Wednesday, April 14, 2010
What Else?
Since I started my research paper on foster care my feelings have changed mostly because I am now thinking more about the children and the long term affects that the children have because of being in foster care. I thought from the beginning that people should have their kids removed if they were not being the parent they need to be. In some cases that may be true but in a lot of cases it seems like even if the situation is not what you or I may believe is ideal that the child would not suffer numerous long term affects if they were able to stay with their families. Most of the children at risk of being removed from health and welfare already have some sort of dysfunction in the home, what makes us all think that removing them from their families will not just compound that dysfunction? In what circumstances should a child be removed? In what circumstances should they stay? What other alternatives should be available for the families that are deemed at risk? What kinds of programs would be beneficial for these families to achieve the growth that the government would find acceptable?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think children should be removed from the home if they are being neglected, abused, or living in filth. But all of these things come to my mind when I think of children being removed. What are some other reasons they are removed from the home. Maybe instead of removing children from the home, both parents and child could be "foster cared"? To teach the parents how to be good parents. Just an idea. I do think taking a child from their home can be detrimental.. it's all they know. I would think it would make them feel "unwanted",not able to fit in or feel they belong in the foster home. Some kids may not understand why they are being removed and life as they know it "is wrong", because that's all they know.
ReplyDelete