4 ms·

>Texas lawmakers recognized the existence of a possible foster-care-to-prison pipeline several years ago. The 'foster-care-to-prison pipeline' metaphor is such

>Texas lawmakers recognized the existence of a possible foster-care-to-prison pipeline several years ago. The 'foster-care-to-prison pipeline' metaphor is such a misnomer and completely unfair. Nobody is moving these kids into the prison system. Traditional parenting can provide personalized rearing and still have that child end-up in prison. We also know that a single-parent household, even with a dedicated loving parent, will have challenges rearing children. How is the state supposed to do it? Worse, the kids who end up in foster-care, more often than not, will already have significant trauma and behaviour or mental issues. So to summarize, you have the State dealing with two major issues that individually create an immense challenge, but together make it even harder: 1) The state can never scale resources to match typical parental rearing. 2) The state has to deal with a population of kids who are already suffering from behavioral or mental issues, drugs, or trauma. An affluent two-parent household with dedicated support workers would have trouble raising kids like that. How is the State supposed to do this? I'm not sure what the right approach is here but it's clear as day that there is no easy answer here.

Helloworldboy 6y ago
No idea why you’re being downvoted.
frankydp 6y ago
Intervene early and permanently. Trading second and third chances for bio parents at the cost of children's futures is too high a cost in my opinion.
- ativzzz 6y ago
  The early and permanent intervention would be to somehow convince (or forbid?) parents who are likely to raise such a child from having a child, but this opens up a giant can of ethical worms e.g. eugenics. Better education around sex and children, as well as easy access to birth control would go a long way.
  - frankydp 6y ago
    No my comment is simply to advocate for the development of the child over the second chances for the parent. Permanency is a child welfare term regarding a permanent placement for the child, not some grotesques parent sterilization program as you are implying. You are operating under the incorrect assumption that I somehow think the parents are at fault, my argument is that the children should not be the ones that pay for the learning process of the parents. Also implying that I am a Nazi/eugenics promoter is a red hearing and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Helloworldboy 6y ago

No idea why you’re being downvoted.

frankydp 6y ago

Intervene early and permanently. Trading second and third chances for bio parents at the cost of children's futures is too high a cost in my opinion.

ativzzz 6y ago
The early and permanent intervention would be to somehow convince (or forbid?) parents who are likely to raise such a child from having a child, but this opens up a giant can of ethical worms e.g. eugenics. Better education around sex and children, as well as easy access to birth control would go a long way.
- frankydp 6y ago
  No my comment is simply to advocate for the development of the child over the second chances for the parent. Permanency is a child welfare term regarding a permanent placement for the child, not some grotesques parent sterilization program as you are implying. You are operating under the incorrect assumption that I somehow think the parents are at fault, my argument is that the children should not be the ones that pay for the learning process of the parents. Also implying that I am a Nazi/eugenics promoter is a red hearing and you should be ashamed of yourself.