pacify middle-class parents, ensure their support for DSS, and free up resources for the severely abused children. Of course, this can't be done because it would be wrong on several levels, but you see, the interests of terrified law-abiding parents and those of abused destitute youth do not necessarily need to clash.

I am not sure why you assume it is impossible for someone not working for or closely with DSS to understand it's working principles. I've been interested and looked what I could find, partially out of anxiety and partially because we discussed fostering (although honestly, yes, it is currently out of question). It's a whole separate discussion, but I got an impression that some guidelines by which performance of DSS is judged and federal money is granted make the agency prone to certain specific types of abuse. Many DSS agents are people of high integrity and always try to do the right thing no matter what, while some of the others may be trying to, let's just say, optimize other things. And it's not necessarily that it is an extremely poor agency, but that the resources don't go to the neediest population is serves. You said, for example, that no one cares for blacks and Hispanics - and these kids are harder to place into an adoptive family. White kids without too many problems are very easy to place, and the system is reported to be sometimes skewed toward taking such kids away too easily from a basically non-abusive family possibly going through some distress. Again, I am not positive, and you can accuse me of talking out of my arse, but it is at least a plausible explanation of lack of resources in one part of the system and at the same time overly eager removals in another.

I was put off by your calling some people's kids (mine too, presumably?) "privileged spawn". My immediate reaction was to wonder how you can respect any kids if you call any human children "spawn", unless it's some sort of Marxist class-struggle thing and there is huge emphasis on "priviledged". But then I decided you were just showing your disgust or similar feeling toward the parents. In any case, it's hard to see how this language goes with a call to the same very parents to care and help - just a weird way to make allies. Here is another assumption I don't entirely understand: how can you be so sure these people, these parents of privileged kids don't care and don't do a thing? Yes, I do not do a heartbreaking job of facing previously abused kids on daily basis. But if you must know, I have done something for a Hispanic child born 6 weeks prematurely to a crack addict and taken away by DSS. I gave her parents (foster or adoptive, I never found out) a gallon of my milk because the little girl couldn't tolerate formula well. Not a huge thing, sure, but not a very small one either (I am not exactly a cow), and very emotional. You just don't know who did what and judge them assuming they did nothing.
какого ЭТО - в топе Яндекса?
can you please clarify the phrase "privileged spawn"?
I claimed that it is a no-brainer that children should be taken out of situations in which they are abused, neglected or harmed in any way, and provided with medical and psychological help to make it possible for them to become functioning members of society.

Strap on a tank. You could be the next Janet Reno.