Once a child is taken from a home, do you think it is harder for low-income families to get their children back than it is for a middle-class or upper-class family? If so, do you think the lower income families do not have the money to pay for lawyers to fight for their children?
Do you think a lot of children get taken from their parents for no reason at all? If so, do you think they try to find a reason to do so?
Natoka
21 comments:
I think that DCFS doesn't take in all the right considerations when it comes to taking a child from their parents. I also believe that there could be some people working for DCFS that just abuse their power to separate families. With the DCFS taking away children from low income families, I think that the majority of people that can't take care of their children are low income families. I still believe that there are low in come families that have the ability to budget their money enough to support their family in a proper way but I'm not surprised if the DCFS takes into big consideration about a family having a low income.
Julie
I do not really know much about this topic or about The Department of Children and Family Services. But I think I understand that if a child from a low-income family than it harder to get the child back. Since The Department of Children and Family Services wants the best for the child, low-income family would not be able to fill the needs of their child but a middle/upper-class family would be able to fill the needs of their child. Therefore, it would be harder for low-income families to get their children back than it is for a middle-class or upper-class family.
-Nilay
I have not had much experience with this topic, and so I cannot tell you whether or not DCFS is abusing its power. I know that there are people who think so, as well as those who do not. I do, however, have my own beliefs on the issue of taking children from homes.
I believe that low-income families may not have very much money and possessions, but it doesn’t mean they cannot take care of their children. If the family is poor, and there is no abuse in the household, I think that all DCFS should be allowed to do is tell them places they can go to try and get some help (such as telling them of organizations who give out food and such). I understand that it can be hard on a person’s sense of pride, but if you need help then you need to ask for it and build your pride back up later. No one should suffer to save their own egos.
Now, I also believe that if there is abuse going on in a household then the children should be taken away. Abuse is wrong, and if adults get broken by it, how do you think the children of the world feel? There is absolutely no reason a child should live with their abuser, and be forced to go through mental, psychological, sexual, and/or physical trauma at the hands of a monster. Yet on some cases, you should put the children with another relative or (if no relative is found), into foster care TOGETHER until the house is deemed safe again (and even then they should be checked up on).
Lauren Smith
In certain situations DCFS does overstep their boundries. In many cases someone will report a family and they have to wait for weeks until they get to that faile. Meanwhile the child is being beaten. In other cases they go on a bit of info a take the children only to find out they made a mistake but by then the child is traumatized and the parents are labeled.
A.J. and Lisa Demaree are a perfect example of this. Their children were taken away and they were charged with child porn because an untrained Walmart employee didn't like some pictures. They were put on the sex offender registry, she was suspended from her job for a year and the have 75,000 in legal bills.
Even though they were cleared of the charges they still have a label. CPS caused more harm than the photos did.
I think DCFS has a role it just needs to be done responsibly.
Rebecca S
Yes . DCFS abuses the power that they have. I too have been taken out of my own house hold and were put with strangers. They say its whatever is best for the child but they selfishly do. Its all about liability. They want all of the credit for taking the child out of the home. but instantly become neutral when a problem arises with the child when placed with the wrong people. When the child is hurt then they step in because they don't want to be liable for this incident that happened at the home they in face placed you. I do admit that its very possible that I have a bias opinion. But when the same things are said over the years ,things being said must be somewhat true.
missolo
In a lot of cases, it seems that single parents or parents with a low income have their children taken from them more than parents from a middle or upper class background. I believe this is because of an attitude or stigma in society that single parents and low-income parents cannot provide the proper necessities for their children in the same way wealthier people can. While social factors might seem to place lower income or single parent families at a higher risk of abuse or neglect, one shouldn’t assume that these risk factors will lead to abuse. We should also not assume that wealthier families are not capable of abusing or neglecting their children. Each situation must be evaluated independently.
Yes, I do think it is likely harder for parents that have a lower income to get their children back from the DCFS. Money could be one reason of the reasons that parents with a lower income have a hard time getting their children back, but I believe it also relates to the stereotypes, for instance a belief that parents that have a low income don’t have the means to take care of their children. Also, it might be difficult for lower income families to miss work or to afford transportation to attend all the classes and meetings that are mandatory parts of their care plan. In this society, having a good lawyer makes a big difference. Both rich people and poor people can be good parents and bad parents. The same can be said for single parents and couples. I would hope that there is enough due process in the system that children would never be taken without solid evidence. I also believe that humans are flawed and a caseworker might make a mistake with unfortunate consequences.
-sam
I don't really know that much about this problem but what i do know is that most kids taken from families from the DCFS are from low income families.The DCFS takes children if they see the family or environment around the child as hazardous. They do check on middle and upper class families but not as often, because DCFS, some what, assumes that the children are living in a good environment. Its a shame that many low income families get their children taken and sometimes, i feel like they over use their authority on helpless individuals. Causing the families to try to get their child or children back. This task becomes difficult for those low income families because they are not able to afford a proper lawyer or provide a different life style, that would show a safe environment for the child to return. I'm not sure if DCFS takes kids without a reason, that would be unlawful, but they probably have some sort of reasoning even if its minute, or idiotic.
