EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Too Poor to Parent?
Black children are twice as likely to enter U.S. foster care than white children. The culprit: Our inattention to poverty.
When a recurrent plumbing problem in an upstairs unit caused raw sewage to seep into her New York City apartment, 22-year-old Lisa called social services for help. She had repeatedly asked her landlord to fix the problem, but he had been unresponsive. Now the smell was unbearable, and Lisa feared for the health and safety of her two young children.
When the caseworker arrived, she observed that the apartment had no lights and that food was spoiling in the refrigerator. Lisa explained that she did not have the money to pay her electric bill that month, but would have the money in a few weeks. She asked whether the caseworker could help get them into a family shelter. The caseworker promised she would help -- but left Lisa in the apartment and took the children, who were then placed in foster care.
Months later, the apartment is cleaned up. Lisa still does not have her children.
It is probably fair to say that most women with children worry about their ability as mothers. Are they spending enough time with them? Are they disciplining them correctly? Are they feeding them properly? When should they take them to the doctor, and when is something not that serious? But one thing most women in the United States do not worry about is the possibility of the state removing children from their care. For a sizable subset of women, though -- especially poor black mothers such as Lisa -- that possibility is very real.
Black children are the most overrepresented demographic in foster care nationwide. According to the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO), blacks make up 34 percent of the foster-care population, but only 15 percent of the general child population. In 2004, black children were twice as likely to enter foster care as white children. Even among other minority groups, black mothers are more likely to lose their children to the state than Hispanics or Asians-groups that are slightly underrepresented in foster care.
The reason for this disparity? Study after study reviewed by Stanford University law professor Dorothy Roberts in her book Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare (Basic Books/Perseus, 2002) concludes that poverty is the leading cause of children landing in foster care. One study, for example, showed that poor families are up to 22 times more likely to be involved in the child-welfare system than wealthier families. And nationwide, blacks are four times more likely than other groups to live in poverty.
But when state child-welfare workers come to remove children from black mothers' homes, they rarely cite poverty as the factor putting a child at risk. Instead, these mothers are told that they neglected their children by failing to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, education or medical care. The failure is always personal, and these mothers and children are almost always made to suffer individually for the consequences of one of the United States' most pressing social problems.
The legal system often provides no haven for these parents. Based on even the flimsiest allegations, they are essentially presumed guilty and pressured to participate in various cookie-cutter services that often do not directly address the concerns that brought them to court. For example, after her children went into foster care, Lisa was asked to attend parenting classes, undergo a mental health evaluation, seek therapy and submit to random drug testing before her children could be returned. But child-welfare authorities did not assist her in repairing her home or finding a new apartment, nor have they gone after her landlord for allowing deplorable conditions.
Race and poverty should not be a barrier to raising one's children. But in order to prevent the entry of poor children into the foster care system, state and federal government must confront poverty-related issues. Until this country comes to terms with its culpability in allowing widespread poverty to exist, poor black mothers will continue to lose their children to the state. And we will continue to label these women "bad mothers" to assuage our own guilt.
Gaylynn Burroughs is a staff attorney at the Bronx Defenders in New York City. She works in the family defense practice, where she represents parents accused of child neglect.
(The full text of this article appears in the Spring issue of Ms. magazine, available on newsstands and by subscription from store.msmagazine.com)
Copyright © Ms. Magazine 2008
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

75 Comments so far
Show All"concludes that poverty is the leading cause of children landing in foster care"
It takes more studies to conclude this? We knew this in the sixties.
If you can't earn enough to support your children and yourself, then you live in poverty. What a surprise.
Without the money to help these people with services they need, I don't see what the author is proposing? How do you allieviate poverty? This is a social problem in any case, not a legal problem.
"But child-welfare authorities did not assist her in repairing her home or finding a new apartment, nor have they gone after her landlord for allowing deplorable conditions."
How in the world anyone would interpret child-welfare authorities duties to include these responsibilities is beyond me. That is not their responsibility.
When we did away with the old case worker system that could help these families in these areas for these new multi-faceted programs that were going to help everyone, we lost the ability to have individual attention to families.
Good intentions don't always produce good results.
Good intentions, eh?
