Dr. Wharf and also Dr. Callahan have long put forth a mistaken idea. The observe that most children who come into care come from poverty-stricken families. They then assume that these children come into care because they are poor. This is wishful thinking and too simplistic. I will explain why poverty alone is not a good indicator of chiled neglect and abuse. If we count the numbers of families in the bottom ten percent of income, we find that only one tenth of these families have children admitted to care. A simple count of numbers illustrates this. Put another way 90% of the poorest families give good or adequate care to their children. So there is something else at work for the ten percent who are unfit parents. Lack of life skills, poor intelligence,addiction and a host of other things. If you give them more money you do not necessarily prevent the neglect. The worst chronic multiproblem families are very resistant to most kinds of help. We have to face the fact that some people are simply unfit parents and there is no known way of changing them. However, there is a very good argument for raising the income of the 90% of poor families who do their best to give good care. They have a tough time raising kids in poverty and they put help to good use. I am one hundred percent behind giving more money to these valiant souls.
I think the main reason they abduct more kids from poorer and /or uneducated families is simply because they haven't got the education, contacts, resources, or money, to effectively fight them in court or to move away to flee them,not that they are necessarily more abusive or neglectful; they're just easy targets.They are easier victims to target and to take advantage of; for them to over power and oppress.
I encourage your comments using this filter. 1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment. 2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree. 3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names. 4. Do not advertise
Dr. Wharf and also Dr. Callahan have long put forth a mistaken idea. The observe that most children who come into care come from poverty-stricken families. They then assume that these children come into care because they are poor. This is wishful thinking and too simplistic. I will explain why poverty alone is not a good indicator of chiled neglect and abuse. If we count the numbers of families in the bottom ten percent of income, we find that only one tenth of these families have children admitted to care. A simple count of numbers illustrates this. Put another way 90% of the poorest families give good or adequate care to their children. So there is something else at work for the ten percent who are unfit parents. Lack of life skills, poor intelligence,addiction and a host of other things. If you give them more money you do not necessarily prevent the neglect. The worst chronic multiproblem families are very resistant to most kinds of help. We have to face the fact that some people are simply unfit parents and there is no known way of changing them.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is a very good argument for raising the income of the 90% of poor families who do their best to give good care. They have a tough time raising kids in poverty and they put help to good use. I am one hundred percent behind giving more money to these valiant souls.
I think the main reason they abduct more kids from poorer and /or uneducated families is simply because they haven't got the education, contacts, resources, or money, to effectively fight them in court or to move away to flee them,not that they are necessarily more abusive or neglectful; they're just easy targets.They are easier victims to target and to take advantage of; for them to over power and oppress.
ReplyDelete