The removal of children from their abusive home - Essay Example

Critical Essay Introduction There are various issues we face on a daily basis in relation to families and relationships. These issues often rangefrom alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, and such other forms of abuse and violence. This paper shall discuss the removal of children from their abusive homes, and the benefits and the negative impacts of such removal. Discussion There are different ethical issues that may arise when children are taken away from their homes. In some instances, children are brought to welfare and care institutions which are overcrowded and which are often inadequately funded by the state or by private institutions (Wilson, 2006). Many of these children are often subjected to racial and other types of discrimination in social or welfare institutions. Consequently, they sometimes develop mental health problems and other emotional problems while they are under the care of social workers or while they are under temporary placement centers (Wilson, 2006). The nature of these placement centers is most often temporary, rendering the life of the child to instability and decreased permanence (Wilson, 2006). On the other hand, the removal of children from abusive households brings various benefits. Less emotional, physical, and mental abuse can be brought to these children when they are removed from their abusive homes. They would be given opportunities to physiologically, emotionally, and mentally develop into normal and well-adjusted children. On the part of the abusers, there would now also be a chance for them to deal emotionally with their issues and their problems while removed from their children or from their partners. These abusers can have access to professional help which can help them be better and parents or partners. Ultimately, professional help or rehabilitation can help the parent or the partner be reunited with his/her children or his/her partner. It helps ensure healthy and well-adjusted relationships in families and domestic relationships. In a criminology research by Kim (2005) she details the different effects or impact of removing children from their families. She mentions that the removal would initially benefit the child by taking such child away from the abuse and from the usual trauma that the child is exposed to at home. She cites authors McMahon and Clay-Warner (2002) who point out that separations “provide a more stable environment in which the child may develop secure attachments” (as quoted by Kim, 2005). Parents can also have the chance to recover from possible financial difficulties and addictions in order to consequently give them a stronger chance to reunite with their children and to reunite under more stable circumstances. Kim (2005) also mentions that there are negative consequences from removing a child from his or her family. Parental separations often cause emotional disruptions in the child’s relationship with his parents and with other family members. Children often experience “intense reactions of anxiety, loss, grief, and depression when precipitously separated from their family, even an abusive family, and placed in foster care” (Drach & Devoe, as quoted by Kim, 2005). Separations are not guaranteed to work for the child and even for the parent. In some instances, it causes the child various emotional and mental trauma which makes recovery difficult for the child and for the family in general. The child can also feel abandoned because of his separation from his parents, and the parents can often feel like failures in their own eyes (Wasserman, as quoted by Kim, 2005). In instances when the child is later returned to the parents, the child’s trust on them is often already fractured, and the parent’s confidence in his role is diminished (Moss, as cited quoted by Kim, 2005). Some authors and analysts also claim that children can sometimes perceive their removal from their parents’ care as a punishment. As a result, they tend to develop or experience lower self-esteem. The burden is often placed on society to ensure that these children get good placements. However, this cannot always be the case. Many placement services are overcrowded and severely underfunded. Since the child is removed from his parents, the question now seems to linger about – what better alternatives can be given to the child now that he is removed from such an abusive environment? Based on the above discussion, I now reach several conclusions. First and foremost, I conclude that the policy of removing a child from an abusive environment is a move which should only be done after duly considering the benefits and the negative impact that the separation may bring to a child or to a parent. In instances where such separation would bring more harm than good, other alternatives should be considered first before an outright separation may be opted for. In cases where the child would suffer more emotional and physical trauma from his exposure to the abusive family environment, then separation can be considered as the better option. Secondly, I also believe that before separations can be imposed on parents and their children, the placement services and the institutional services should first be assessed for adequacy. The premise in removing the child from an abusive environment is that the removal would be better for the child. Therefore, such ‘better’ environment should be made available in order to truly achieve the better goals for the child. Finally, I conclude that it is not ethical to remove a child from an abusive environment, only to place him in an emotionally and physiologically traumatizing environment. In instances when a ‘better’ life cannot be given in foster care to the child, then other solutions to the issue should be implemented instead. There is a semblance of truth and accuracy which can be drawn from the Department of Job and Family Services’ application of the Social Learning Theory in the implementation and planning of the policy. The Social Learning Theory explains, in not so many words, the cycle of abuse that is often seen among abused children. Since children are exposed to abuse at very early ages, they tend to apply the same practices to other children. In a sad and unfortunate way, these children think that such behavior is acceptable and is the only way to deal with similar situations. There are many documented cases of bullies in school who come from family backgrounds which are riddled with abuse, with foster care, or with some history of alcoholism or drug abuse in the family. Social scientists attest that abuse is a learned behavior; a child does not, all of a sudden, grow into an abusive parent without some sort of experience with violence or abuse. Based on this analysis alone, it is easy to understand why the Department of Jobs and Family Services used the Social Learning Theory in the implementation and planning of the policy as discussed previously. By removing the child from the abusive environment, it is now possible to break the ‘cycle of abuse’. By separating the child from abusive parents, the child can learn other ways of dealing with other children and with other people when confronted with problems or issues. Although credit may be given to the Department of Jobs and Family Services for using the Social Learning Theory to justify their policy in removing children from abusive families, I do believe in Potts & Herzberger (as quoted by Finkelman, ) when they said that the “relationship between being abused and becoming the abuser is probabilistic, not deterministic”. The cycle can be broken by the abuser and such cycle does not always manifest in abused children. I also believe that the Social Learning Theory does not only refer to removal or separation as a means of breaking the cycle of abuse. There are still other ways of breaking such cycle without causing emotional trauma to the child. Rehabilitation measures and therapy for the family may be some less drastic ways of breaking such cycle. Works Cited Finkelman, B. (1995) Child Abuse: Causes, prevention, and remedies. USA: Taylor and Francis Kim, S. (2005) No Place Called Home: Removal of Abused Children from their families. Simon Fraser University. Retrieved 13 November 2009 from www.ir.lib.sfu.ca/retrieve/696/etd1558.pdf Wilson, D. (6 September 2006) Ethical Issues in Child Welfare Services. Northwest Institute for Children and Families. Retrieved 13 November 2009 from www.depts.washington.edu/nwicf/director/pubs/ethicalissues.ppt Read More