Does the State Have a Responsibility to Intervene in Family Life - Essay Example

?Does the Have a Responsibility to Intervene In Family Life Where There Are Problems? Introduction Most British believe that parents are well placed to nurture, as well as protect their children, according to Horn (1999). This is one of the fundamental responsibilities that married couples entering into the institution of marriage where children are likely to be raised must be aware. Once couples are married, the wife and the husband is expected to respect the institution of marriage through co-operation to ensure that the interests of the coming together as husband and wife and providing for the children are safeguarded. Even though most parents are taking good care of their children and safeguarding the institution of marriage, problems sometimes do arise, which requires the intervention of the state. According to Horn (1999), the state has the responsibility to intervene if a parent is unable to protect his children from preventable harm. Additionally, many problems exist in most families that some political wings, left and right wingers believe requires the government’s intervention, according to the Department for Communities and Local Government (2013). However, not everyone in the political arena supports the state’s intervention in family life, citing that it amounts to interference with the private life of a parent. Based on the opposing views, this paper seeks to answer the question of whether the state has a responsibility to intervene in family life whenever there is a problem. History of family support The history of family support dates back to 1970s when the concept was born in Chicago (Millar and Warman1996, p.6). The idea was born out of the initiative of the parents with children with disabilities that felt the need to get support from the government. The initiative is said to have taken place throughout the United States alongside the formation of parent groups at this time. The concept of family support later spread very first to European countries such as the U.K. and then to the rest of the world. The Department for Communities and Local Government (2013) reports that by 1990s, the family support concept had grown as it could now be reported in the field of developmental disabilities, intellectual, and part of local and state service system in the United State. Now, the family support services are seen as one of the best means of providing the needed support to families and their children. The support is provided mainly under situations where the state deem it necessary to provide the needed support, according to Millar and Warman (1996, p.8). Evidence shows that the support provided through the state intervention has been witnessed mainly when the government feels that the family if facing a problem that requires its intervention for the good of the family and society. Family and the State Dingwall, Eekelaar, and Murray (1995, p.9) define a family as “the basic social unit.” In other words, a family is made up of two or more people affiliated by affinity, blood, or co-residence. A family can be nuclear or extended family. Nuclear family consists of the father, mother, and children affiliated by blood. Extended family, on the other hand, consist of the uncles, aunts, and nephews who are not necessary affiliated by blood. As earlier stated, a family can go beyond blood relation and include people residing close to one another making it a single unit. A state, according to Dingwall, Eekelaar, and Murray (1995, p.9), is an organization exercising legitimate power. The fact that the state is allowed to exercise legitimate power gives it the mandate to intervene on families matters in case of a problem that it deems require its intervention. The British government, for example, has the legitimate power to exercise coercion on its citizens. This allows it to intervene on families matters for the good of the society and the country at large. The right and left wing views of state intervention in family life Generally, parents are under the obligation to ensure the well-being of children and ensure that the institution of marriage is safeguarded. Parents are expected to, in addition to providing for the children; ensure that they are also protected from harm or abuse of any kind. However, the left will of the political divide believes that the state has the responsibility to intervene in family life if parents are operating in a ‘moral vacuum,’ according to Margaret Hodge, the Children’s Minister (The Telegraph 2007). The left-wingers hold that the state is a force for change and social justice, therefore, should intervene in the life of an individual to ensure the achievement of social justice. According to Hodge a one of the left-wingers, the intervention in family life is aimed at ensuring that parents make better choices (The Telegraph 2007). The intervention, according to the minister does not amount to controlling or punishing parents. According to Hodge, the state has the responsibility to intervene in family life where it believes that children are at risk of abuse or are not being protected by their parents. Hodge goes ahead to state that parents are likely to behave badly if allowed working in a vacuum. She cites that allowing parents to operate in a vacuum is likely to create a society where incest, domestic violence, abuse, and neglect flourish, something that the left-wingers strongly oppose (The Telegraph 2007). Hodge singled out the areas such as domestic violence, which state intervention is needed to help safeguard the rights of married couples. According to the minister, early intervention of the state in family life is needed to prevent dependency and minimize intrusion into family life. The right-wingers, on the other hand, strongly opposed the idea of state intervention on the life of parents. The right-wingers hold that the state is gig and unwieldy, therefore ought not to interfere with the lives of its citizens. According