Category: Parent Talk
Hello to all blind parents on this board:
I'm not sure how much many of you know about the work that I do; nonetheless, I will inform those who do not know. Aside from the company that I run and the other causes that I stand for, i'm an advocate of children's and family rights. Because I'm an advocate of such things, I take a special interest in advocating for blind parents to insure that the rights of every blind parent is protected. It is a severe travesty of injustice to deny blind parents their rights to raise their children. this article has a great deal of information that every blind parent needs to read, as it provides tools and resources for all of us to fight for our rights to keep our children in our loving care. It is my hope that this article is a very helpful tool to all blind parents.
I just read the article, and thanks for putting up something like this. I don't have any children yet, but if/when I ever do, knowing of all this will help a lot. I also know of someone this can help at the moment though, and I will pass it to her. While I know CPS is supposed to be there to protect children, I totally agree that blindness or most other disabilities is not a reason for taking children away from there parents. Again, thanks for this article.
reina, this is a well organized and ilnformative article. i think a lot of it makes sense. Would someone help me here? My pediatrician never asked me where my kids slept. They didn't want to know about my parenting style. I was always treated as an equal team member working for the physical health of my children. Pardon my ignorance, but is any of that stuff really their business? They are the doctor . Don't get them confused with your dad or mom. I remember when i decided to feed my son home made baby food. I went to the doctor with fear and trepidation. I figured they'd at least lecture me. He said "why should I care? He's growing at the rate a breast fed baby si supposed to grow. I can give you advice aboaut what I think should be fed and when. you are the parent. I'm not." Am I making sense? Oh yes, doctors are not the enemy you portray them to be. Social services is another matter entirely. I so resent that the fear of their presence clouded the early years of my kids' lives. they never did anything to me, but just the thought that they might.....
cps isn't something you want to full around with. with dealing with them recently threw foster care, i learnt that if you do every thing right you have nothing to worrie about. on the other hand, if you don't do every thing right and do get tangled up in that mess, you need to do every thing they ask you to do because they do have the power to make your life even more of a livving hell. thankfully i've never delt with them in that manner. and I'm glad it wasn't my oan child that was involved. there more about weather the kid is taken care of propperly then weather you keep a clean house or not.
my husband and I are really thinking about going in to foster care after the adoption is threw, but we really are not sure, there's a way to do it where we don't have to go threw CPS and if we can, that's the way we'll go. if we do, have to deal threw CPS we'll have to rethink our decision.
reina, docters do not need to know any thing about your parrenting stile, their not your best friend they're your child's doctor, they need to know nothing about home life unless there's a reason. that's my appinion.
Your parenting style isn't your doctor's business. Their job is to ensure that your child is healthy, and to treat them if they're not healthy.
As a rule doctors do not ask anyting bout home life. We just got back from my son's one year appointment and shots. They ask about feeding habits, make a few recommendations such as switching from formula to whole milk at this age, ask how much solid foods we give him and, apart from that, donot ask any questions. My wife is sighted though so it may change their perspective. But I've never been treated with anything but respect and professionalism by medical professionals in the U.S. whether as a patient or a parent, and I have been through chemo and me andmy wife had a c section here last year in addition to multiple appointments during pregnancy as it was a high risk one due to minor complications, that turned out to result in nothing more serious than our baby being a little bit underweight.
As I said, both parents being blind might cause more questions, but if you approach people professionally, acknolwedge their right to be a bit more concerned how you manage and explain how you will there is no reason you should have any roblems.
Of course "should" never equates to "will" and we'll all come across people who think lessof our abailities than they should, but I think one need not be worried about these things.
Hello, i'm glad that you guys found this article to be useful. I put the bit about the doctors and parenting style in the article because I've heard a lot of this happening to blind parents in my advocacy work. This issue has come up quite a bit, hence the reason I felt the need to give that piece of advice. Not all doctors are enemies. I'm studying to become one, and I knew a great deal of wonderful doctors; however, the need to be selective is important because doctors do have a whole lot of power, and they can use it. I'm not trying to scare anyone. I'm letting people know, that is all.
any health profession is equally same. they have no rights or whats ever to interveen what parrents do at home. however, they have the legal rights to report to the cps for any pertential harm exist for the children. it go across to varies profession, basicly in any of the profession either have direct or indirect physical contact with children. regardless of either the parents is totally normal, or having some sort of physically, mentally, and sensary disability, or illness.
lots of doctors, social workers, psychologists, etc will have great concern for parents who is disable. this is nothing to do with a particular individuals, just how we, as a community, been stigmatise in a much grater sscales than what it is.
as far as how some pediatrician attitudes go, it come to the personal refference on what suit you the best. not every pediatricians, doctors, dantists, suitable for everyone, and anyone. sometime, it takes a huge effert to match a good team, if there's the existent of a good team.
some pediatricians, doctors, are more nosier than others. take my eyes specialist for example, he has treate me as long as my history goes which is my entire life, but whenever he meets me, it always amaze him on how i survive in university, and work, or my life... etc etc. i know he hold nothing, but have grate interest.
sometime, it is our choice to be informative, and be educative to others, in an open and willing manner.
of course, being blind parents, lots of curiousity will occur amoun those professional people. just like always, depends on how you take it. i admit some question they ask is infact, stupid and dumb, but, hey, it is the matter of educating them, without getting upset.
some well educated people can be those that have no common sense at all.
Great article Reina. I agree the childs doc should be concerned with the childs health not your parenting style and choices. The first pediatrician my daughter saw would always question about where and how she slept. This information would be included in the chart. I told him the first time we co-slept and wow did I ever receive a lecture. I'm sure he had her best interest at heart. Fortunately her current doc has said if it works for you then that's great.
Yup, proud Mama. That is a good example about how a doctor is up in a parent's business. I just want parents to have this information so they can know what they can do if they can ever be faced with it.
Hmmm, think I better show this to my fiance seeing as how we're expecting twins. Angelina's been through enough in her life as it is without CPS trying to take our kids away just because I'm blind.
CPS does not always leave you alone, even if you are doing everything right. I have so many examples of when this was the case for blind parents, attachment parents and blind attachment parents. No, doctors are not always your enemies, but they can be. It all depends on the doctor. We are switching pediatricians, because ours suggested that we get intervention services and a developmental assessment for my son because he might be blind. Of course he might be blind, but no one coming into our home is going to be able to do or say anything to change that, if his genetics are such that he will have my eye-condition. My son had no physical or developmental delays, and she seemed surprised when I became offended that she had suggested such a thing. She told me that my son was delayed because he was not crawling at seven months. He was however, cruising, standing up and holding onto things and walking along them, at seven months, and he started to crawl at eight months. I brought in text books from my Child Development, Infant/Toddler Development, Issues in Early Care and Education and Psychology of Learning and Behavior Disorders courses and showed her where they all said the same damn thing, that infants tipically crawl between six and eight months, with some variation on either side of that window, about a month in either direction. And, my son was crawling at eight months, right in the normative range.
I actually had a doctor, or perhaps he was just an intern, who refused to believe I was blind. I'd fallen down the stairs and given myself a cuncussion because my sister left her homework on the stairs. Add the bruises up and down my torso to the fact that I've always been quite skinny and you can understand some initial concern, but this kid refused to consider the fact that my folks could be telling the truth. I'm surprised he didn't call CPS. Luckily the actual doctor had more sense and didn't jump to conclusions.
Like Turricane, I had a doctor give us a recipe once, but that was for pedialyte, sorry, medical people for the poor spelling. Anyway he only warned me it worked in the area we lived then becthe water had enough chemicals - natural minerals - to make it work. I was only surprised, but all too willing, that one could make it -- very easily. 1 8-oz bottle water if you have hard water, 1 tsp sugar and 1/2 tsp salt, if i remember right, but my daughter's a teenager and this was about 14 years ago now.
Thanks for the article.
It is a very timely one for me also, because I am a single mother of my almost 22 month old daughter, and one of the people that I know who I thought was my friend contacted CPS and told them that because I am blind I need help taking care of my child. Of course after they did some questioning with my roommate and other friends of mine, they found that I was fully capable of taking care of my child, and that my child was well taken care of, happy, healthy, and safe. They said they would not investigate, because it was apparent that the person that reported me did not have enough contact with me to actually see how I took care of my daughter in the first place. I do appreciate the article though in case this issue comes up again later on, as I know a few people that, even though my daughter is happy and healthy, still cannot get it through their head that a blind person can raise a child, even though they may be single with no sighted help!
As far as doctors, I have switched pediatricians a few times because the pediatricians I had my daughter go to were surprised I could take care of her because of my blindness, and I have even had them refer me to social workers because I am blind and supposedly according to them I needed a sighted person to come and check up on me every day to make sure the baby was doing OK or something.
Also, it did not help that when my daughter got sick one time, I had my friend take me to take my daughter to the pediatrician, and when he asked if my daughter was swiping at her ears, my friend butted in and said something to the effect of, "She is blind, so she cannot tell that because she can't see it." I can always tell when my daughter is swiping or pulling on her ears, because I can feel her doing it, so it shocked me that she would say that knowing that it would make the doctor think I couldn't take care of my daughter. Then again, she is from another country, so maybe the view of blindness is different in her country. It just made me so frustrated though, because after that the pediatrician treated me like I was totally stupid or something because I was blind, which is one of the reasons I stopped going there with my daughter. Also, I have stopped asking friends to take me to the pediatrician when my daughter is sick, and I now just take cabs or the public fixed-route bus, even if a friend offers to take me, because I don't want the friend to be saying things like that to allow the doctor to think I am an incapable or unfit parent.
Anyway, sorry for rambling, but I just thought I would share my experiences along the lines of CPS as well as pediatricians.
Thanks,
Misty
SensuallyNaturallyLiving4Today, how are things now? I'm so sorry that you had to go through that. I'm helping a friend get her children back now, and she is blind. I'm doing all that i can with the resources that I have to be her advocate, but please pray that her children will be returned to her. She as lost them on false and trivial grounds, and they have flat out stated that blindness functionally limits her ability to parent, which we all know is not true. I'm so glad that they did not decide to make your life tumultuous. the choice to switch doctors is a very good one. Way to go!
misty.bradley, the same thing that happened to you happened to two of my friends. One actually lost her children recently, and i"m fighting along with her so they can be returned home, and the other had a socialworker who was very reasonable, saw that other friend's capabilities, and left well enough alone. What inspired me to be an advocate is because i know of many people who have been victimized by CPS, including myself when i was a child. So, I try to help whenever i can by sharing information and helping people in trouble. If you ever need anything, feel free to message me or contact me.
The Bad Influence, even if you do everything in the world correctly, sometimes, CPS still takes things way over the top. I've seen this more than i like. thankfully, there are some decent social workers out there, and it has been a pleasure ot work with them because they do their jobs with the utmost honesty and integrity, but the majority of them are not decent in the least bit.
What a pompous and idiotic thing to say. just because you may have had a bad experience where, in your opinion, a social worker took a child for a bad reason, does not mean that a majority of them are evil or whatever phrase you wish to put to them. In fact, after doing some research on the subject, I found that a social worker does not have the ability to just take a child, thats not how it works. they have to jump through several hurdels, and in all of them, they have to prove why the child should be taken. CPS states that they want to keep a child in a home with their parents for as long as possible. So in order for them to have taken the child, your friend had to fuck up. Thats right, I said it, your friend had to have done something stupid and bad in order for them to take the child. whether you agree with it or not, that is how the system works. Is it perfect, no, of course not, but it isn't like a political contest where they took her children to ruin her reputation.
Now, let me give you some practical advice. I've been told that I can't do things because of my blindness all my life. My parents were told I wouldn't be able to cope in a public school, that I should be institutionalized, that I needed to be put in lower grades, even that I needed to be isolated from the sighted community. Now, in your case, you would have just gone to another counselor or what have you, but that doesn't do anything, what you should do is tell the counselor or what have you, to shove it up their ass. Stop being these sniveling little blindies who want everything to come to them without conflict. Yes, it is sometimes nice to not have to fight for things, that is why I have blind friends who I don't have to explain things to, but when your in the sighted world, sometimes you have to throw some punches.
I'm so sick of all these whiny little prigs that want everyone to feel sorry for them because of there blindness. If you don't want to be treated differently because of your blindness, don't act differently. I can't even count how many times I've gone into someone's office, sat down, and had a conversation with them, and until I stood up and took out my cane, they didn't even know I was blind. I've even been standing with my guide dog, and people assumed I was a sighted person, they didn't even notice my dog. its all in how you act.
If you don't want your friend to say things when you go to the doctor's office, tell them to shut up. I've done it with my friends. My friends understand that they don't have a clue about what it is like to be blind, and they don't know what I need, so they let me talk. You might try that, instead of taking cabs and buses.
Well, Cody. I wish that what you said was true. Did you know that 8 billion dollars are spent on taking children out of the home versus the one billion that is spent on keeping children united with their families? There is not a whole lot of incentive to keep children and families united. Did you also know that seventy-five percent of children in foster care have no business being there? I don't know where that study is off hand,but when I have time to scrounge for it, I will be more than happy to post it right here. Right now, I'm too busy to look for it, as I'd have to search through literaly thousands of archived files. But, i will share it when I can get around to it. I'm just here for a little while, and then I'm going to bed.
