This is a follow up to 3 connected posts: My One Regret, My Public Crucifixion, and Undue Strain. If you haven't read those posts, this post might not make as much sense.
It dawned on me that in my telling of the story of my indirect responsibility for the death of a 5 year old boy that I didn't explain WHY I decided to leave him in his home. So, here's the explanation of my rationale.
As I mentioned previously, there was no evidence of abuse of any of the other children. It was only the youngest child who had welts from belt marks across his buttocks. He had been disciplined by his father because he was a bed wetter.
While there was no direct evidence of abuse regarding the other kids, this is not to suggest I didn't suspect they weren't abused as well. When interviewed, each responded as if they had memorized what they were to say and didn't say anything beyond the father's "official" version of events, lest they be punished later.
That said, a child abuse investigator cannot make decisions based on suspicions or intuition. You had to have confidence that you could prove in court that removing a child or children from a home WAS in their best interests. If you couldn't prove it, the Juvenile Court would return the children to the home immediately.
These factors weighed on my mind as I wrestled with what to do that evening. The primary reason I made the decision I made is that I worried about the psychological impact on the young boy IF I removed him and NOT his siblings as well. I believed that he would feel that it was HIS fault and that he was being punished for the sins of his father.
Young children typically do not understand the world like grown ups or even older children do. So, I was trying to put myself in the young boy's shoes to see how he might perceive the situation. My strategy was not based on any empirical data or studies. It merely represented one of the chief methods I utilized in the delicate business of deciding when to remove a child from his/her family and when it might not be such a good idea.
Finally, I do want to make it clear that I had removed many children before (the majority of which had been sexually abused). While I didn't keep a count, I would guess that over several years I removed nearly 100 children. So, my rationale that night wasn't based on the fact I was "gun shy". I simplify believed that in this specific situation more harm would come to the boy's psyche by removing him as opposed to leaving him in the home with a volatile father (and step-mother) who would be working with and monitored by our agency through intensive family counseling.
It turned out that I was wrong.
Dead wrong.
It dawned on me that in my telling of the story of my indirect responsibility for the death of a 5 year old boy that I didn't explain WHY I decided to leave him in his home. So, here's the explanation of my rationale.
As I mentioned previously, there was no evidence of abuse of any of the other children. It was only the youngest child who had welts from belt marks across his buttocks. He had been disciplined by his father because he was a bed wetter.
While there was no direct evidence of abuse regarding the other kids, this is not to suggest I didn't suspect they weren't abused as well. When interviewed, each responded as if they had memorized what they were to say and didn't say anything beyond the father's "official" version of events, lest they be punished later.
That said, a child abuse investigator cannot make decisions based on suspicions or intuition. You had to have confidence that you could prove in court that removing a child or children from a home WAS in their best interests. If you couldn't prove it, the Juvenile Court would return the children to the home immediately.
These factors weighed on my mind as I wrestled with what to do that evening. The primary reason I made the decision I made is that I worried about the psychological impact on the young boy IF I removed him and NOT his siblings as well. I believed that he would feel that it was HIS fault and that he was being punished for the sins of his father.
Young children typically do not understand the world like grown ups or even older children do. So, I was trying to put myself in the young boy's shoes to see how he might perceive the situation. My strategy was not based on any empirical data or studies. It merely represented one of the chief methods I utilized in the delicate business of deciding when to remove a child from his/her family and when it might not be such a good idea.
Finally, I do want to make it clear that I had removed many children before (the majority of which had been sexually abused). While I didn't keep a count, I would guess that over several years I removed nearly 100 children. So, my rationale that night wasn't based on the fact I was "gun shy". I simplify believed that in this specific situation more harm would come to the boy's psyche by removing him as opposed to leaving him in the home with a volatile father (and step-mother) who would be working with and monitored by our agency through intensive family counseling.
It turned out that I was wrong.
Dead wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.