Should Children At Risk of Child Abuse Be Removed From Their Families?

It all depends on what you mean by "at risk". If the parents are abusing drugs and/or alcohol and are not taking care of their children because they are too busy getting high or drunk and there is proof that they are being abused then yes but only if there is proof that it is happening. They need to be given "services" such as drug and alcohol treatment and/or mental health counseling and parenting classes etc. Before the children are taken from the home there needs to be proof that those things are happening and not just on the word of a neighbor. Many times kids are taken and there really is no proof that they are being abused. Simply being "at risk" is not a good enough reason to take the kids, in my opinion.

Why would anyone be "for" taking a child away from their family unless there is concrete evidence that the kids have been abused or neglected, like numerous unexplained bruises, broken bones, malnourished, a positive drug test in the parent, etc.?

Foster care is supposed to help children and their families but many times it doesn't. Each case is individual and needs to be thoroughly investigated.

I have heard of cases where CPS "got a high" off of removing children simply because they didn't like the parent when in fact the parent never abused or neglected the children to begin with.

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/CourtLimitsRemovingCHi...

I have pasted a link for you to read about a case in NYC in which the children of abused mothers were removed by CPS and the mothers were charged with neglect because they said they put their children at risk by allowing the abusive man around their children. It was later judged to be unconstitutional.

Very interesting question by the way. Good luck on your report.

I believe it would be impossible to objectively gage what constitutes "at risk". Who will determine that a child is at risk, and under what circumstances? Will the parents income and what area, or "part of town", a child lives in be taken into consideration? What constitutes abuse? Is spanking abuse, or is there a certain level that is acceptable? If there is an acceptable level of corporal punishment, what is it? What is an acceptable period of time to confine a child to their room? Is it abuse to feed a child fatty foods so that they become obese? Is it abuse to not vaccinate a child?

We already have a system in place to protect children from abuse. The problem is that the system is overworked and understaffed. I believe that if there were more people devoted to the necessary work who had smaller case loads we would not see so many children fall through the cracks. Systematically removing children from homes in which someone "thinks" they might be abused in the future would be an abomination. Kids could be removed from the homes of loving, non-abusive parents as a result. It's never good to remove a child from their parents unless there is very just cause to do so.

ETA: The requirements that you've been given for this report are unreasonable. Short of making up something fanatical, there isn't a logical means to defend removing "at risk" children from a home, as the definition of said risk is subjective. I suppose you could use the angle of domestic violence having occured among the adults in the home, thus creating more risk for the children in the home. Or, a child having been previously abused in the home. You could look up statistics for the number of children who were ultimately abused under these living conditions. That's really about all I can come up with.

No, At risk means nothing. Now I am going to remove the word at risk and insert my own "Should children who have been abused by their families be removed from them" Then yes, by all means. A child should not be forced or even given the option to stay with an abuser. It is giving the abuser the opportunity to abuse again. SOmetimes foster care is not much better than where the child was, but it is better than being abused. From the other stand point the only reason I can think of someone might want the child to stay with their abuser would be to keep from breaking up the family. I don't agree with that, but there is your rebuttal. When you say the word family, it could mean the abuser (mom, dad, uncle, etc.) or it could mean the whole family (grandma, cousin, etc.) I think if a child is taken from the abuser then another family member (not living with abuser) should be given the option to take the child before it goes into state custody. I hope that makes sense, having trouble concentrating with Alvin and the Chipmunks in the background here.

What do you mean by at 'risk'? Is the offspring of a woman suffering from post natal depression at 'risk'?

How about working with families to teach them basic parenting skills rather than plonking them in foster care and forgetting all about them.

Removing kids from families is a last resort.

What you will need for your report is proper arguments as to why children should be removed. You will have to discuss the different degrees of risk. Is it just that the parents are young and don't know what they are doing and have maybe not had great parents themselves? Or is it that the children are facing severe physical and sexual abuse?

"at risk" Could mean I don't like you because your dog pooped on my lawn and I call CPS with a false tip. They come and take your happy well l adjusted children into foster care and they regress and begin having social difficulties. I don't think so being removed is a huge trauma for parents and children. Unless at risk means the farther is a proven recent sex offender or the mother repeatedly is caught driving under the influence with children in the car I do not like removing children. It is far better to observe the family. If their is real abuse the child should be removed immedetly of corse.

Well, define "at risk".

In this society, we are innocent until proven guilty. Someone is not punished because they are "at risk" for committing a crime. They are punished if they are proven guilty of actually committing the crime after due process.

Should little girls be removed from the homes of single fathers because they might be "at risk" for molestation? If there is a distant history of chemical dependency in the family, should a child be removed because the parents are "at risk" for a relapse? Should children automatically be taken away from young parents because young parents are "at risk" for child abuse?

You have to deal with the facts, not the "what ifs". When you are writing a report, stick to your observations and the facts, leave the speculations to the experts.

I believe that children should be removed from the home when they are being hurt physically, sexually and emotionally ONLY after intervention has been tried. Working with families so that this could be avoided would be ideal but workers are over worked and underpaid. Someone has to be the voice of the child when parents are unable to care for their own children. What would be the reason for not removing a child?

Susan

No... technically, all children are 'at risk' of child abuse or neglect because pretty much every adult is physically capable of beating them, or saying things to them that would qualify as emotional abuse, or not feeding them which would be neglect. There are children who come from sketchy-looking families whose parents or caretakers love them and would never dream of hurting them, and then there are children who come from upper-class, outwardly perfect families who get abused. If there seems to be a very high risk of child abuse, however, it would be ideal if CPS could monitor the situation, or encourage the parents to take voluntary parenting or anger-management classes.

What do you mean at risk? If they are being Abused then yes of course they should be removed, but if you mean that parent(s) have the potential to abuse their children, then there is nothing no one can do till they actually do the crime.

What standard of assessment could possibly be used to determine which children are "at risk of child abuse"? This question doesn't make sense to me.