Contrary to what you have said about CPS agents having to jump through hoops to take children, well, they can create an emergency situation in one day and can make it so you never see your children again. I've not only seen or had one bad experience, I've witnessed several. I was one child of millions that was taken from my parents on false grounds, and I can tell you that my parents were one hundred percent inocent. There are many advocacy groups that are speaking out against CPS and their dirty deeds, and they are trying to educate the general public. If CPS was as good as you feel that they are, and if they always do more right than wrong, then there would not be so many organizations out to fight for the people. If you check out my article, you will see that there are many sites and organizations that are devoted to giving the public tools to protect and defend their children against government intervention. And i"m one of those who is speaking out against the law that was inacted in 1974 tha tstarted all of this madness in the first place. I know my good friend personally, and I know what hundreds of others have gone through in the course of my advocacy work, and I can tell you that you do not have to F up for CPS to take your children. Social workers in many cases have been known to falsify statements and create bogas court reports. They can also get their psychological professionals, who are whores of the state and the courts, to doctor up psychological evaluations. For every child that is taken, subsidy money is given. Everyone wins but the parents. NOt to mention, CPS workers get a compensation for every child that is removed from their natural family home, hence the reason for the lack of incentive for family unity and the hurry to fabricate statements, which many parents are so scared, upset, and in a volnerable situation, thus do not know how to beat the system and fight for the rights of themselves and their children who have been wrongfully taken, traumatized, and more than likely abused, since abuse is five times more likely to occur in a foster home than in a natural home. Anothe rstudy that has been recently been published shows that children are better off in troubled homes than foster homes. Not that I'd ever advocate for children to be in a troubled environment; but it goes to show you how messed up the child welfare system is. And if you are Native American, then you really are screwed. I know all about that, considering I, myself, am American Indian. that Indian Child Welfare Act is just ink and paper. It seldom helps our people from suffering destructions in our families. You would not know about it because what is done to the Indians is kept under raps and is kept quiet. But, I do not mind going and getting the periodicals and posting them here that tells all about the severe brutality that Natives continue to face by law enforcement, government officials, and the general public. My friend is an Indian and blind, meaning that she has two things working against her.
When dealing with CPS, everything depends upon preponderence of evidence, so all a CPS worker has to do is create a petition against you, claim it to be an emergency, and then presto. Say by to the babies. I've seen it enough to know. And no I'm not pompous. I'm speaking from personal experience, and I hope that it is an experience that you never ever have to have yourself.
Gaps in Research and Public Policies
Robert B Hill. Child Welfare. Washington:2008. Vol. 87, Iss. 2, p. 359-67 (9 pp.)
Abstract (Summary)
[...] a national study (Jenkins et al., 1983) based on out-of-home data collected by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) Office of Civil Rights revealed that black and Native American children were more likely to be in child welfare than in the general census population in 1980, while white and Hispanic children were less likely. Most studies that attempt to identify causal factors often focus on the relationship between single-level factors such as family risk factors (e.g., family poverty, substance abuse, poor mental health, etc.) or community risk factors (e.g., community poverty, joblessness, crime, single parenthood, etc.) and racial/ethnic disproportionality.
Full Text (2780 words)
Copyright Child Welfare League of America, Inc. 2008
The involvement of children of color in child welfare has a mixed history. One of the first in-depth studies to examine this issue was Children of the Storm: Black Children and American Child Welfare by Andrew Billingsley and Jeanne Giovannoni (1972) almost four decades ago. As these scholars noted, however, the problem during the 19th century was the underrepresentation of minority children in child welfare. When orphanages were established to rescue children from the deplorable conditions of almhouses, black children were totally excluded. This exclusion continued during the first half of the 20th century, when many charitable organizations, mutual aid societies, and settlement houses were created to serve poor white immigrants. It was not until the integration period of the 1950s and 1960s that the number of black children in mainstream child welfare institutions steadily increased.
The overrepresentation of children of color in child welfare grew during the 1970s and 1980s. For example, a national study (Jenkins et al., 1983) based on out-of-home data collected by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) Office of Civil Rights revealed that black and Native American children were more likely to be in child welfare than in the general census population in 1980, while white and Hispanic children were less likely. Such disparities continue to exist today, since black and Native American children are three times more likely to be in foster care than are white children (Hill, 2006). Important to note, however, is that Hispanic children are also overrepresented in many states and counties (Hill, 2005). While the prevalence of substance abuse and HIV/AIDS in inner-cities might explain, in part, the recent patterns of racial disproportionality in child welfare, other factors related to poverty and race were responsible for the overrepresentation of minority children in child welfare during the 1960s and 1970s.
It should be noted that the widespread concern about disproportionality is not mainly about the disproportionate numbers of minority children in child welfare, but more importantly, about their inequitable treatment and outcomes, compared to nonminority children. Children of color are more likely to be screened in at various stages of Child Protective Services (CPS) decision making: reporting, investigation, substantiation, and placement in foster care. They are more likely to remain in foster care for longer periods of time and less likely to be reunited with their birth parents. They are more likely to age out of the system without strong family attachments and more likely to exit to homelessness, substance abuse, out-of-wedlock births and contact with criminal justice systems. Consequently, many child welfare advocates are also interested in reducing or preventing these disparate negative outcomes among children of color.
My recent involvement in the issue of racial disproportionality in child welfare began as a member of an internal Race Matters study group formed by Westat Vice President Alexander Ratnofsky in 1999. This group sought to explain some puzzling questions in child welfare. Since the National Incidence Studies of Child Abuse and Neglect (which were conducted by Westat in 1980, 1986, and 1993) have consistently found that black families did not maltreat their children any more than did white families, why are black children more likely to be removed from their homes and placed in foster care than are white children (Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996; Sedlak & Schultz, 2005a, 2005b)? Is the disparate removal of children of color due primarily to racial or nonracial factors? To address such questions, Westat, in collaboration with the School of Social Work at the University of Illinois, invited scholars to present their findings on disproportionality at a research forum.
At this Race Matters forum, which was held in January 2001, findings were presented that examined racial and nonracial factors which contributed to racial disproportionality at different stages of CPS decision making - reporting, investigation, substantiation, placement in foster care, exit from care, and reentry. Most of the papers found race to be related to disproportionality but often in combination with other factors such as poverty, substance abuse, unemployment, prior history of abuse, and so on. On the other hand, several papers did not find that race was a contributing factor. All of the papers appear in the monograph Race matters in child welfare: The overrepresentation of African American children in the system edited by Derezotes, Poertner, and Testa (2005) and published by the Child Welfare League of America.
Research Gaps
I would like to address two concerns about racial and ethnic disproportionality: gaps in research and gaps in public policies. Three gaps in research on disproportionality will be discussed: (1) causal analyses, (2) research on kinship care, and (3) few systematic evaluations of promising practices. Most studies of disproportionality focus on whether racial differentials exist at various stages of CPS decision making. While such studies make important contributions to the literature, there remains a dearth of research on the causes of disproportionality.
