'Invisible Child' (NYT series on impoverished child/family)

Most of us, I'd argue, have moments that are directly proportional to our experience and circumstances. If you read the whole thing, which I'll assume you did, then you'd agree that Chanel had the deck stacked against her nearly as bad -- if not worse -- than Dasani.

Some of the most powerful, rich, successful people in the world double as overwhelmingly temperamental shits. At both ends of the spectrum, our real nature most reveals itself. The middle class -- unless they're in constant contact with the poor -- has less insight on the behavior mechanisms of the very poor than the very rich would.

Ever been hit from behind in a car? I don't mean rear-ended lightly; I mean slammed hard. I have. I had that rear-view mirror flinch for years. It was not rational; I've never been so much as nicked by a car since. But cumulative negative experiences turn people into something we don't always recognize.

 

As I previously said, people might have sex as a way to relieve stress. So what would you propose to help them relieve stress that doesn't involve spending a lot of money?

The only example I can think of is getting the working poor to go to a library to read a book. Other than that, everything else I can think of costs money.

 

It can be or it can't be. It depends on the alternative. Sometimes, that alternative is worse.

What I know: If you took, say, 15 million poor kids away from their parents and plugged them into a system that developed them in whatever way you personally saw fit, you'd still have the problem of dealing with 15 million extra folks competing for job, educational and consumer opportunities. Where are the entry points?

 

Total strawman. No one said poverty was a reason to take away children from their parents. The parents in the story are completely unfit for reasons far beyond poverty.

 

Surely. They measure everything else for a princely fee or another grant.

Although emotional success without love is a curious thing.

 

So, to sum up the Rev. Alma's ... umm, hmmmm ... position, Dasani and her siblings staying with their drug-addicted parents is probably better off for everyone, because keeping those parents busy providing and caring for those children shortens the waiting lines at the unemployment office, the community-college admissions office and the Costco checkouts.

 

Is it a strawman? There are about 700,000 reported child abuse cases per year that I'm sure involves multiple kids per case, and that's just the reported numbers. A 2000 report http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1863650,00.html showed 9 out of 10 instances of child abuse go unconfirmed.

I don't think 15 million is some alien figure. Hand-wringing over two overwhelmed, unskilled parents isn't worth much.

 

I think my post is a nod toward the enormity of the problem. By all means, send Dasani and Co to the greatest foster parents the world has ever known. I know, well, a lot of foster families.

And my guess is, as a result of this story, someone will contact the NYT and set up the whole family financially.

I guess I'm looking beyond the Willy Wonka Golden Ticket solution.

 

The narrative , the narrative.

 

Up until about the 1950s, neglected children in unfit homes were routinely taken away from their families, or given away by their parents, in various well-meaning child welfare programs like the Orphan Trains (which was wildly successful, comparatively.)

Many of these children were helped, but many more were subject to even more abuse, physical, emotional and sexual, in their pseudo-foster homes, which weren't regulated very well and which were rarely screened beforehand or visited afterward.

For every Babe Ruth — who was placed in a group home/orphanage at age 7 by his own father but who found a stable source of positive behavior to emulate and thrived — there were 100 other kids who found themselves in lives of indentured servitude through no fault of their own. Laws had to be enacted to prohibit children from being abused in farming communities and on the theater circuit.

Are things better today, when parents' and family rights are much more strongly emphasized, and all efforts are made to keep families together whenever possible? Clearly not, as evidenced by the NYT story that started this thread.

But the alternative some of you are proposing has been tried before and it sure as hell wasn't any better then. Let's not forget that.

 

Why do you seem to think that abuse means poverty or poverty means abuse? So many of those abuse cases have nothing to do with poverty, and I'll guarantee you that poverty doesn't guarantee abuse, either.

The story that started this thread certainly is about a family where the parents are both poor and abusive. That doesn't mean one guarantees the other.

 

That her parents "love" her means nothing. It does little good for her.

The idea that keeping children in these situations, with parents who cannot provide -- in any way -- for them, is the compassionate position, and the best alternative for the child makes me crazy.

Children are resilient as hell. Put them in a proper environment, and they have a chance to thrive.

And, losing your children, or the fear of it, is the most motivating factor for parents. Parents don't want to lose their kids, who they love (and who bring in benefits).

So, we likely would not need to house so many kids, if parents were at a greater risk of losing them.