There's another thing that happens to children who are placed in foster homes, they're more likely (not certain to become, but close enough for those in charge) to wind up in jail. Now why would we want more black people in jail? It couldn't be to profit the prison industry as well as justify the 'beliefs' of those who espouse the rhetoric of 'white power' could it?
Am I too cynical????
I have a solution: mandatory contraception. Not forever, just until we can figure out how to care for ALL children before bringing more into the world, thus compounding the problem.
The problem of poverty is huge and it is never simple to tease out the contributions of social conditions and personal responsibility. But taking children away from their parent, and likely splitting them up too, is a very very traumatizing response to an unpaid electric bill. How about spending a few dollars to pay the bill (far less than paying for foster care, BTW) and then working with the mother to see how to prevent this in the future?
But when it comes to NY authorities dealing with poor people, it is shoot first, ask questions later. I know because we grew up in a project with a sick mother, and were sometimes on welfare. Our biggest fears were being evicted for some infringement of the rules and regulations or being split up and placed in foster care.
When inspectors came, we would hide the TV that a friend brought us from his sanitation route. Why? Because if you had a TV it proved you were so rich you didn't need welfare or public housing. When our mother was hospitalized we hid the fact, got jobs and paid the bills in cash so nobody would come in, evict us and send us to foster care.
People who are not poor and have petty dominion over their lives always think the worst of the poor. It is very Dickensian still. I imagine it is even worse if you are African-American.
And hellodarling - you can easily reduce earth's population by one and I recommend it.
How could i reduce Earth's population by one?
Are you suggesting i commit suicide or murder?
Why does common sense elicit such hysterical responses from these trolls?
Wow, i suggest personal responsibilty and birth control and i get told to go kill myself. wonderful!! i guess i know when i'm not wanted.
JCLIENTELLE: The challenges of your childhood have made you a highly empathetic and intelligent individual capable of seeing others' pain. Perhaps in some respects the "Initiation" was worth it.
I know a woman in N.Florida who takes in foster kids and she is paid quite a bit of money for this service. It reminds me of the prison industrial complex... always $ to build prisons, but no $ for rehab and we all know drugs and alcohol abuse play a HUGE role in crime and/or who gets incarcerated. Why is a huge budget provided to "foster" parents (lots of kids end up sexually abused in these "borrowed" homes) but as J CLIENTELLE related, not anything given to PRESERVE the home intact? It's another one of America's many travesties that become tragic due to the pursuit of punishment often working to further the influence of greed over our social systems.
My last statement is awkward. I apologize. The pursuit of punishment is indeed a factor, and at times it dovetails with the role GREED plays in and through so-called social services. (There, now I feel better.)
"The challenges of your childhood have made you a highly empathetic and intelligent individual capable of seeing others' pain"
he just told me to go kill myself when i suggested PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and BIRTH CONTROL.
Naturally I am for personal responsibility and contraception.
MANDATORY contraception and / or sterilization always come up in conversations involving poor people. It is arrogant, tiresome and offensive, bordering on eugenics.
Does anyone suggest this for the Enron types?
Oh, so you were responding to the SUBJECT that i brought up and not me personally.
thanks for the clarification.
i have never suggested sterilization as a means of population control.
people need rules to live in everyday life. when concerning something as SACRED as bringing new life into the world, we should apply the strictest rules possible to ensure not only the health of the child, but the health of the community after the introduction of another member.
by creating virtually no-rules concerning having children, you inevitably get a nation of children with no safety net, parents with little or no education, and parents without the resources necessary to care for them.
there has to be rules.
Thanks Siouxrose. I don't regret anything that has happened to me. Sometimes I am empathic. Sometimes I am maaaaad!
lnteresting system; take a child place it in the care of strangers and pay them to raise the child but don't provide help to the natural mother to raise her child(ren). What's wrong with this picture?
"there has to be rules."
Interesting thing about "rules." In most cases, those who wish to make the rules don't want those very same rule they propose applied to them. Example: The "Christian" right.
"lnteresting system;..."
Indeed...one of many in the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave!"
For a normal newborn almost anything is possible. After that innocent animal is subjected to parenting and teaching and the lie that adults have agreed to call reality, the possibilities are limited.
All parents are, in one way or another, too poor to have children. Most parents suffer from multiple forms of poverty. The pain and stunted development of their victims is a blasphemy.