Most studies that attempt to identify causal factors often focus on the relationship between single-level factors such as family risk factors (e.g., family poverty, substance abuse, poor mental health, etc.) or community risk factors (e.g., community poverty, joblessness, crime, single parenthood, etc.) and racial/ethnic disproportionality. Fewer causal analyses assess the impact of multilevel factors such as family and community risk factors. Moreover, very few causal studies focus on the role of agency characteristics (worker attitudes, worker bias, agency culture, etc.). For example, more studies that examine whether workers' stereotypes about poor or minority families contribute to disproportionality in child welfare are needed. Studies that examine the extent to which public policies that support child removal over family preservation are major determinants of the overrepresentation of children of color in child welfare are also needed.
Another weakness of traditional causal studies is their reliance mainly on point-in-time data. Causal inferences cannot be made from correlational analyses based on cross-sectional data. There is a clear need for more causal analyses of disproportionality that employ longitudinal data. An ideal research framework for conducting systematic causal analyses would simultaneously examine the separate and combined effects of (a) family risk factors, (b) community risk factors, (c) agency characteristics, and (d) public policies on disproproprtionality in child welfare over time.
A classic example of disparate treatment and services in child welfare are the circumstances of kinship care families. There is widespread consensus in the literature that kin families are often treated less favorably
A continuency of the above article...
than are nonkin families (Hill, 2006; U.S. Government Accountability Office [USGAO], 2007). This differential treatment may also contribute to the disproportionality of minority children in child welfare, since they are overrepresented in kin families. Most research on kinship care - including those based on cross-sectional data - has made important contributions to the literature on disproportionality. These studies have revealed that minority children in foster care are more likely to be in kinship care families than are nonminority children. These studies have also identified several advantages for children in kinship care such as lack of trauma, ability to maintain ties with birth parents, ability to sustain family history and cultural traditions, and greater family stability. On the other hand, many studies have identified several disadvantages of kin families compared to nonkin families such as more child behavioral or mental health problems, longer periods of time in foster care, older caregivers, lower family income stipends, and fewer social services.
Yet, there is a major deficiency in most of these comparative analyses. Since most kin families have lower incomes and receive fewer services than are nonkin families, the two groups are not equivalent for systematic comparisons. Most studies compare a group (kin families) that has lower socioeconomic status (SES) and fewer services with another group (nonkin families) that has higher SES and more services. Consequently, one should expect poorer outcomes among the lower SES group than the higher SES group. However, most studies demonstrate that the comparative outcomes are mixed - sometimes, the nonkin families are more advantaged than the kin families, but other times, kin families are more advantaged than are nonkin families (Hill, 2006). To conduct appropriate comparisons between kin and nonkin families, researchers should attempt to control for (or match) groups of similar SES and services in order to detect meaningful differences in family patterns or outcomes. For example, these more reliable comparisons could possibly reveal that children in kin families remain in foster care no longer than children in nonkin families - when kin caregivers receive similar incomes and services as nonkin caregivers.
A third shortcoming in the research literature on disproportionality is the paucity of systematic evaluations of promising practices. Numerous reports have described many innovative strategies to reduce racial /ethnic disproportionality in child welfare Qones, 2006). These strategies have included family preservation programs that provide intensive in-home services to prevent placement of children into foster care, differential response initiatives to divert atrisk or substantiated children from entering foster care, use of kin families for short-term or long-term out-of-home placements of children as their first foster care setting; providing training in cultural competency to mandated reporters, placing high priority on expediting the reunification of children with their birth parents, intensive searches for fathers or paternal kin networks for placement of foster children, diligent recruitment and retention of minority families for children of color in foster care, and so forth.
Unfortunately, most of the evaluation data of these promising practices have many weaknesses. Some of the data are often anecdotal or are based on unrepresentative samples of respondents such as focus groups or purposive interviews. Many other studies are based mainly on process data, while fewer studies are based on outcome data. Most of the outcome studies are based on cross-sectional data. Very few of these evaluations employ comparison groups or quasi-experimental designs. More rigorous evaluations of these promising interventions are needed that incorporate both qualitative and quantitative analyses of their effects on reducing the extent of disproportionality and disparities among children of color in child welfare.
Policy Gaps
I would like to address three shortcomings in public policies that contribute to disproportionality: (a) overemphasis on child removal, (b) limited services to kin caregivers, and (c) inadequate funding to assist states and counties interested in reducing disproportionality in their locales. This nation clearly places much higher priority on removing children from their homes than in providing services to them at home. The federal government spends about $8 billion annually on child welfare services. However, only about $1 billion is spent on family preservation or reunification services (USGAO, 2007). Such an imbalance in federal funding provides greater incentives for states and counties to remove at-risk children from their parents than to serve them at home. I suggest that the federal government markedly increases its funding for family preservation and reunification. It should also offer financial incentives for states and localities who achieve these outcomes, similar to the federal incentives provided to states that increased their numbers of foster children who were adopted.
The limited funding of services to kin caregivers is another deficiency of public policies. Currently, most of the federal funds for kin families are provided to those relatives who rear their kin children in the child welfare system. Unfortunately, most funds for kin families are based on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) payments, especially to "child-only" families in which welfare payments are provided for only the child and not to any adults (including birth parents or kin caregivers). Many relatives, who are not licensed, depend on TANF stipends. Yet the minority of kin caregivers - who are licensed - are eligible to receive the same level of Title IV-E foster stipends as nonrelatives. Unfortunately most studies have also found that kin families in child welfare continue to receive fewer services than are nonkin families. In sum, most of the kin families in the child welfare system receive lower payments and fewer services than nonkin families. But the overwhelming majority of kin families not in child welfare receive lower income payments and even fewer services than are kin families in child welfare. Fortunately, many states across the nation are using their state TANF and other funds to provide supplemental income and services to kin families outside child welfare as well as to kin families in child welfare. Clearly, new federal policies are needed that provide more equitable incomes and services to kin caregivers both inside and outside the child welfare system.
A promising policy initiative to aid kin caregivers and reduce disproportionality in child welfare was the Title IV-E Waiver Subsidized Guardianship (SG) Demonstrations, which were implemented in six states in the late 1990s. Currently, caregivers who adopt foster children can receive an adoption subsidy, but caregivers who want to be guardians of foster children receive no funds. The SG experiments were designed to test the feasibility of providing subsidies to relative caregivers who were willing to serve as guardians for their kin children, but did not want to formally adopt them and sever their ties with their birth parents. These five-year demonstrations found that offering subsidies to guardians provided a new option for finding permanent and safe placements for foster children. An evaluation of the SG demonstration in Illinois, one of the most rigorous of these experiments, revealed that guardianship subsidies did not undermine the numbers of caregivers who wanted to adopt foster children. Moreover, children with guardians were found to be as safe, stable, and permanent as children who were adopted (Westat, Inc., 2003). We strongly agree with the recent USGAO (2007) report that urged Congress to create Title IV-E Subsidized Guardianships across the nation.