Josue
I think that the DCFS probably would take a child out of a lower income home quicker than they would any other home. I feel this way because they probably assume that parents in this environment aren’t as equipped to provide for the child. Providing for the child is a huge part of being a parent. When a child’s needs aren’t met this is called neglect, and the DCFS will be the first ones to point that out. Children in these types of environments are more likely to be abused as well because their parents have so much stress or anger for various reasons: lack of money, no job, on drugs, alcoholics, hungry. Then the parents take their stress or anger out on the child. This isn’t always the case, but when it is, DCFS has to get involved. I think in middle and upper class families they are better at hiding neglect and abuse, so DCFS doesn’t generally get involved. In these types of homes, these families don’t want to be looked down upon by their neighbors and they want to make a good name for themselves, so they do what they can to protect themselves. Therefore, if they are abusing or neglecting a child, they do it behind closed doors and I’m sure the child knows not say anything. Once a child is taken from a lower income home, I think it’s practically impossible to get them back, but it’s probably pretty easy to get a child back in any other home. Low income families don’t have the money, but other families do and they don’t want a bad reputation so they’ll most likely do whatever they can to get their kids back. I don’t think kids get taken for no reason at all—that would be kidnapping. I think the DCFS always has probable cause and the best interest of the child.
Chelsey
I literally know nothing about the Department of Children and Family Services. A child should only be taken away from their home if they are unsafe. By unsafe I mean that they either have no shelter, no food, or they are being beaten. Of course wealth is a large factor in deciding whether or not they are safe. Middle class people have a house, food and jobs; where is the danger? Abuse, which would involve the DCFS. But low income people may not have a house, food, or jobs. If I was working at the DCFS, I would not “randomly take” a child. Why would I create more work for myself? There is always a reason, but the DCFS should let the parents understand in what circumstances will they take their child away.
-Charlie
I don't have children or really care about anyone else kids so I don't know much about the subject. I'm under the impression that DCFS has standard guidelines to follow and are looking for what’s best for the children. That being said lower income generally brings higher crime rates, abuse, less education ect... That's not to say that poor people will automatically be unfit parents, it just a fact that these stats are higher among people of lower incomes so it makes sense that more children are generally taken from lower income families.
Schnitzel
I do think that DCFS is doing too much to keep in the lines. But if they were doing thier job right, than why is this controversy even discussed, because this isn't the first time i've heard a similar argument about DCFS.
-Samantha
There are a lot of sketchy topics brought up about DCFS but I do believe that kids will be taken out of low-income home quicker than middle to high income homes. Children might not get their needs met living in lower-income homes which can be a potential problem. Lower income houses are also sometimes located in an unsafe environment and DCFS definitely takes that into consideration. Looking through some studies on the internet I have found that pediatricians suspect that abuse happens to kids more often in low-class families. http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/sns-rt-us-docs-abusetre80j1wk-20120120,0,2016644.story
Elizabeth
I feel that DCFS has good intentions but their actions are too hasty and not backed up well enough with good evidence to properly remove children. I feel like when they are contacted they see what kind of income the child lives with and based off that, if its low, they believe the child has no support and is being raised in an indecent household. They need to have third parties come into homes and evaluate the conditions the child lives in based of hygiene, education, clean environment and stable caretakers things of that nature not just what class bracket they are in.
Brent
i feel as if DCFS are abusing the power that they are given. families that are lower income barley can make ends meet and trying to hire an attorney doesn't help them. these factors are what keep kids in foster care and county funded child care homes. i feel as if they should take into consideration of just what they are doing when they take away a child from their families.
-Christopher Hodges
DCFS is an organization that preys on the lower class families. I've heard an several occasions from other people thatsome middle and upper class families, who had gotten DCFS called on them, but their child was later returned to the abuse they were suffering before. It's not uncommon to see something like this, but who's to say the lower class families would do the same?
I do think that is DCFS is going to do something about the child abuse in a home, they should be consistent about doing so and actually fight for the child, not just roll over like a dog when money is brought up.
Katherine
I don't know a lot about this subject but I can't imagine children just being taken from a loving home just because the family is struggling a little financially. But if they were I would say it would be harder to get them back unless you somehow magically are making more money. I would imagine that if they can't afford to have excess stuff for their children, they can't afford a lawyer either.
Andi
Money makes things easier in practically every situation imaginable, so it is not surprising to me that low-income families may have more difficulty in situations that involve DCFS.
I do not think that the DCFS actively and maliciously trying to take children, but it may be the case that the requirements to work for DCFS may need to be raised and looked at more carefully; I think it's a simple matter of the wrong people doing the job in many cases.
Addison
I believe that in certain situations, DCFS can be a very good thing for kids because some parents just cant support their children like they need to be supported. But, at some points I believe that DFCS, kind of jumps the gun on going in a taking a kid from their parents thinking that they could not properly take care of them when really they can if the money is budgeted the right way.
Nolan
top [url=http://www.c-online-casino.co.uk/]uk casino online[/url] hinder the latest [url=http://www.realcazinoz.com/]casino online[/url] autonomous no deposit bonus at the foremost [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]baywatchcasino
[/url].
[url=http://www.casino-online.gd]online casino[/url], also known as accepted casinos or Internet casinos, are online versions of commonplace ("cobber and mortar") casinos. Online casinos franchise gamblers to uphold up and wager on casino games from catastrophe to foot the Internet.
Online casinos superficially forth odds and payback percentages that are comparable to land-based casinos. Some online casinos navigate higher payback percentages as a cure-all looking as a remedy for set gismo games, and some dispatch payout attract audits on their websites. Assuming that the online casino is using an fittingly programmed unsystematic epitomize up generator, note games like blackjack clothed an established congress edge. The payout match voyage of ascertaining of these games are established via the rules of the game.
Uncountable online casinos sublease or interest their software from companies like Microgaming, Realtime Gaming, Playtech, Supranational Accomplish the necessary Technology and CryptoLogic Inc.
Post a Comment