"What child does not have reason to be ashamed of his parents?"
---Nietzsche
And what is true for individual parents is true a hundred times over for society.
Odd, isn't it...that there is money to fund taking children away from their natural parent(s) and pay for fostering but none to help the family of origin stay together. Welfare was attacted by Republicans who could not stand seeing 'Welfare Mothers' driving fancy cars and wearing furs. (a myth made up of whole cloth) They pointed at a few cheats and got the entire program dumped. To me, Republicans are a scourge on the earth, an argument could be made that they should not be suffered to live.
Great thinking, Earl... I find these days simplicity is a foreign language to damn near EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE... BUT mostly the 'educated' ones who spent their time in class rooms learning how to pass tests.
The po folks are raising up a new batcha soldiers... if they're taken away from the love they need, the VA won't be so overloaded with psych ward cases after they fight the next war.
The 'Airplane said it well in the sixties...
"War's good business - so invest your son, and I'd rather have my country die for me."
This is not a Republican problem nor is it a Democratic problem. Agencies struggle to help under both.
Siouxrose May 12th, 2008 2:42 pm
If you could see what some of these "wonderful" parents do to some of these kids it would turn your stomach. See the conditiion of these kids brought in by the workers.
They have the sad story down pat. Many are single mothers that have never been married, but have boy friends. Others are just abusive. A raped 5 year old will slake the milk of human kindness in anyone.
God help me, there was a time when I would cheerfully sent some of these people out onto the paddies and use them for target practice. Though it would have been too good for them.
Slightly off the mark...but the last reputable study I saw indicated that welfare per se was a large factor in the break down of the black family. Does anyone know about this? Any information to the contrary? Thanks
jclientelle May 12th, 2008 2:30 pm
"When inspectors came, we would hide the TV that a friend brought us from his sanitation route. Why? Because if you had a TV it proved you were so rich you didn't need welfare or public housing"
Do they still do this? In Texas you are allowed one car, makes no matter what. It could be a brand new Caddy. Only income counts here.
Perhaps some of the 8.9 MILLION millionaires in the US alone could share the wealth a little with some of their lesser well off neighbours in their community... Oh yeah, that's right... Americans don't like to share...
elmysterio, stats show that the two highest rating states for charitable giving are Arkansas and Mississippi, two of the poorest states in the US. We who have little are more likely to share with others than those who have much. (This has been greatly demonstrated in the wake of all the Arkansas tornadoes this year - the first of which nailed my house.)
I often see logical and rational reasons why parenting should be licensed; but when you take a nanosecond and consider that there is literally NO WAY this could be accomplished in a free society, it quickly degrades into a moot argument. When I see suggestions written here for manditory contraception, I ask myself the questions; Who would be sanctioned for breeding? Who would be deemed to have the where-with-all to procreate? The rich? The righteous? The ecologically sound? I'd theoretically consider many options, but the reality is that it could not happen in a democracy. Honestly, pretty much anything would beat the current situation of anybody with functioning genitals popping out offspring; but I'm afraid that's what we're stuck with!
"But child-welfare authorities did not assist her in repairing her home or finding a new apartment, nor have they gone after her landlord for allowing deplorable conditions."
It's important for Landlord's to provide dismal-conditions for our Poorest -- otherwise, how would social-workers 'identify' these terrible/poor-Mom's? [Headstart can only report so-many of their "Base", after-all!]
Working with the very poor, one sometimes sees situations that call for intervention. Gandhi called poverty a disease, and yes, I would say that the pressure from poverty can literally destroy the soul. To have people in this wealthy country living under those conditions is immoral. I have seen poor families struggle to guide their children despite the hardship, and I have seen situations where the children are placed into jeopardy by their parent's bad habits.
Generational poverty, like generational wealth, has its own culture and its own rules. I know that I could no more survive in poverty than I could survive in great wealth. People born into generational poverty have to develop some incredible survival skills. One has to learn how to rely on relationships, move frequently, make do with very little. If "we" hope to reduce poverty and get people to "behave in responsible ways" then WE need to learn the ways of poverty and the poor need to be clued into the rules of middle class life.