Continuency of the article...
Senator Hillary Clinton from New York and Representative Danny Davis from Illinois have offered similar legislation to aid kin families - inside and outside the child welfare system - in both Houses of Congress for several years.
Another deficiency in public policy is the inadequate federal assistance provided to states and counties who want to reduce disproportionality. Many states and local areas have expressed interest in implementing strategies to track data on disproportionality to monitor and assess the effectiveness of various interventions. Unfortunately, most of the tools and technical assistance for local areas have been provided by private foundations, most notably, the CaseyCenter for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) Alliance for Racial Equity in Child Welfare. The Casey-CSSP Alliance, which was formed to reduce disproportionality and disparities in child welfare, has been in the forefront of assisting localities around the nation to implement effective strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disproportionality with limited funds. We agree with another recommendation in the recent USGAO report that the federal government needs to play a stronger role in providing funds and technical assistance to states and counties who want to reduce disproportionality and disparities among children of color in child welfare.
In sum, to markedly reduce racial and ethnic disproportionality, there is a need for more aggressive actions to reduce these gaps in research studies and public policies.
[Reference]
References
Billingsley A., & Giovannoni, J. (1972). Children of the storm: Black children and American child welfare. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich.
Derezotes, D., Poertner, J., & Testa, M. (Eds.). (2005). Race matters in child welfare: The overrepresentation of African American children in the system. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.
Hill, R. B. (2005, March). Overrepresentation of children of color in the child welfare system in 2000. Chicago: The Race Matters Consortium.
Hill, R. B. (2006, October). Synthesis of research on disproportionality in child welfare: An update. Chicago: Casey-CSSP Alliance for Racial Equity in Child Welfare.
Jenkins, S., Diamond, B., Flanzraich, M., Gibson, J., Hendricks, J., & Marshood, N. (1983). Ethnic differentials in foster care placements. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 19(a), 41-45.
Jones, E. (2006, December). Places to watch: Promising practices to address racial dispropoportionality in child welfare services. Chicago: Casey-CSSP Alliance for Racial Equity in Child Welfare.
Sedlak, A., & Broadhusrt, D. (1996). Executive summary of the third national incidence study of child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Sedlak, A., & Schultz, D. (2005a). Race differences in risk of maltreatment in the general child population. In D. Derezotres, J. Poertner, & M. Testa (Eds.), Race matters in child welfare (pp. 47-61). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.
Sedlak, A., & Schultz, D. (2005b). Racial differences in child protective services investigation of abused and neglected children. In D. Derezotres, J. Poertner, & M. Testa (Eds.), Race matters in child welfare (pp. 97-117). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007, July). African American children in foster care (GAO-07-816). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Westat, Inc. (2003). Evaluation of the Illinois subsidized guardianship Title IV-E waiver demonstration: Final report. Rockville, MD: Author.
[Author Affiliation]
Robert B. Hill PhD
Senior Researcher
Westat, Inc.
Rockville, Maryland
That is the article that talks about how eight billion dollars are spent on out of home services versus the one billion dollars that is spent to keep families unified. It is clear that the system is bent on destroying families rather than keeping them unified. This is more than just a matter of being imperfect. This is really messed up. This is the sign that a system like this totally needs to be completely done away with or reformed dramatically.
Check out these links:
Videos About Family Rights and CPS Cruelty
Bounty Payments: How Much Are Your Children worth to CPS?
I'll have more later. I'm going to bed. Good night.
Here is a champion of justice in Washington State. This is a public official that needs the utmost recognision, as she is a true fighter for family rights. i laud this woman! If there are any blind parents who live in Washington state, and you find yourselves in unnecessary trouble with CPS, she is the one to contact. She is one who works tirelessly to expose the corruptness in the system and fights for the humane treatment of children and families.
So that I remain true to my word, here is another journal article that talks about the brutality and harsh treatment of Native Americans by the system due to racist bias.
Sexual Violence as a Tool of Conquest
Anonymous. Fellowship. Nyack:Winter 2008. Vol. 73, Iss. 10-12, p. 38-39 (2 pp.)
Abstract (Summary)
".. .After the devastation of tribal economies and the deliberate creation of tribal dependence on the services provided by this agency, this agency set out to destroy all things Indian. This agency forbade the speaking of Indian languages, prohibited the conduct of traditional religious activities, outhwed traditional government, and made Indian people ashamed of who they were. Worst of all, the Bureau of Indian Affairs committed these acts against the children entrusted to its boarding schools, brutalizing them emotionally, psychologically, physically, and spiritually... the legacy of these misdeeds haunts us. "
Negative and dehumanizing stereotypes of Native Americans in general, and Indigenous women in particular, are not confined to distant history. For example, a 1968 federal appeliate court ruling upheld a statute under which an American Indian man who committed a rape in Indian Country received a lower penalty if the victim was a Native woman. It has been suggested that Congress, in passing this law, may have viewed Native women as immoral and less worthy of protection. Indigenous women have suffered under federal government sterilization programs which violated their human rights and international law. For example, between 1972 and 1976, thousands of Indigenous women were sterilized when there was no medical necessity and without their free and informed consent. Some women were reportedly coerced to consent to the sterilization by being told that their children would be taken away from them if they refused.
The effects of such abuses against Indigenous peoples reverberate through U.S. society and popular culture today. For example, a video game called "Custer's Revenge" was marketed by a private company in 1989 in which the objective was for players to manipulate the character of General Custer to have sex with a Native American woman who was bound to a post. The University of North Dakota has refused to change its mascot from "the fighting Sioux" despite strong opposition by Sioux Tribes and despite the fact that it has generated racialized and sexualized discourse. For example, students at the university wore t-shirts depicting a caricature of a Sioux Indian having sexual intercourse with a bison.
Full Text (1224 words)
Copyright Fellowship of Reconciliation Winter 2008
by Fellowship staff, based on reporting by Amnesty International
Sexual violence against women continues to be one of the most vicious and relentless forms of silencing, across cultures and throughout the world. Women of color in the United States are the targets of multiple forms of discrimination - both by the broader society and within their own communities - and this systemic oppression is frequently manifested through physical and psychological forms of violence.
A study published by Amnesty International in April 2007, Maze of Injustice, found that Indigenous women in the United States are being targeted by sexual violence at dramatically high rates. More than one in three Native American or Alaska Native women will be raped at some point in their lives. Most do not seek justice because they know they will be met with inaction or indifference. As one support worker said, "Women don't report because it doesn't make a difference. Why report when you are just going to be revictimized?"
Sexual violence against women is not only a criminal or social issue, it is a human rights abuse. The Amnesty report unravels some of the reasons why Indigenous women are at such risk of sexual violence and why survivors are so frequently denied justice. Chronic under-resourcing of law enforcement and health services, confusion over jurisdiction, erosion of tribal authority, discrimination in law and practice, and indifference - all these factors play a part.
