When placing a child in a home, the most important aspect is placing them in a home the child feels comfortable and is safe. Shakely agrees that children’s safety is the main priority but feels agents have quit taking children from dangerous home (Lundstrom par. 17). Basically, Shakely is saying the agents ask questions first before taking action. This can be detrimental to the child. In “Encyclopedia: Child Abuse and Neglect” the article talks about the commonwealth of abusers: “The relationship between poverty and abuse is strong; the vast majority of fatalities involve parents and caretakers from the poorest families” (“Encyclopedia: Child Abuse and Neglect” par. 9). Considering the relationship between wealth and child abuse, children should be taken away from situations and families that are struggling with money and financials. All states have the right to interject between a parent and a child, but only if the child is at risk of being or is in danger (“Child Abuse: Should Child Services Agents and the General Public Be Held More Accountable for Instances of Child Abuse?” par. 19). Carefully placing children in safe homes can go against the agency policies to return the child to his or her biological parents.
In the the agencies view, a child that was taken away from his or her parents deserve the chance to return to his or her parents. Joel Feinberg, a philosopher at the University of Arizona, complicates matters further when he discusses parents holding the interest of their child’s future (Ho par. 13). The agents make the parents go through steps in order to gain custody of their children back from foster families. Some parents are able to use the experience of getting their children taken away from them as a start to change their lives. On the other hand, some parents do not change and the agencies will allow them to get their children back. According to Lundstrom, “. . . The Bee found that the tipping point for kids' safety often comes down to seemingly small things: a social worker with poor English skills, an unanswered knock at the door, a miscue between agencies, a lack of follow-through, an incomplete background check, a supervisor on vacation, a poor candidate for parenting classes” (Lundstrom par.15). Common sense seems to dictate that parents benefit from family counseling, not all parents are fit to take care of a child. The consequences of returning a child back with his or her biological parents can range from neglecting the child, to the child dying due to abuse.
In the the agencies view, a child that was taken away from his or her parents deserve the chance to return to his or her parents. Joel Feinberg, a philosopher at the University of Arizona, complicates matters further when he discusses parents holding the interest of their child’s future (Ho par. 13). The agents make the parents go through steps in order to gain custody of their children back from foster families. Some parents are able to use the experience of getting their children taken away from them as a start to change their lives. On the other hand, some parents do not change and the agencies will allow them to get their children back. According to Lundstrom, “. . . The Bee found that the tipping point for kids' safety often comes down to seemingly small things: a social worker with poor English skills, an unanswered knock at the door, a miscue between agencies, a lack of follow-through, an incomplete background check, a supervisor on vacation, a poor candidate for parenting classes” (Lundstrom par.15). Common sense seems to dictate that parents benefit from family counseling, not all parents are fit to take care of a child. The consequences of returning a child back with his or her biological parents can range from neglecting the child, to the child dying due to abuse.