Would someone please tell me why it is the government's job to help her raise her children? Do we live in a country with a socialist government? Nope. She should be working and earning money to pay her electric bill. Not child welfare's job to repair her home or advocate with her landlord. These are things she should be doing for herself. And, yes, they did need to remove the children from an unsafe environment and they should not be returned until the environment is safe.
Earl Simmins May 12th, 2008 3:27 pm writes "lnteresting system; take a child place it in the care of strangers and pay them to raise the child but don't provide help to the natural mother to raise her child(ren). What's wrong with this picture?"
I can not speak for other States but I can speak for Western Washington which I imagine is not too different from the rest.
I was a foster parent (most often a mother that is more interested in pleasing her boyfriend that taking care of the kid) for a few years when I lived in the States and yes I was paid to take care of the children I fostered. The mandate of the Court is to keep the natural family together if at all possible. What this means in reality is that the kids are kept with their abusive parent so long that they are "broken" by the time the get into the foster system or are adopted. Some of the kids I fostered had fetal-alcohol syndrome, some had been left alone in apartments starving before they were taken over by the State, one of the two children I adopted was at five years old just brought into the Child Protective Services office and the Mother said "here, I don't want him anymore". All of the fostered kids as well as my adopted kids have thousands of dollars spent on them to sort of "normalize" them where they can at least function in society. My daughter is 13 now and doing well, my son is 11 and still a mess with an alphabet soup of syndromes. Yes, I received money from the system but it sure as hell wasn't enough to pay for the time and effort we put into helping these kids recover from their "natural family" such as it was.
Also, we don't know the whole story related in this article, maybe the mother was a drug addict and barley able to communicate or take care of the kids. People sometime write this stuff for sensationalism. As I said, the Social Worker is handicapped by the courts and often is unable to take the kids out of a rotten situation but is criticized for not doing so when one of them end up dead or severely abused.
Well Christy, I think it's the government's job because they are depending on the next generation to pay back the money they have borrowed; it's their job because they have made it impossible for her to earn a decent living, even working two jobs and neglecting the children; it's their job because She and her children are citizens of a country whose constitution says that governments are instituted to serve it's citizens.
Have you tried living on the minimum wage? How about welfare? How about with two kids and an abusive husband? How about all three while dealing with chronic depression?
I think maybe it is not just the government but you, christy38401 who are your sister's keeper.
"Many are single mothers that have never been married, "
Where are the fathers?
"Have you tried living on the minimum wage?"
Most people don't earn minimum forever. There is a lot of churn in the actual people who make that.
Out becoming fathers again.
When Bill Clinton and his wonderful wife decided to do away with welfare 'as we know it' I was appalled. The program was established along with Soc Sec to take care of children. When they threw out the mothers, they also threw out the kids. Kind of a baby and bathwater affect.
At that time I was on the Washington State Democratic Central Committee, and had also chaired the 1992 State Democratic Platform Committee, so I had a bit of pull. But, not enough to overcome the lobbyists in favor of more cheap labor, subsidies to employers rather then families, and the usual bunch who hates government benefiting any but the wealthy.
I proposed a true Welfare Reform Package, that would pay low-income families with one stay-at-home parent a living wage if they achieved certain bench marks - like attending school and good grades and negative piss tests etc. And I mailed it out to every Women's Group and Welfare Reform Groups and political candidates I could think of.
When I got not one bite, not even from the very groups who were supposedly most concerned, I realized that the Social Worker Syndrome had struck. The last thing the social worker wants is for people to get out of poverty. That puts the SW out of work, so they were, and are, one of the biggest road blocks to true reform.
The proposal still exists I think, it was published on a Web Site called the www.TheWord, and is probably still floating around in the ether somewhere. I'd search it for Welfare Reform, or even 1994 articles.
To the person who asked is welfare wasn't actually the cause of black poverty and the destruction of many Black Families, I'd suggest you do some research on what happened when they 'reformed' Public Housing during the 50's.
Up until that 'reform', Public Housing was open to all lower income families, employed or not. Depending on the income, the rents were raised or lowered on a sliding scale. Once a family hit the ceiling - which was pretty high, they had to move. Before the reform, the Public Housing Projects were typical working class neighborhoods, with mostly working families, military families, and some retired and unemployed people.
