Family preservation should be an important goal in child abuse and neglect interventions, but it shouldn’t be the intervening or the only goal for a child’s welfare. Like Richard Gelles, for me the child’s safety, well-being, and the stability of their home should be the most important goal in child abuse and neglect. It’s all about the best opportunities for the child as well as living in an environment that is out of harms way for them. Unfortunately, in the society we live in today that is not always an option.
No parent wants to go with out providing for their child, but in some situations the parent may not be in the position to maintain and support the needs of their child / children. It’s an unfortunate place for the parent as well as the child; a parent wants to raise their child on their own without unwarranted interference from the government, but as mentioned in the text if there is evidence that the parent or caregiver is unable or disinclined to meet their children’s needs, the child welfare agencies will take action and intervene (Pg.335). I totally agree with Gelles’ ideas in having the government come in if there is no other option, I feel this way because if the parent doesn’t meet the needs or can’t meet the needs for their children they should accept help for the safety of the child. Gelles states “facts regarding risks in foster placement or even adoption are compelling. (Pg. 339)” But is that enough for one to avoid the situations at home? Should a child go through an everyday abusive or neglectful lifestyle, get placed in foster care while their parents are getting “helped”, then be returned? These are the questions I asked myself as I was reading through this issue. Yes, there is a possibility that the child “may” go through the same thing when they are taken from their original household, but the one thing that has more of a possibility is returning home. You never know with family preservation. “Family...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document