Yet none of this is inevitable or irreversible. As evidenced in the Amnesty report, the voices of Indigenous women send a message of courage and hope that change can and will happen. A section of the report titled "Indigenous support initiatives" outlines successful efforts by numerous tribal coalitions in a wide range of communities - from Alaska to the Dakotas to Oklahoma - in addressing sexual violence.
The remaining contents of this article are excerpted from Maze of Injustice.
Legacy of the Past
"As the nation looked to the West for more land, this agency participated in the ethnic cleansing that befell the western tribes... it must be acknowledged that the deliberate spread of disease... and the cowardly killing of women and children made for tragedy on a scale so ghastly that it cannot be dismissed as merely the inevitable consequence of the clash of competing ways of life...
".. .After the devastation of tribal economies and the deliberate creation of tribal dependence on the services provided by this agency, this agency set out to destroy all things Indian. This agency forbade the speaking of Indian languages, prohibited the conduct of traditional religious activities, outhwed traditional government, and made Indian people ashamed of who they were. Worst of all, the Bureau of Indian Affairs committed these acts against the children entrusted to its boarding schools, brutalizing them emotionally, psychologically, physically, and spiritually... the legacy of these misdeeds haunts us. "
-Kevin Gover, then-Assistant secretary forIndian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, at a ceremony acknowledging the 175th anniversary of the establishment of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, September 8, 2000
"Sexual assault rates and violence against Native American women did not just drop from the sky. They are a process of history."
- Jacqueline Agtuca, Alaska Native Women's Conference, Anchorage, Alaska, May 24, 2005
Contemporary scholars on traditional Native American and Alaska Native cultures have found that prior to colonization women often held esteemed positions in society. Available evidence indicates that violence against women was rare and, when it occurred, was often severely punished. Colonization and its aftermath profoundly changed gender roles among Indigenous peoples. For example, settlers and government officials insisted on dealing only with men, while Christian missionaries exerted pressure on Indigenous peoples to assume what their churches considered proper gender roles. Gender-based violence against women by settlers was used in many infamous episodes, including during the Trail of Tears and the Long Walk. Such attacks were not random or individual; they were an integral part of conquest and colonization. Many scholars take the position that these and other historical acts amount to genocide.
Article continues below.
Historically, the U.S. federal government has made a series of attempts to compel Native American and Alaska Native peoples to assimilate into non-Indigenous society. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a number of policies designed to promote assimilation contributed to the breaking up of tribal societies, damaging communal solidarity and traditional social networks. One such policy, which started in 1869, involved removing children as young as five from their families and compelling them to attend boarding schools. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) controlled 25 boarding schools and 460 additional schools were run by churches with federal funds. Reports of conditions in the schools make harrowing reading: cruel and inhuman treatment was the norm and many children experienced physical and sexual violence. Children reportedly died by the hundreds in these schools because of inadequate food or medical care, although no firm statistics exist. One reason for the lack of statistics is that many schools sent children home when they became seriously ill, or never recorded their deaths.
Negative and dehumanizing stereotypes of Native Americans in general, and Indigenous women in particular, are not confined to distant history. For example, a 1968 federal appeliate court ruling upheld a statute under which an American Indian man who committed a rape in Indian Country received a lower penalty if the victim was a Native woman. It has been suggested that Congress, in passing this law, may have viewed Native women as immoral and less worthy of protection. Indigenous women have suffered under federal government sterilization programs which violated their human rights and international law. For example, between 1972 and 1976, thousands of Indigenous women were sterilized when there was no medical necessity and without their free and informed consent. Some women were reportedly coerced to consent to the sterilization by being told that their children would be taken away from them if they refused.
To date, the USA has done little to acknowledge these abuses or to ensure adequate reparation for the victims.
The effects of such abuses against Indigenous peoples reverberate through U.S. society and popular culture today. For example, a video game called "Custer's Revenge" was marketed by a private company in 1989 in which the objective was for players to manipulate the character of General Custer to have sex with a Native American woman who was bound to a post. The University of North Dakota has refused to change its mascot from "the fighting Sioux" despite strong opposition by Sioux Tribes and despite the fact that it has generated racialized and sexualized discourse. For example, students at the university wore t-shirts depicting a caricature of a Sioux Indian having sexual intercourse with a bison.
The legacy of historic abuses persists. The fact that Native American and Alaska Native women have been dehumanized throughout U.S. history informs present-day attitudes. It helps fuel the high rates of sexual violence perpetrated against them and the high levels of impunity enjoyed by their attackers.
Used with permission. For the full report from Amnesty International, visit www.amnesty.org and type "Maze of Injustice" in the search box.
[Sidebar]
On November 20, 2007 the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian in New York City hosted an educational forum on Sexual Violence Against Native Women. Winona White Earth (left) and Georgia Little Sheild provided testimony during the panel discussion.
Something also worth checking out.
Silent Victims: Hate Crimes against Native Americans
Michelle D Johnson-Jennings. American Indian Quarterly. Berkeley:Summer 2009. Vol. 33, Iss. 3, p. 414-416 (3 pp.)
Abstract (Summary)
[...] Native peoples are presumed guilty of causing problems prior to reporting a hate crime, and many hate crime victims believe this attitude to be prevalent in the police force, consequently electing not to report. [...] the collected data are most likely an underrepresentation of violence in Indian country, and now Perry's research gives us some clear insight as to why.
Full Text (1131 words)
Copyright University of Nebraska Press Summer 2009
Barbara Perry. Silent Victims: Hate Crimes against Native Americans. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2008. 176 pp. Paper, $29.95.
Michelle D. Johnson-Jennings, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Though reading about hate crimes in Indian Country can prove depressing, I held a feeling of hope after reading this book. Barbara Perry has uncovered themes that arise from the Native American victims and also left the reader armed with possible concrete steps for change. Perry's research interviews of nearly three hundred Native Americans from the Southwest Four Corners region, the Great Lakes, and the Northern Plains regions provide unique qualitative insights into the cycle of oppression and the cumulative effects of hate crimes. This book's purpose is to provide individual accounts while arguing that many hate crimes go unreported. Further, it contends that hate crimes are but one of many systemic practices that justify and maintain subordination of Native peoples, especially during times of activism. This book effectively reaches its objectives by succinctly contextualizing hate crimes within a historical and contemporary model of oppression, which could enlighten anyone interested in violence in Indian Country. The writing is straightforward and concise, which enables the reader to clearly follow the line of logic and remain engaged throughout.
This book is divided into three major sections. The first establishes the historical and sociopolitical context for hate crimes in the United States against Native Americans. The second section focuses on the findings from Perry's qualitative research and the cumulative impact of violence on the community. The last section demonstrates how activism and promotion of cultural education could strengthen the sovereignty of Native nations.