When they lowered the income levels to the poverty rate, the working families had to move. I know about this first hand, as many of my friends in highschool on Beacon Hill in Seattle had to move from homes they had lived in since the end of the war [I think this was 1953, when the Republicans took over]
I later wound up on welfare for a brief time in the late 50's. At that time, in Washington State, they had an incentive program to get women off welfare. They figured out the bare minimum a woman and 2 pre-schoolers could exist on, then deducted 20% off the top to provide an incentive...
Thank god and the Democrats for an end to that! Johnson's War on Poverty provided technical training to thousands of unemployed across the country. We got good paying jobs if we finished the program, which most did. We never looked back. That is what it takes to really reform welfare - not some parsimonious handout from a bunch of tight-assed do-gooders!
The article makes it sound as if Lisa was only brought to the attention of Children's Aid when she complained about her landlord. Maybe the message is to keep quite and don't make waves.
BARN BURNER: I realize a lot more than $ is involved if one opens their home to a child. My point was that if $ could be given to the mother to hold her life together, the whole system might be dismantled; but of course the tragic cases you related PROFOUNDLY needed intervention. It boggles the mind what some can do to children, including their own!
What do you expect from a country that cares Zero about human life, the gov't just loves it when they outlaw abortion in the southern states where god & war go hand in hand I mean you won't find an unnamed highway overpass of some dead young man who was brainwashed into the iraq war and had his caucus splattered everywhere for the oil baron profiteers. Child birthing should be the last thing on a modern woman's mind
Christy38401: the largest recipient of "welfare" in this nation are the wealthy. Take a huge tax deduction for your mortgage interest? For your kids private school/college tuition? And don't even get me started on corporate welfare. The role of government is to protect its citizens and ensure their well-being. What better role for government to play than to assist families to be successful? To prevent them from being taken advantage of by slum lords and unscrupulous rent-to-own businesses, pay-day loan sharks, etc? We make being poor a crime in this country, and believe me, it costs tax payers many times less to prevent this woman from having her children taken away than it does for them to go into state custody.
I worked in the field for 10 years and saw a black woman have her child taken from her based on false claims from a clearly motivated party, and in the most tragic comedy of errors, despite doing everything possible to comply, had her rights eventually severed by the state of California. She was poor, but she took good care of her child (children - her daughter who was of no interest to the party making claims stayed with her throughout). As a white woman, I watched helplessly (I tried to help her, but to no avail) knowing that this could never, ever happen to me. It was a very eye-opening experience.
Siouxrose from my admittedly limited experience most of the Mothers I knew were offered parenting classes, food stamps, job assistance and couldn't be bothered. As I said the MANDATE of the courts is to keep the "family" together and every child that I was involved with should have been taken out of the "natural family" long before they were-these kids come out of those "natural families" forever broken, many with fetal alcohol syndrome. The person that posted something like "the last thing the social worker wants is to get the family off welfare" insinuating that they need to perpetuate their job, that post showed total ignorance. Social Workers are up to their ass in alligators and sure as hell don't need a bigger case load. We don't know that the mother in this article was making an honest effort to take care of her kid, was getting laid in front of the kid, using drugs etc., this story doesn't pass the smell test and my guess there is more to it that we are given. I know there are stupid, disinterested and many burnt-out social workers out there but from my experience they are the exception. Most carry impossible case loads, funds cut by State and Federal Governments and a Court that wants to keep "the abusive family" together as if that "togetherness" hadn't already created a child that will seldom grow up to function well in society.
I wish I had the space and time to relate all the stories of children left with the "natural Parent" who ended up getting drugs as a toddler, being brutilized by the mom's johns, carried along to watch the "mom and Dad" break someones arms and legs, sexually abuse, burnt with cigarettes.
Yes poverty breeds some of this but the inability to make good choices time after time is not the direct result of poverty however making the wrong choice time after time can certainly get one in poverty.
""We don't know that the mother in this article was making an honest effort to take care of her kid, was getting laid in front of the kid, using drugs""...
Oh heavens, my twin sister and i slept in the same room with Mom And Dad till we were 14, we built the last outhouse in Van Nuys. Dad converted a three car garage to live in.
We fed ourselves out of what grew in the dirt in the back yard for 30 years. Mom swept machine shop chips out of the kitchen into the service porch for decades. I got a new blanket when i was 11, took my first shower at a friends house at 16.
They throwed the TV away, never had a heater in the house except the stove till i went away to collage. Dad taught the dog to lift his leg on strangers AND he got hisself a "job" as an engineer at 63 years old. Northrop-Grumman Research Lab laid him off when he turned 81.
We were uneducated losers, you bet. 10 percent of the kids in my hood died from their overdoses or addictions, a RichWhite section of LA. RichWhite is one word in black LA.
I'm a fingerprinted, police checked child and infant Visitation Moniter in California.
When one mother of my charge paid the airfare to Sacramento for a topnotch Pediatric MD to see her sick child, I was REMANDED by the #!!judge in the Children's Court for ALLOWING a second opinion! The Fed replaces every dollar the State spends when a child is kept out of its home: Childrearing is a crime in this country- unlike most other 1st world countries which pay tax dollars into childrens households.
Moms do fifty percent of the medical care in America, 90% of household work, have 20 hour days, yet NONE of this is measured under Keansian or "FreeTrade" as labor.
Come visit me in South Central Los Angeles and tell these women that they are lazy too their face...
When capital pays husbands they get two workers, not one."[4]
http://nbjournal.org/2007/07/selma-james-and-the-wages-for-housework-campaign
The Australian Government in the past practiced similar policies on Aboriginal Children, taking young children from their natural parents who were in poor situations, and sending the children to institutions or adoption. The lost ophaned children later became known as the "Stolen Generations". The practice in general harmed both the children and the bereaved parents, and did nothing for social and economic conditions that provide the excuses for the practice. So much harm was done that the newest Australian Government has publicly apologized for this as part of how the Australian Aboriginal people were treated in the past. It remains to be seen as to whether future generations will manage any better. Pretending there is no problem is never a solution.
With the wave of poverty increase to be expected in future in the US, it remains doubtful as to whether the US government will even fund the crude unnatural and uncaring sort of intervention seen now. Support for free contraceptive availability and education would prevent many unwanted pregnacies to lead ultimately to the legal but savage separation imposed by the state. Many of these children taken by the state will end up in prison. Every nation reaps again and again what it sows.
pdf - you raise a point I have thought about for years. Anyone can become a parent with no qualifications. You sometimes see people who are cold, negligent, incompetent, harsh, insane etc. raising children and there is little you can do. To my mind the basic qualifications for parenting are the ability to love, the willingness to try to provide. But how do you legislate that?
For one thing we should recognize that the nuclear family provides little mitigation for the weaknesses of a particular parent. Kind grandparents, aunts and uncles are potential assistants to a parent. If it were not for extended families, the situation would be much worse. For children of the rich, nannies often provide attention, warmth, common sense and guidance missing in the home. Nannies deserve a union, wages and benefits commensurate with their importance. However, sometimes the extended family or direct help are not there.
The only solutions I see come from our wider human interconnectedness. We can honor the enterprise of parenting by giving parents some economic breaks. What could be a more important "crop" or "product" than our children? Parents should be assisted in finding work that pays and in getting good subsidized care for their children. The hours of work should be flexible enough to match the hours of childcare and the length of the commute. A long or unreliable commute is one of the big stresses for working mothers especially.
Even selfish people can recognize that they are going to need today's children in the future to be the nurses, doctors and grocery store clerks who will provide for them when they get old.
We can also free a child from being at the total mercy of his or her biological parent. We can have classes about sexual responsibility and parenting in schools so those who are too young are less likely to have children. We can make contraception easy to find and afford. We can have Head Start to give children at least part of the day in a nurturing environment. Same with public school. We can look out for one another and help isolated and stressed parents through programs in churches and community organizations. We can make mental health care available.
Taking children away from their parents should be one of many options in a social network.
Funny when I see people on welfare I think back to when my wife and I struggled to provide a decent life for our children. When we appled for assistance we were told by a very frank caseworker not to hold our breath. The reason we wouldn't get assistance? Because were were white and married.
The case worker actually told my wife that she and our children would have had a better chance of getting on welfare if were weren't married. Where are the benefits for poor married couples? They're nowhere to be found. We worked our fingers to the proverbial bone to get the reasonably decent life our family now enjoys. So in my one point of agreement with conservatives: Get a job.
Truth_Forward ...You make a good point but I disagree with your conclusions.
People who marry, work and do all the "right things" still need help from time to time. Our approach to helping families requires that first they prove total impoverishment through some degradation ceremonies. (Same goes for disabled people). The poverty level is set so unrealistically low that people who make a good effort to support themselves disqualify themselves for help.
I know a loving family in which a child needed expensive medical care. The father moved out because his salary as a pizza delivery man and another such job put them too high to get Medicaid.
Getting family benefits should be less difficult and degrading. There are ways to do this and we have great models in European countries.
It's sad anytime a child is taken away from its natural parent(s). Native-American children in Alaska are still taken away from their parent(s) at a disproportionate rate, over flimsy, unprovable reasons. They are placed in foster homes that are no better, if not worse, than the original family and then pretty much forgotten about. I've heard of sexual abuse in foster homes where the perpetrator is not charged with the crime.
I talked to a very intelligent person from a 3rd world country once. He graduate from high school but had no college education. He said he didn't plan to have children because he wanted to be able to give the child everything, including and especially a good education. He knew he couldn't, so he chose to be sterilized.
I wonder why people in this country don't look ahead as this young man did. Instead, without giving it much thought, they bring children into the world that they can't possibly afford and whom they can't properly educate. Talk about a dumbed-down culture.
We shouldn't be punishing the child for what society has wrought.
Sadly we had, at times, seriously discussed divorce so she and the children could get medicaid. It shouldn't be that way.
Wow!!
What an interesting discussion. I can see the old divide and conquer strategy still works.
"These people should just get a job"
"These people should provide a safer environment for their children"
Classic! Keep the middle and working classes fighting over and about the crumbs that account for this type of so-called government welfare while billions (with a "B") and now trillions (with a "tr") are stolen.
Government welfare comes in many forms and the pittance that could be paid to assist families is minutiae compared to what each family is paying anyway to fund the Iraq War/Occupation.
Would that people would stop majoring in minors. A good place to begin putting it into perspective is here:
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
Suddenly the prospect of my tax dollars going to help a mother get educated and keep her family together doesn't seem so beyond the pale.
I guess I'm just grateful because there by the Grace of God go I
xntrk suggested we "pay low-income families with one stay-at-home parent a living wage if they achieved certain bench marks". This is something to think about. A good parent who takes full time care of kids is a blessing to society. They do this in France.
Thomas More has asked about what you are now allowed to own if you are on welfare - I do not know.
About the young man who had himself sterilized: We all have to make some hard choices regarding children. With heavy hearts, we decided to stop at two children, because we were struggling to take good care of the wonderful ones we already had. If that man wants children, his self-sterilization is almost tragic. I hope if he changes his mind he can adopt. Basics like health care and education should not be so expensive that they completely rule our parenthood for all but the wealthy.
As adaptable beings, we should continually look at the new situations we face and be ready to entertain innovations that lead to a sustainable and humane future. Raising a couple of kids in a wealthy country should not be such a daunting task.
FUNEOCONS: Excellent posting, thank you for sharing it. I come up against this problem with my intelligent friends. The right wing media has done such a "successful" smear job against people in need, setting them up as the guzzlers of enormous funds to get the focus away from who REALLY is picking our pockets. How about subsidies to the oil companies even NOW with their amoral obscene profits of war? There are so many tragedies in our time. One has to be strong inside to remain whole in the face of them.
Truth_Forward - one more thing. I cannot imagine the motivation or information guiding the social worker who told you that being white was a problem for getting welfare. Married yes, because that can mean two potential incomes. But in my entire life I have seen no evidence that being white is an obstacle to getting benefits. PS - I am white. Besides, most black people work. The subways are full of black working men and women.
Does anyone have any statistics regarding whether African Americans, Native Americans, or any OTC (other than Caucasian) group has an easier time with social welfare? My sense is that it is the opposite because if someone is going to get the benefit of the doubt, it would most likely be Caucasians.
P.S. Excellent postings in general! One can conclude that US society, bent on war and macho sporting events puts children and families low on its priorities list. How to move from a care-less to caring society will be the issue as resource scarcity moves up a notch thanks to global warming, the end of oil, and our empty US treasury (aided and abeted by jobs gone overseas).