• There's no hard and fast rules, each case is a judgment call, and sometimes the system malfunctions -- either by failing to remove children when they're being badly abused, or removing them when the situation doesn't call for it. The general guidelines should be to protect the children from harm or serious neglect, with the understanding that "the state makes a poor parent". Children who are abused or neglected don't really have great options -- it's not like life is going to be wonderful in a foster home or group home. So the authorities have to consider this when deciding whether or not to remove children from a home -- it has to be pretty bad at home before one can say "they'd be better off in the system". Children in the system almost always want to go back to their families, even when they were being abused at home. It's a sad fact that they've lost their primary relationships, and to some degree their sense of identity, by being removed for their own safety or well-being.
  • It is judged on a case by case basis, but a basic rule is if the child is in danger or cannot be provided with the proper care in their home. I used to work for family services in NJ and we have removed children from emotionally unhealthy homes, to physically unhealthy ones.
  • Children should be removed when action or inaction causes a sustained threat to the health and well being of the child.
  • Never. In fact abuse only occurs when authorities fail to recognise parents incapable of caring for their children.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy