Parents: The Real Problem
In sitting down and starting to put things on paper for my Child Advocacy Policy Workshop, I've come across an interesting trend. It seems that to effectively help children there needs to be a legal revolution -- a change of ideology, of approach and eventually of social values.
If we could manage to develop an approach to child welfare that does not clash with the privacy awarded to parents and to families (in Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, etc.) then we wouldn't need such a revolution. It is unlikely that this will occur, so the privacy itself (which, by the way, is nowhere in the Constitutuion and developed during the much criticized Lochner era) must be addressed. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that there will be a successful social movement to address the needs of kids as contrary to the privacy "rights" of parents and families.
In that case, there have been a bunch of quasi-revolutionary creations to help children (and often others at the same time) that do not run contrary to general social sensibilities; Early Intensive Home Visitation, Shared Family Care and Family Treatment Courts for example. Each of these programs are quite different, but they have many similarities.
All three involve the indirect treatment of children by treating their parents. If we can manage to get parents off drugs, into parenting classes and out to steady jobs, then the lives of children will be better. While it is sad that society is not yet at the point to protect children directly, us child advocates will probably have to settle for this indirect (yet seemingly effective) prevention and treatment of abuse and neglect by focusing on the real problem: parents.
If we could manage to develop an approach to child welfare that does not clash with the privacy awarded to parents and to families (in Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, etc.) then we wouldn't need such a revolution. It is unlikely that this will occur, so the privacy itself (which, by the way, is nowhere in the Constitutuion and developed during the much criticized Lochner era) must be addressed. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that there will be a successful social movement to address the needs of kids as contrary to the privacy "rights" of parents and families.
In that case, there have been a bunch of quasi-revolutionary creations to help children (and often others at the same time) that do not run contrary to general social sensibilities; Early Intensive Home Visitation, Shared Family Care and Family Treatment Courts for example. Each of these programs are quite different, but they have many similarities.
All three involve the indirect treatment of children by treating their parents. If we can manage to get parents off drugs, into parenting classes and out to steady jobs, then the lives of children will be better. While it is sad that society is not yet at the point to protect children directly, us child advocates will probably have to settle for this indirect (yet seemingly effective) prevention and treatment of abuse and neglect by focusing on the real problem: parents.
posted by eponcz at 2:08 PM
3 Comments:
I couldn't agree more with the assumption that we need parents to learn how to parent in order to give children a better life. I am a teacher, and see this constantly.
People sure are happy enough to pop out one child after another, but then they say "whoa, I'm actually expected to parent these kids? That's not fair." And as a result, these kids grow up with distorted values.
I have students who actually think that the natural progression of life is: drop out, have kids, get on welfare. If they're raised like this, it's a vicious cycle, and the only way to break it is to educate parents.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I don't agree that society is not prepared to shift its perception of children. I am co-director of a non-profit agency that represents the rights and interests of children. I feel that by taking a creative approach to litigating kid cases I have already had an impact on how courts in my state view children. And, by representing children in this way, I (and my colleagues) have unleashed a somewhat revolutionary perspective: the rights and needs of kids deserve at least very close scrutiny as compared to the "rights" of parents.
I love your blog. I love that you are focussing on children's law. I have been doing this pretty much exclusively for the past 15 years and it is a blast - and sometimes excruciatingly painful.
Post a Comment
<< Home