Articles Book III - Pg 300-560 (Birthparents) - triadoption

conslderod within tho framework of tlio
lam~ly, rather than on an individual basis,
what do you do about tho child who is
abused, or piiysically liarmod; tlie battered
child, for example, who has caught the at.
tontion of the media and about whom, consequently,
it is fashionable to be concerned
now? But you cannot measure parental
love In those bohaviourol terms. Parents are
human beings witli thoir own needs and
their own limitations. They suffer in their
own dimension. The child, because he is a
child of their's comes into their sphere 01
need, comes into thoir sphere ol acting out.
precisely because he is thoir child. To
remove the child because lie is a "victim"
of h ~s parents, is to rornove the child lrom
all the positive things that affect him
because there is one negative thing. It
means we have not understood tho nature
of the family role or the child's needs.
I remember, in our early work at Warren.
dale. we received throe childron lrom a
fam~ty in which tho mother had abused the
children; neglected mostly but. also, in an
act of desperation. she had burnt the children's
hands on a hot stove because they
had stolon something and she had been
warned that she had to keep them from
doing that or they would be removed lrom
the homo. In her inadequacy, in her inability
to cope witli the pressure, in her anxiety to
protect the children lrom being taken away
lrom her, she did the very thing that caused
the children to be taken away because she
wasn't fit, or a "safe" mothor. Yet, tho
fact of the matter is, in all their history from
that day forward, they never received tho
love that tlioir mother and father had given
them. As far as I know, nobody else ever
burnt their hands, but out of one single hurt
from tho parents. the children lost a11 of
thclr ties, all of the alloction, all of the sari.
se of bolorlgirig that we have in our relationsh~ps
with tlie t~oople wlio bore us and
raised US iirid liave a conirnitment to us that
cannot be equalled by an unrelated person.
From every angle. thinking is so
inadequate, so meagre. we hasteri to firid
excuses to rip children off from their
fsmtlies, or rip families off lrom their cliild-
ren. As I see it, this whole lad about the
battered cliild is one more excusc to rip off
children, lo avoid real solutions to real
problems. It used to be if tlio house was dir.
ty, or if the childron missed meals, the chlld
was removed. Now we rip them off if
family problems are too groat for parents to
cope with and they take out their frustrotions
in physical abuse or alcohol. The
Minister of Social and Community Services
cannot disclierge a staff of a state run in.
stitution for kicking a retarded adult woman
in tlie head, but a parent who batters his
child can be "fired" by the most bigoted.
unconsciously hostile person in the community,
the potential batterer who
becomes the saviour of battered childron.
In all of these situations there is an obvious
alternative if you don't exclude the family
from tho very beginning of your thinking
about tho problem. What would happen if
instead of taking the children away from
the family, the lamily got support? What
would hove happened to the mother wlio
was trying to keep her children from misbehaving
in the community and burnt their
hands in a last, desperate attempt at disciplining
them if, when the children had
first misbehaved in tho community, some.
body had assessed that she needed sup.
port7 What if a worker had gone into
that family and supported tlie mother? Had
taught her what she needed to learn in or.
dcr to become a more adequate mother?
Had taught her ways of coping with the
children's bohaviour other than with such
severe measures?
Had that alternative beon tried, tho childron
could have remained in tho family, they
would have continued to receive parental
care and afloct~on. the 110 would not havo
been broken, tho mother would havo loll
bettor about herself, about hor adequacy as
a parent and she would have suffered less.
tlio children would not have suffered sen.
sration lrom their parents and society
would not havo had to boar the expense of
rtllslrig the children throu(jI1 moans that
were, at best, inadequate to their needs
and tho children would not havo grown up
alienated lrom socloty.
We need to got Into the habit 01 asking,
why ifiis alterriativo that we use out of all
tho altornntivcs available? Wliilt we should
do if we are concerned
~
about the
~~
lonal
rlgllts of cliilrfron is ro;~lizo (Itat one of the
first rights of tho cliild sliould be that a child
sliould never be deprived of his farnily. That
tho state, tho social service agancies and
tho courts ;Ire mandated to find alternatives
that keep the child within his family.
As we begin to use our ingenuity lor finding
ways to be supportive to tlte parerits, ways
of keeping families togotlior, instead of
splitting them up. I know we will find those
alternatives are much more offectivo. Tlioy none7 4
are certainly mlrc humane and I would be
very surprised if we do not also find they
are rnucli rnoro economical.
I welcolne the now Interest in the legal
right.; for cliildrori, but I hope that the cliild
does not have to beconic the victim of this
now rnovorncnt on his behalf. Because I a111
certain that the only wav rve can guarantee
that. ~. is - to maki? sure that the orinciole ol
~
legal rights for children is incorporated
within the family, not separate from the
family. What is the sense ol a movemont
for childron's rights when the family has
FAMILY INVOLVEMENT