to right-wingers, state intervention amounts to interference with the right to liberty of individuals enshrined in the constitution. Accordingly, right-wingers believe that every citizen regardless of their status in society ought to be accorded equal treatment under the law and by the government. In this regard, they claim that the left-wingers who advocate for state intervention in the life of families ought to know that it is the parents, not the state who understands what is right for their families. Therefore, the right-wingers rebuff the intervention move terming it an antiquated concept that ought not to be introduced in the present day society. Accordingly, the right-wingers claim that families want to be accorded the freedom to make independent choices over how they run their affairs. They argue that as much as families need help and support from the state, they do not need a nanny that follow every movement they make and disapproving every little decision they make that does not conform with the what the government expects (Fox-Harding 2000). Nevertheless, the left-wingers claim that the government does not intend to tell parents of what to do rather to provide assistance and help whenever a problem arises. According to the left-wingers such as Hodge, the role of the state in family life is to give support for parents, thereby enabling them to return to their places of work when they so wish, providing assistance whenever family were in distress, as well as providing opportunities to children and parents from disadvantaged backgrounds. Hodge, the Children’s Minister categorically asserted that the government’s policy is not about controlling and punishing parents; rather it is meant to empower parents to take control over their lives and that actions taken by the government concerning parenting has to do with providing the needed support and promoting opportunity. In this regard, the left wingers claim that parents have had great influence than any individual on the success of their children, which explains why the state provided the eagerly needed support parents needed. This implies that the state has to move with speed to eliminate inequalities triggered by the differences in wealth, such as poor performance of children from unprivileged families. Different perspectives on the role of the state in family life Based on the political views held by the left and right-wingers, the question that begs is whether the state has a responsibility to intervene in family life. However, we all understand that the stability of the state necessitate the bringing up of children to take up the place as independent members of their communities. To meet this responsibility for children, the state normally assist through intervention to ensure that children are adequately protected and controlled whenever the family cannot or is not meeting this obligation to the standards set by the state (Irons 1996). There are a number of theories that attempts to explain how the state and the family ought to associate with respect to children. According to the first perspective, the state ought to take minimal role in taking care of children by intervening only in extreme circumstances for protection or correction of children (Fox-Harding 2000). According to Fox-Harding, this minimal intervention is necessary to ensure that the rights of privacy and sanctity of the parent-child relationship is respected. However, critics of this concept claim that the extreme circumstances concept where intervention is only allowed to narrow, leaving out categories such as emotional harm and risk of abuse where a child can suffer much damage when physically abused (Fox-Harding 2000). In addition, the critics of this approach argue that the wishes of children under this concept are neglected since their interests are assumed to match with those of their parents. Others in support of state intervention in family life intend to ensure that all children are given a right to caring adults who satisfy their wants. According to this paradigm, the state decides as to whom the adults should be, notes Fox-Harding (2000). Despite the fact that this model focuses mainly on children rather than parents in the family, the model is likely to overlook the importance of the close relation between the parent and the child. Additionally, the model places much faith in the importance of state intervention assuming that the state’s agents such as judges and social workers make appropriate and well-informed judgments that ensures the well-being of children. The third spectrum regarding the role of the state in family life holds that the main responsibility of state intervention pertains to the maintenance of the biological family as much as possible (Fox-Harding 2000). According to this perspective, state intervention is meant to respond to the problems facing families, while attempting to address the problems so as to ensure close relation between the child and the family. However, this view has also faced criticism from some squatters claiming that the view focus much on the biological bond while failing to differentiate between the feelings, interests, and welfare of parents and children. It is evident that each of these paradigms of state intervention in family life is used largely in British family law, protection and care legislation, income support, juvenile justice law and other legal regulations and processes that govern families and childhood. It is also apparent that each of the perspectives encompasses some kind of state-family interaction. Why state intervention in family life is needed The literature affirms the controversy that surrounds the idea of state intervention in family life. The literature states clearly that parents are under the obligation to ensure that the rights of children in the family are protected. However, parents sometimes fail to fulfill this vital obligation thereby exposing children to abuse. It is in this regard that the state is sometimes required to come