Here are a couple of questions I've been struggling with for a while now.
As a person with a left-leaning mindset, I believe there is space for government to step in when people's lives are endangered or threatened. This includes safety regulations, food and consumer goods inspections, and universal health care. A natural outcome of this belief is the government has both a right and a duty to intervene when a child's physical or mental health are in danger due to neglect or abuse.
But somewhere along the line things seem to have gone off the rails. I don't think I've seen any posts here on the forum from people who have been on the receiving end of CFS (Child and Family Services) assistance who aren't upset and bitter about the whole experience. From social workers interfering over trivial matters to inept foster parents who seem to do the work just for the money, I've seen very little positive press about these agencies.
Is this because only the bad stories--usually the spectacular failures that ended in the death of a child in care--make the papers? Or is it because the agencies are fundamentally failing in their mission?
My questions for discussion are:
Has anyone here had an experience with CFS, as a parent, child, worker, or bystander, that can be rated as positive? (Positive may be a tricky thing to define, but for me it means an intervention that resulted in the parents and the children getting the care they needed, with the family reuniting and becoming a functional family again.)
Do CFS agencies do more harm than good? If your answer is "more harm", how would you fix it? By abolishing the agencies and letting kids fare for themselves? Improving funding and oversight?
(While I would prefer this thread not become a bash-fest against social agencies, I can't police that. The best I can hope for is the co-operation of the posters.)
As a person with a left-leaning mindset, I believe there is space for government to step in when people's lives are endangered or threatened. This includes safety regulations, food and consumer goods inspections, and universal health care. A natural outcome of this belief is the government has both a right and a duty to intervene when a child's physical or mental health are in danger due to neglect or abuse.
But somewhere along the line things seem to have gone off the rails. I don't think I've seen any posts here on the forum from people who have been on the receiving end of CFS (Child and Family Services) assistance who aren't upset and bitter about the whole experience. From social workers interfering over trivial matters to inept foster parents who seem to do the work just for the money, I've seen very little positive press about these agencies.
Is this because only the bad stories--usually the spectacular failures that ended in the death of a child in care--make the papers? Or is it because the agencies are fundamentally failing in their mission?
My questions for discussion are:
Has anyone here had an experience with CFS, as a parent, child, worker, or bystander, that can be rated as positive? (Positive may be a tricky thing to define, but for me it means an intervention that resulted in the parents and the children getting the care they needed, with the family reuniting and becoming a functional family again.)
Do CFS agencies do more harm than good? If your answer is "more harm", how would you fix it? By abolishing the agencies and letting kids fare for themselves? Improving funding and oversight?
(While I would prefer this thread not become a bash-fest against social agencies, I can't police that. The best I can hope for is the co-operation of the posters.)
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1vYPR9p
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire