> There are cases when a state should take away a kid. But it should be because the kid is in danger, not because the parents can't pass a trivia game.
Really? Such as? Because if what you care about is the child, the child's future, even in absurdly extreme cases birth parents turn out to be better:
And the closer the family bond, the better children fare. Which means "state care" is always the worst option. Unrelated foster care is the second worst option.
Study after study shows bad situations ... and always state intervention is the worst option. Take the child away when the parents are arrested? Or put the kid in jail too? Best option turns out to be ... let the kid stay in jail too.
Drug addicts refuse treatment? Best option for the kid? State care or just leave them? Best option turns out to leave them.
And even truly extreme: actual, bona fide abuse. Which in 99% of cases is the kid just being left home alone for too long btw. What is best? State intervention or leaving the kid there? Best is leaving the kid there.
Violence at home? Whether it's witnessing violence or actual victimization: best option is to leave the kid at home (and of course, often it's the state's fault, for example failing to protect a mother from an ex-husband)
Parents want to get rid of a child? Best option is to refuse to help.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that "the state should take away the child" should never be used as long as the parents or any family willing to help are even alive.
Because, study the system and you will quickly see how it really works. You will find foster care is only forced on the parents and the children. Foster parents want to get rid of a kid? Easy. A care home wants to get rid of a child? Even if the kid ends up on the street that's easy. Of course, nobody suggests changing that. In those cases, of course, the parents get punished, not "professionals" *. And, of course, child protection cannot be forced to care for a child through studies (but parents can). And so on.
* this, despite the fact that punishing the parents is often not possible. If the parents have nothing, what are you going to do. Of course, even if child protection or social workers are very much involved in the problems of the parents (e.g. the parents were foster kids themselves), they cannot be forced to deal with the consequences.
The first problem is that nobody will ever do anything about sex and sexual abuse in youth institutions. The foster care system effectively has the same approach to protecting children against abuse, physical and sexual, as the sea has when it protects fish from water.
And the same appears to be true in Denmark/Greenland:
Which brings the question: are you protecting children from child sexual abuse if you take them into the system? No, you're not.
It gets much worse: in fact you are causing child sexual abuse. When the UN researched it worldwide you see: child abuse (violent or sexual) happens most at schools, over half of the total. That is the big source of child sexual abuse (~half by other children, ~half by staff). Obviously youth institutions do nothing to protect children against this. In second place ... are youth institutions themselves. Additionally: it is exceedingly rare for children to be abused by their birth parents. If abuse happens at home, the biggest share is at home, but not by family members, then "reconstituted" families (2nd or 3rd marriage with kids from multiple marriages, and usually between non-siblings, not the parents), then reconstituted families the parents with not-their own children, and then the last 0.3% or so of child sexual abuse is by the parents.
(and so, yes, "most" sexual abuse does not start with a predator going after kids, it happens because someone who works a lot with children gets the opportunity and cannot say "no" when it is really easy, and this is the vast majority. In other words, while obviously keeping predators away from kids is important, don't expect it to lower the numbers much. And ... where do people work a lot with children? Schools, school-related sports, and youth services)
You want to prevent child sexual abuse? NEVER place kids in a position where they are continuously dependent on a stranger. Just never do that. Of course, I realize, no form of youth services can work without doing that.
The problem with this is "medical statistics". You take a lot of kids, almost never for sexual abuse, out of the home situation, where the odds of sexual abuse by parents are something like 3/100000 or so, and "protect them", by placing them into an institution where something like 10% of girls get abused, and 5% or so of boys. Obviously this massively increases the number of child sexual abuse victims, it does not decrease them.
> Really? Such as? Because if what you care about is the child, the child's future, even in absurdly extreme cases birth parents turn out to be better
Yeah, I’m sure people I know who were raped as children, abused and prostituded by drug addict parents and watched their siblings die from said drugs would have been immensely worse off away from pedophiles and drug addicts.
Although, at the very least, perhaps we can accept forced sterilization for such people. At the least keep it from expanding.
Really? Such as? Because if what you care about is the child, the child's future, even in absurdly extreme cases birth parents turn out to be better:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/05/980505092617.h...
And the closer the family bond, the better children fare. Which means "state care" is always the worst option. Unrelated foster care is the second worst option.
Study after study shows bad situations ... and always state intervention is the worst option. Take the child away when the parents are arrested? Or put the kid in jail too? Best option turns out to be ... let the kid stay in jail too.
Drug addicts refuse treatment? Best option for the kid? State care or just leave them? Best option turns out to leave them.
And even truly extreme: actual, bona fide abuse. Which in 99% of cases is the kid just being left home alone for too long btw. What is best? State intervention or leaving the kid there? Best is leaving the kid there.
Violence at home? Whether it's witnessing violence or actual victimization: best option is to leave the kid at home (and of course, often it's the state's fault, for example failing to protect a mother from an ex-husband)
Parents want to get rid of a child? Best option is to refuse to help.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that "the state should take away the child" should never be used as long as the parents or any family willing to help are even alive.
Because, study the system and you will quickly see how it really works. You will find foster care is only forced on the parents and the children. Foster parents want to get rid of a kid? Easy. A care home wants to get rid of a child? Even if the kid ends up on the street that's easy. Of course, nobody suggests changing that. In those cases, of course, the parents get punished, not "professionals" *. And, of course, child protection cannot be forced to care for a child through studies (but parents can). And so on.
* this, despite the fact that punishing the parents is often not possible. If the parents have nothing, what are you going to do. Of course, even if child protection or social workers are very much involved in the problems of the parents (e.g. the parents were foster kids themselves), they cannot be forced to deal with the consequences.