in and intervene in the family life even if it is against the wishes of the parents or any of the family members. According to Woodhouse (1999, p.4), abuse and neglect is one of the most obvious arena in which the state intervention is crucial. Woodhouse argue that the government is under the obligation to ensure that the weak are protected from brute force of the powerful (Woodhouse 1999, p.4). This obligation is fundamental that people cannot afford to take for granted. Research indicates that children have been very vulnerable to abuse by those whom they trust to provide them with the needed protection. The strongest in society have often used their powers to exploit, starve, torture, beat, and terrorize the powerless in society while the police just looked and ignored their cries for help. While the luck y have been able to get the needed protection from their parents and family members, the unlucky children have had to endure the mistreatments meted on them by their family members. However, in view of the new age of children’s right, we are convicted that children have a fundamental right to be secure and safe in their homes and the state has a responsibility to assure the children their safety. In this regard, the U.K. government in collaboration with the private sector has established a system for receiving reports regarding neglect and child abuse and the intervention to abate it (Schools and Fam Department for Children 2009, p.61). Nevertheless, the system for protecting the children from such abuse must respect the needs of a child and family relationship. The U.K. is one of the European nations with the highest numbers of child abuse and neglect. Research conducted by the NSPCC in 1998/9 showed that child neglect is the most prevalent form of child abuse in the U.K. today. This robs children of their fundamental rights of being taken care of by their parents. In March 2010, a whopping 43% of children in England registered as neglected children (Corby, Shemmings, and Wilkins 2012, p.9). The number was slightly higher in Scotland and Whales where 44% and about 50% of children registered as having being neglected by their parents. However, since the state has the responsibility to safeguard the rights of children, it has often intervened in such circumstances by compelling parents to take care of their children. In fact, the U.K. government has sued some parents for child neglect, which is considered a crime under the U.K. law, note Corby, Shemmings, and Wilkins (2012, p.9). In this regard, it becomes a parent that the move by the state to intervene in family life is informed by the problems that is at stake purposely to safeguard the interest and rights of children. Education is regarded as one of the fundamental human right. Stern (2002) argues that the development of a country depends largely on how well citizens are educated. It is normally the responsibility of a parent to ensure that children obtain necessary education for their future well-being. However, not all parents have the ability to pay for the school fees due to financial constraints. At the same time, some parents deny their children access to education based on religion or family autonomy. This usually calls for the intervention o the state to ensure that children acquire the required knowledge through proper education. Woodhouse (1999, p.6) argues that children’s rights to intellectual freedoms are useless if they are barred from obtaining the knowledge and skills required for use them to use their intellect. Despite the fact that the government, need not focus much on the values and beliefs that children are taught by their parents, rather, it must ensure that children have the necessary resources with which to acquire skills and knowledge and make well-informed decision regarding the world around them. Woodhouse (1999, p.6) suggests that in circumstances that family independence clashes with the educational rights of children, family independence ought to give way. It is acknowledged that free compulsory public education can violate the parental choices. Nevertheless, it also guarantees children a future right to make informed and intelligent decisions of their own, for themselves and their siblings. Nonetheless, Houlgate (2005, p.108) advices that the state ought to be sensitive to the needs of children for a sense of family integrity and to prevent needless antagonism with deeply held family values. Woodhouse (1999, p.6) noted that some parents have the habit of denying themselves and their children medical care in the name of freedom of religion. According to Corby, Shemmings, and Wilkins (2012, p.9), some parents and children have died from preventable diseases arguing that their religion does not allow seeking for medical treatments. It is agreed that children have the right to exercise their freedom of religion without interference. Nevertheless, the child’s right to religion is useless if the life of a child has to be sacrificed before the child is old enough to form a deeply held religious conviction. Therefore, the state has the responsibility under such circumstances to intervene so as to protect the child from dying from preventable diseases on religious arguments (Feldman and Scherz 2006, p.93). However, before intervening, the state must ensure that the intervention is accomplished without necessary infringing the child’s and parents’ personal and religious beliefs. Woodhouse (1999, p.6) claims that adults tend to ignore the significance of children’s spiritual lives. According to Robert Coles, one of the most famous psychiatrists, most youths understands the moral dimensions of their actions and as such identifies themselves with the religions in which they are brought up. As such coercing children to behave in a manner that infringe on their religious beliefs invades their rights just as it invades their parents. According to Woodhouse (1999, p.6), the state through lawmakers and courts, play a crucial role in making laws governing marriage