Saturday, June 7, 2008

Family Preservation? Or Murder?

I found it interesting that, once again, we hear the cliche that "it take a village to raise a child..." in this video. Kudos to the social worker who pointed out that is also takes a village to protect a child. Here is what Patrick T. Murphy states about the "village" in his book Wasted: The Plight of America's Unwanted Children:

Self-described child advocates have sloganized "it takes a village to raise a child" in order to relieve bad parents of blame for abusing their children or of the responsibly, even for overwhelmed adolescent parents who should not have had children in the first place. The argument that "they're just poor victims," as a defense of the crimes and foibles of a minority underclass and a tinier percent of the poor, leaves the public to infer that all poor people are criminals, welfare junkies, and child abusers. The village must protect children whose parents have failed them either purposefully, because of neglect,or for reasons beyond their control. And the village should help poor families with programs, funds, and jobs. The village can indeed provide a family with a friendly environment, but only a parent can raise a child.

In my opinion ~ I don't care if the foster family is black, white, yellow, lesbian, or gay ~ it is NOT in the child's "best interests" to return him or her to a blood relative simply upon that basis. Children should be placed in loving, nurturing, protective environments as soon as possible and the race or sexual orientation of the foster parents should NOT be a factor. What is wrong with this country that we discriminate against loving people who want to parent while encouraging, supporting, and coddling people who abuse the most vulnerable people of all ~ the children? All in the name of family preservation? You can't preserve something that was never there to begin with! Sadly, far too many people would rather allow a child to be abused, neglected or even killed than run the risk of being called racist, elitist, or classist. I would take any of the latter labels over being a murderer!

1 comment:

sabarter said...

You know Dawn that was the very reason that we did not adopt here in the states. That is the number one question asked me by people. "Why didn't you just adopt here? There are so many kids who need loving homes."
To which I would reply, "You are exactly correct on that statement." but I had a social worker sitting in my living room telling me that the child I would eventually adopt would be returned to the biological family as many as three times before rights were terminated. Now, lets do the math. You bring me a child that I bond with, love and nurture and become "mommie" to, the child is safe and sound knowing that "mommie" has made it okay. Then one day, social worker, just doing her job comes to take the child back to where they are not safe and sound, insecure and God knows what else because "mommie meth lab" has turned her life around in 3 months, she's attending church and treatment classes. Well whopptie frickin do.
I would never let my child go knowingly to somewhere they should never be, so why would I send a child that came to me through the system here in the states? I wouldn't and therefore I would be incarcerated. Step on my porch and try to take my kids and you will face a shotgun. That simple, so we did not even go down that road. I am not saying that we did not do thorough research, we took all the hours the state required. I did not make that decision without being informed. This is what they told me to be fact. That is what I deal in. Fact!
Girl you hit the nail on the head with that post. I may sit quietly for awhile but when something stirs me as that post did, I am an in your face bulldog. It is things like that that make you wonder where people who are writing these laws and making these rules lost their common sense. The scary thing is, we put them in their positions of power.
You keep doing what you are doing and it will make a difference.