Within the first section of the book Perry summarizes how marginalization and oppression of Native peoples have occurred and persisted throughout history. The historical overview of the ethnocidal and genocidal institutionalized practices are documented, bringing to light recent research to support her argument. One instance is the section on forced sterilization of Native women, which is not common knowledge for many readers. Though this section is only a few pages in length, Perry clearly describes and links sterilization to dehumanization and ethnocidal practices occurring until the 1970s.
Beginning in chapter 4, Perry's qualitative interviews link to supporting literature, arguing that stereotypes and imagery reinforce cultural imperialism and the "othering" of Native peoples. Her research examples include majority views of Native Americans as "primitive" or connected with nature. The recent literature on racial mascots and implications of stereotypical images complements this chapter nicely. Overall, the interviews illustrate and convey distress around Native persons' belief of white people's perception of them, that is, as mere objects and/or a subordinate class. These mental images are clearly tied to historical colonial imperialism. Perry argues that this perception is linked to factual events and systemic practices instead of viewing them as paranoid fancies.
The second section focuses on contextualizing hate-crime victimization within a socioeconomic, power, and oppression framework that continues to support ongoing colonization in the United States today. The themes that arose from the literature include the normativity of violence in Indian Country and its function to remind a person of his or her place in geographical, economic, and cultural terms. Two other themes were retaliatory violence following a demonstration of activism for sovereign rights and lack of law enforcement to protect or aide in the harassment or attack. These hate crimes are further facilitated by "mechanisms, such as stereotypes, language, legislation and job segregation" (137). The author further includes daily microaggressions as other forms of oppression that serve to maintain the racial hierarchy in the United States. These daily perpetuations are not technically illegal but over time cause similar psychological stress. For instance, one interviewee described being purposely skipped over while waiting in a check-out line, and others described accounts of racial profiling by law enforcement. Though this is not a hate crime in and of itself, Perry argues that the individual does experience increased pressure and may link this to prior harassments and violence experienced, causing despair and further reinforcing the current hegemony in the United States. Her argument is well made during this section.
Particularly illuminative of the subjective psychological reactions to ethnoviolence is the focus in chapter 6 on the accepted normativity of violence and reactionary violence. For example, Perry utilizes interviews from a police officer who viewed non-Natives in community to be prejudiced and reporting Native American individuals seeking a "scapegoat" (99) and instigating problems within the community. Hence, Native peoples are presumed guilty of causing problems prior to reporting a hate crime, and many hate crime victims believe this attitude to be prevalent in the police force, consequently electing not to report. Therefore, the collected data are most likely an underrepresentation of violence in Indian country, and now Perry's research gives us some clear insight as to why.
Within the final section of the book Perry discusses both the individual and communal effects of violence, which lead to withdrawal and isolation and further cyclic oppression and marginalization. She then exposes the cumulative effects of ethnoviolence, which include internalized and interracial group violence. This is particularly useful for those working in the human service field in Indian Country today in viewing interracial violence as an outgrowth of oppression and a systemic versus individual concern. Within the final chapter examples of Native American individuals' proactive reactions to hate crimes are discussed, including utilizing positive coping strategies that can ultimately create sociopolitical change. As a reader I was left uplifted that individuals who experience hate crimes can still find ways to combat oppression and feel empowered in doing so, consequently instilling a sense of hope. Some practical actions are recommended by Perry and the interviewees such as decolonizing public schools' educational curriculum, speaking up when stereotypes are seen, and overall Native nations taking action to reduce hate crimes.
Article continues below.
Too often the societal context and voices of the individuals are not heard in ethnoviolence. The focus becomes one of the communities and a clash between cultures. Not only is Perry able to provide historical and contemporary context succinctly, but her interviewees are able to provide empowering suggestions to overcome this institutional pattern, thus providing a useful framework for educating non-Natives as well. Practitioners, educators, researchers, and lay people alike could gain illumination into society's perpetuation of hate crimes and social underpinnings of marginalized groups. Perry effectively narrates the complexities of this historical and sociopolitical relationship throughout her writing. Furthermore, the victims' individual experiences can break past stereotypes and make the reader aware of the impact of oppression on daily life. Native readers may be armed with some clear strategies for change, while non-Native readers could expand the book's discussions, exploring opportunities to stop the cycle of oppression. In sum, this book is an insightful, informative, and quick read for anyone interested in violence and trauma in Native communities.
NOw, here are some links that I've been promising to post in regards to CPS and their evil doings. Evil is not even a good enough word to describe what they do. It is so bad that not even the strongest explitives could fit the description of their nasty deeds.
It's Almost Tuesday This is a very imformative blog. It is definitely worth a read.
Sexual Abuse an Epidemic in foster Care Settings? This is an article that talks about how bad sexual abuse is in the foster care setting and how little is done to stop it; yet, parents can have their children snatched because the house is messy. Wow! This here shows that the system is so messed up and beyond backwards.
A Very Well Written Paper with stunning Statistics
All of this reading will hold you for awhile. See you later.
if a house is nasty, it's putting the child at risk of getting sick. no child should have to live like that. if you cna't take care of yourself and yoru home, what makes you think they take proper care of the child. come on ow. your acting like they just come in and snatch the kid from a good life and put him or her in harm. yeah, it may happen. but I'm sure lots more have been saved than harmed! So foster parenss aren't all bad.
thank you shay, for agreeing with me and being logical, you shall receive a charming gift basket.
Shay and Cody, I don't agree with any child being subjected to horrible circumstances. I hate child abusers with all my heart, and I feel that they should be severely punished without ever another chance at having children because once an abuser, always an abuser. If the abusive spouse states that he or she will never hurt his or her spouse again, what normally happens? It almost always happens again, and statistics prove that. The same happens with children, sad to say.
While i've said in a previous post that there are indeed good foster parents and social workers, as I've met some thankfully and they have helped me in saving abused children, there is more corruptness. And as I said before, if the system was as good as many profess it to be, then why so many organizations coming out to fight against it? Why are there so many people now exposing what has been kept quiet for so long? Why are so many abused children left in their homes and the inocent parents lose children that should have never been taken away? Why do even statistics on the government websites show that there is a very serious problem? Why are there many other studies also proving the same thing--that serious reform or a totally new system is an order? Well, it is because that is so. I guess that until it actually happens to you or someone you love, it is impossible for you to truly understand. I pray with all of my heart that it doesn't, though, because I don't even wish that on a worse enemy.
I invite you to please read the studies and links I've posted to see what I mean. It is not just me merely talking out the side of my mouth. It is me trying to bring things to light and show you what is really happening, while also giving you the tools to protect yourselves and your families.