dissolution and the restructuring of family after the divorce. Unlike in the U.K. where the government enact laws to this regard, some nations use religious traditions in setting rules. In such countries, the civil authorities often turn to religious laws for the law principles in settling family disputes. However, regardless of whether the laws governing dissolution of marriage are civil or religious, the state is under the obligation to protect children from damaging emotional and economic effects brought about by parents’ divorce (Bornstein 2012, p.13). In setting the laws governing marriage, the government must ensure that such laws put the interest of the child first since children are the ones that suffer most when parents divorce. In this regard, the law must ensure that the child is still able to maintain close contact from and receive the needed support from both parents even after the dissolution of marriage. At the same time, children ought not to be treated as a marriage property to be allocated on fifty/fifty basis, as has been the norm in some countries, where children are allocated to the parents at dispute according to the parents at fault in dissolving the marriage (Bornstein 2012, p.13). In addition, the state has the obligation to prevent a parent from seeing a child; especially the parent at fault because of the psychological harm the child is likely to find himself seeing the parent after divorce. For instance, the world has began witnessing a situation where fathers who batter their wives in their children’s presence being denied the claim to visitation, due to the psychological harm it causes to the child for witnessing the parents engage in violent acts that lead to divorce. The U.K. is one of the countries that have suffered most from the effects of the recent financial crisis. In fact, the U.K’s economy has stagnated for a long time now due to the impacts of the financial crisis. This have resulted in high interest rates and rising inflation, making life difficult for most U.K. households. As a result, the U.K. governments, being concerned by the welfare of its people have been forced to intervene by assisting poor families to help uplift their living standards. The U.K. government acknowledges the fact that the growth of its economy hugely depends on the health of its workforce. Therefore, intervention through financial assistance and improvement of the health of its citizens is one of the surest ways of revamping the economy of the country (Wilson and James 2007, p.33). Unlike other state interventions that many parents have criticized, research indicates that this state intervention have received massive support from families affected. Drug abuse is another major problem that the U.K. government has to tackle in the country. Ling (2012, p.15) notes that most parents have most parents have failed to educate their children against the dangers of drug abuse. As a result, most children have ended up abuse drugs without understanding the negative impacts of drug abuse. For instance, it is common today to find many U.K. children smoke cigarettes on the streets. Others have become addicts because their parents failed to nurture them in the right way by teaching them the dangers of smoking. Ling (2012, p.15) warns that smoking increases an individual’s risk of suffering from diseases such as cancer of the lungs, liver cirrhosis, and tooth decay just to name but a few. The rate of drug abuse among children shows broken moral values in the U.K. society if the BBC statistics in anything to go by (BBC News 2002). The BBC news reported that one in every five U.K. children aged 11-15 years have used drugs in the last year. According to the government survey, the number of children who have abused gas, glue aerosols and other solvents have increased at an alarming rate. According to the study, at least 12% of teenagers had used drugs in the previous month while a whopping 20% have used drugs in the last twelve months (BBC News 2002). The figures were 9% and 14% in 2000, which shows how huge the number of children abusing drugs in the U.K. has increased. Experts argue that the rising cases of drug abuse among children in the UK. indicates that extent to which parents have failed in their responsibility of nurturing their children in accordance with the values expected by the state. Since the state cannot sit back and look its children fall a stray because of drugs, it has introduced a number of intervention measures to restore sanity in society. Firstly, the government has often issued threats of criminal sanctions and incarnation of parents who introduce their children to drug abuse (Wilson and James 2007, p.33). In addition, the state has taken the initiative of investing heavily on the long-term education and work to ensure that children in need of treatment obtain it immediately and not left to suffer the long wait that is being witnessed presently. These interventions are geared towards ensuring a society free of youth crime and anti-social behavior. The state also has the responsibility of intervening in family life as regards oppression muted on women due to cultural beliefs. We all understand that the U.K. is one of the most diverse countries in the world (Laming 2009, p.21). However, findings show that the female Muslims have often been oppressed by oppressive religion and patriarchal system. Laming (2009, p.21). noted that the female Muslims have often had to struggle with the problem of the so-called ‘arranged’ or ‘forced’ marriage, which does not necessarily amount to transitional marriage. Van Kerckem (2012) claims that, just like other parents from other religions, Muslim parents are concerned about their children getting a good match. Van Kerckem notes that most youngsters appreciate their parents’ effort in finding them suitable spouse. However, the government has often been opposed to the idea of forced marriage among Muslims claiming that it denies the children the freedom to choose a spouse of their choice. As