| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | There is still great opportunity for reform in the system, notwithstanding the policies already enacted, that will help ease the transition of young adults out of the foster care system and into mainstream society. However, the principle reform that is needed is simply a mentality shift; the state’s primary objective should be maintaining the family unit when at all possible. Right, but you've also argued that resources should be directed to support the intact family, instead of supporting the foster kid. The choice isn't between foster care and nothing, it's between foster care and family support. Making the determination about whether the situation would best be served by such efforts is not formulaic; it can only effectively be done on a case-by-case basis. Failure to consider this as an option can and does have dire consequences, as demonstrated by the study. By failing to do so, the state effectively takes on the role of grooming a constituency for social welfare programs and prison systems – bearing exorbitant costs now and in the future – both of which are morally undesirable and fiscally unsustainable.
| |
>
> | The Foster Care System: A Charted Path
Life Chances
Though the child welfare system attempts to help children by removing them from their families, in many cases terminating parental rights does more harm than good. A study published this month, reported by the New York Times, shows that young adults who have aged out of the foster care system lag behind their counterparts across several major categories. These include homelessness, educational attainment, reliance on public assistance benefits, and interactions with the criminal justice system. These differences are unsurprising, but they invite the question: in cases where abuse is not present, are the costs of terminating parental rights always outweighed by the benefits of life in the foster care system? How should the welfare system make the decision to remove children from their families?
To be fair, there are some living situations that are so damaging that the benefit to the child of remaining with biological parents is negated. Notwithstanding the moral obligation to remove children from such situations, the state also faces potential liability for failing to intervene when it has truly compelling reasons to do so. However, where the causes for removal do not reach this level of harm to the child – such as parenting skills that are less than ideal, but where no substantial and immediate harm is inflicted upon the child – separating a child from her biological family should be a final resort, not an initial option.
A Balancing Act
From a human perspective, the analysis turns, at least in part, on assessing the cost and value of separating a child from her biological parent, determined on a case-by-case basis. In many cases, it would be more efficient and cost-effective in the short- and long-term to keep the child with the family and provide support services to improve home life. The statistics suggest that it is more cost-effective for the state to provide support services for most struggling families, in an effort to keep them together, since the alternative amounts to higher costs in the short term by placing the child in foster care or a group home, as well as long-term, by subsidizing social welfare programs and paying for the increasingly expensive prison system. However, determining whether it is in the child’s best interest to be removed from the home with their biological parent versus allowing them to remain there – with the state intervening only to provide support services – is a difficult inquiry. The decision should balance considerations about the likelihood of an increase in the child’s life chances in the short-term with the long-term costs and benefits of life in the foster care system. The reality is that, absent this type of assessment, the system could be, with the best of intentions, harming children in the long run.
System Reform
It would be naïve to suggest that, by remaining in the home with their biological parents, would-be foster children automatically fare better in the long term. Certainly, many children are benefited by leaving their homes, however emotionally taxing this severance may be. However, as the study suggests, 79% of study participants felt “very close”, and another 15% felt “somewhat close” to their biological families – indicators that foster children have a complicated emotional connection with the families they leave. Given the statistics, the system should rethink its strategy by committing itself to keeping the family intact. As a second resort, children should be placed with biological relatives where it is not possible for the child to remain with their parent. Regardless, relationships between the foster child and the biological parent should be supported whenever possible or appropriate.
Many states have attempted to reform the foster care system by mitigating the harms to foster care children. For example, in some states, foster children “age out” of the system at 21 instead of 18. Also, several states offer free tuition for post-secondary public education within the state to former foster children. Both of these policies, which are not exhaustive, are admirable, especially considering the budgetary constraints many states are experiencing. Still, these, and many other such programs, may intervene in the child’s life when it is too late; more importantly, it may be an attempt to fix a problem that is created by separating families in the first place. And, to a certain extent, no amount of intervention can account for the emotional trauma a child experiences when she is removed from the only family and environment she has ever known – regardless of how “unhealthy” the system may deem it. The cost of separating families should be given more weight when determining whether to place children in foster care.
A Case for Keeping Families Together
There is still great opportunity for reform in the system, in addiction to the policies already enacted, that will help ease the transition of young adults out of the foster care system and into mainstream society. However, the focus of reform efforts should be maintaining the family unit when at all possible. Determining whether the situation would best be served by such efforts is not formulaic; it can only effectively be done on a case-by-case basis. Failure to consider this as an option can and does have dire consequences for children, as demonstrated by the study. If the state does not examine other alternatives to foster care, it will continue to groom children for social welfare programs and prison systems –creating exorbitant costs now and in the future – both of which are morally undesirable and fiscally unsustainable.
| | | You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line: |
|