When families know their rights, as far as government intervention in the home is concerned, they can then better protect and defend their children. I was a victim of CPS getting involved in taking me into temporary custody on false and trivial grounds, and let me tell you, it has made me despise the system, and it has also given me the amunition that I have now to help other families avoid the same fate. My parents are not blind. Could you imagine what could happen to parents who are?
by your logic, that would mean that every single theory about the world ending is true, because several groups have come out to support it. groups came out to support jones town, it didn't make it a good idea, and doesn't mean I'd be drinking the coolade. You seem to think that every single statistic is true, and that if the numbers match up, that means its true. Well it doesn't work like that in a real world.
I could go on and on about it, showing several cases in which child protective services helped and ones in which frustrated parents smeared the name of a good foster family; but you obviously have your heart set on this, and it obviously has pissed you off since you were a child, though I would tend to question the judgement of a child, and thus, arguing with you would be pointless.
i've worked hand and hand with cps before, and never had a problem, the only problem I did have with them is they change there stories up from day to day. i've never had to deal with them with my oan child, but i've done foster caire before, and that's my only complaint. I had to remove my self from the situation and let another family membor take shyla because I couldn't deal with there antics, but i've never had cps called on me, so I don't have a sound arguement. I do know, if you do a good enough job by prooving that you can do every thing just as a sighted person could just as well, then you shouldn't have a problem. blindness was never a problem for me with cps, like I said, just there two faced bs.
it's easy for people to say Reina isn't being logical when they've never been abused...but the truth is, you have no clue what it's like and how it affects children. thankfully some of us choose to grow from said experiences, but there are others who aren't capable of that, or are too scared...and it's important for those of us who can use our voice to do so affectively and as much as possible. at least for me.
There's no perfect way to run CPS, in some cases the parents are not given sufficient chances, in some cases they get too many. Just look at the Davis case here in NC where the mother was given a chance at being a mother ans less than a month later soldher 5-year-old girl into sexual servitude where she was raped and killed.
You can find cases for and against foster families and the system but it doesn't really solve much.
Also this exposes a very simple flaw in the republican system, namely this is a free market economy with minimal government intervention so of course there are limited funds for this type of work and most of them have to come from private institutions, that is what republican doctrine is all about.
It is also natural for kin families to get less money than the foster family since it is probably assumed there is a high level of drug addiction, alcoholism or other activities in the family, which causes the child's removal in the first place. In such a scenario the money given to such a family wouldnot be spent on the child's welfare at all and it would be better invested in a foster family.
I also am rather confused what the whole Native Indian family has to o with blind parents, other than to argue that it is all ethnic biast.
Let's face it, it doesn't take much talent or respnsibility to make a child, in fact it takes about anywhere from one to 10 or 20 minutes, depending on circumstance. There is no pre qualification program so a lot of people who neither want to be parents nor are ready for it in any way, have children, the practical ban on abortions makes this a definite case in the U.S. for better or worse.
Now the children may be left with people who have no desire to have a child nor the maturity or means to care for them. On the other hand you have quite a few professionals who have been too busy working or have not found the time for a child who realize, once they are unable to have kids, they do want to care for a child.
CPs would be part of the means for transferring kids from one to the other.
The system needs to evaluate both families correctly and an independent body needs to oversee that the work being done is in the child's best itnerest and not motivated by, say, money to the care givers.
Neither can you say children should always be removed from their parents nor the other way around, raising kids is difficult, precisely because they're all vastly different and so are their parents.
Exposing corruption and or systematic biases within such a system is a good thing, but to categorically claim it is wrong in nture is just as wrong as automatically remove kids from any parents not perceived to be fit without evaluating each specific situation.
WB, the trouble is that a lot of the time, CPS goes on hearsay evidence, and investigations are not done. Parents then lose their rights. In this system, I've seen too often that parents are guilty until proven inocent. And even when the parents inocence is evident, these corrupt social workers continue going on with the lies, piling more and more on because they already dug the hole too deep. I've seen it happen all too often, and from my research, so have millions of others. It is time for some severe change because the system we have is not cutting it.
As far as the Native American topics being brought into the discussion, it was used to show Cody and others how unpure this system is. They may say it is in the best interest of the child, but sadly, I've only seen a small fraction where that is actually true.
Cody, i have every right to be mad about what happened to me when i was younger. Just think, when a child has a normal and loving parent, to that child, the parent is their hero. The parent can make everything all better, and the parent is the one who the child looks to for a refuge. But what happens when that stability is upset? What happens when the child is suddenly taken from what is familiar? What happens when the child learns that worse forces are even more powerful than the parent--the one who is their knight in shining armor, the hero, their protecter? well, let's just say that it can be very dammaging, very traumatizing. Some never recover from such an event--never, ever, ever!!!!!!!!!
Because of CPS, I'm blind today, as a result of them not listening to my parents at all and not allowing me to continue my medical treatments for my eye condition because they thought that they were god Almighty and that my parents could not possibly know what they were talking about. Because of CPS, I have scars. But something good came from it, too. Because of CPS, I now tirelessly inform people of their corruption, and i have parents who have been wronged to get their children back. I'm also the voice for the children who do not have a voice because nobody cares about how children feel and what they think. As far as it is concerned, children are second class citizens, thus are treated as such. If it is in the best interest of the child, wouldn't we want to listen to the voice of the children? Wouldn't we want to consider their feelings, especially since we so claim that we do things in their best interest? Well, you'd think, but it never happens because as you stated, one cannot possibly trust the judgement of a child, when sometimes, the child knows best and can tell the truth. CPS will never hear that out, though. You know, if it weren't for that doctor who went to bat for me, I'd not ever have come home with my parents...
As I've also said, it has never happened to you. CPS was never directly involved in your life, and here is to hoping that they never will, especially if you never did anything wrong.
amen Reina!!! very, very well said.
Cody, as I will state time and again, if millions, yes millions, are outcrying, and if government sites, yes the very same government that sponsors CPS, shows stats that there are very serious problems, wouldn't that say something? If there is tons of footage, documentation, and a number of evidence supporting these claims, doesn't that mean anything at all?
Now, i have a question for you. What can you show me that will prove my argument wrong. All along, you sit here and tell me how illogical i am, yet you've not really shown me much to back up your claims. Why do you have so much faith in CPS? What makes you believe that what I say is useless vomit spewed forth from my mouth, which is purely nonsensical? What enables you to feel that CPS always acts in the best interest of the child? Show me why CPS is good, and then we can be on the same page. I'm eager to hear your side of things, so long as it is backed up with a great deal of substance. I've done my part...
So is there no independent board or committee that CPS cases can be appealed to, or do such cases go into the judicial system?
I still stand by my claim CPS is a good thing and all too often necessary, but of course such a system should be closely monitorred and cases independently evaluated and parents who feel done wrong by CPS need to have a discourse for righting the wrongs that have been done to them.
I have seen very few cases, fortunately, where CPS, or the European equivalent system, is called into play, but in the few cases I have seen the removal of the child was definitely the right thing to do, which is not to say that is automatically always the case.