much as the intervention appears to interfere with the right of parents of Muslim religion to choose spouses for their children, the government has often defended its move citing the need of allowing children to make autonomous decision about their life without prejudice or interference. In addition, the government has the responsibility of intervening in the family life in case of intra-family disputes (Bristow 2013). Studies show that the number of domestic disputes in the U.K. have declined in the recent past, thanks to the government intervention. When an intra-family dispute arises, the state has the responsibility to act as an arbiter on its own behalf, but not on behalf of other members of the family claiming their rights to family membership. The state often acts as an arbiter in family disputes such as during the dissolution of marriage with the help of the laws and court processes. Things that might happen if the state fails to intervene The discussion presents a clear proof that that as much as parents have the obligation of nurturing their children as they so wish, problems sometimes do occur that requires the intervention of the state. The main reason for the state intervention is to ensure that parents do not operate in a moral vacuum as claimed by Hodge, the Children’s Minister. This implies that failing to intervene in family life may see society become ruined completely. For example, if the state fails to intervene in a situation where a parent fails to educate a child, the child would end up not acquiring the needed education and knowledge for their future well-being and that of the country at large. Lack of state intervention in family life, according to Shaw (2010, p.77), might see society grow without adhering to the moral standards expected by the government. For instance, if the state fails to intervene on drug abuse among children, this would result in a society where almost everyone becomes a drug addict. The result is that the country will lack people with the moral standings to drive its political, economical, and social agenda. This is not good for the country since it impedes economic growth and development. Conclusion From the discussion, it became apparent that the vindication of the rights of children requires striking a balance between the state intervention and family independency. At the same time, it became apparent that human rights are only meaningful if the state provides remedies whenever they are infringed. Therefore, as much as most parents oppose state intervention in their life citing violation of their rights to privacy, the state has the responsibility to intervene on family life whenever there is a problem to remedy the situation. References BBC News 2002, ‘Drug use rife among children’, viewed 15 March 2002, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1874794.stm. Bornstein, M.H 2012, Handbook of parenting, Second Edition. Psychology Press, London, UK. Bristow, J 2013, ‘Turning parents into ‘partners of the state’, viewed 17 July 2013, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/8665/#.UeTMK6yCCew. Corby, B, Shemmings, D, & Wilkins, D 2012, Child abuse: an evidence base for confident practice. McGraw-Hill International, Cambridge, UK. Department for Communities and Local Government 2013, ‘Helping troubled families turn their lives around’, viewed 17 July 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-troubled-families-turn-their-lives-around. Dingwall, R, Eekelaar, J, & Murray, T 1995, The protection of children: state intervention and family life. Avebury, New York, NY. Feldman, F & Scherz, F 2006, Family social welfare: helping troubled families, Transaction Publishers, London, UK. Fox-Harding, L 2000, Perspectives in childcare policy, 1991, 13, Longman House, London. Horn, W 1999, ‘The family, civil society, and the state’, World Congress of Families II. Geneva, Switzerland, viewed 17 July 2013, http://www.worldcongress.org/wcf2_spkrs/wcf2_horn.htm. Houlgate, L 2005, Children's rights, state intervention, custody, and divorce: contradictions, ethics, and family law. Laurence Houlgate, Oxford, UK. Irons, D 1996, ‘When Government intervention becomes excessive: The rights of the state versus the rights of the parents’, viewed 17 July 2013, http://familyrights.us/bin/excessive_government_intervention.htm. Laming, H 2009, The protection of children in England: a progress report, The Stationery Office, London, UK. Ling, D 2012, The quest for optimal state intervention in parenting children: Navigating within the thick grey line. Thailand Journal of Law and Policy, Spring vol.6, issue I, pp. 5-17. Millar, J. & Warman, A 1996, Family obligations in Europe: the family, the state, and social policy. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, NewYork, NY. Schools and Fam Department for Children. 2009, The Protection of Children in England: Action Plan: the government's response to Lord Laming. The Stationery Office, London, UK. Shaw, S 2010, Parents, children, young people, and the state. McGraw-Hill International, Oxford: UK. Stern, G 2002, 'Early intervention and prevention: The evidence base underpinning family and community policy', Stronger Families Learning Exchange Bulletin, autumn, vol. 1, p. 5-10. The Telegraph 2007, ‘How much should the state intervene in family life?’, viewed 17 July 16, 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/1571918/How-much-should-the-state-intervene-in-family-life.html. Van Kerckem, K 2012, ‘Against government intervention in family life’, viewed 17 July 2013, http://klaartjevankerckem.com/2012/04/06/against-government-intervention-in-family-life-3/ Wilson, K & James, A 2007, The Child Protection handbook: the practitioner's guide to safeguarding children. Elsevier Health Sciences, Oxford, UK. Woodhouse, B 1999, Delicate balance: the role of government in protecting children’s rights within the family. Keynote address international conference on children’s rights ministry of education Tokyo, Japan. Pp. 1-12. Read More