*I find it hard to come to terms with some of the terrible things people do and often end up mulling over what would drive them to do these things. Of late, one of the things that I have been trying to make some sense of is the actions of many child protective services and how it is allowed to happen. I decided to write some of my thoughts down to try and get some clarity. The following are some of my ponderings.*

![IMG_20180414_140929.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmb3W3Ur2oWyXepeo7hMhKAnYAhkpDYdhynxcnd8UBKARo/IMG_20180414_140929.jpg)

When you hear about child protection services taking children from homes where they are loved, yet leaving children in dangerous situations where they end up dying, it seems to not make sense. Surely  all the people in the department can't be so callous as to allow this to happen? If we look at it from the point of view of it being a department to help children, it ***wouldn't*** make sense. However, if we look at the nature of mankind, things can start to slot in to place. 

Putting all preconceived perceptions aside, this department would have come into being to protect children who are in bad situations at home. When it started the objective for the department was to keep children with their families, if at all possible, by assisting and educating; removing children was to be a last resort. After all, changing a child’s environments is unsettling for them and it would be costly to the department.

I can imagine that the department might have found that things were worse than expected or struggled to keep up with everything, so as children slipped through the cracks and media reported on it, the public started asking why. That would have started a pattern where they had justification to ask for more money, backed by public support. 

It is within our nature that we don't want to see harm come to others, especially children. However, it is also within our nature to take the easiest path. As individuals dealing with child cruelty would seem like an insurmountable task, so a department set up to deal with it is that easy route we crave. Now it becomes easier to for the public to hold the department accountable when a child is harmed and for the department to defend themselves by explaining that they don't have enough resources, they need more money. Once money plays a part it, you set in motion a cycle where more will always be needed. They will then need to make it self supporting, even profitable. Unfortunately, once it becomes profitable, money starts to get put ahead of people. 

Adoption can be made profitable. There are always people wanting to adopt babies anyway and how much more caring must it seem to adopt a baby saved from abuse? Unfortunately, it's a bit like adopting a dog from the pound. The cute puppies go quickly enough and maybe some of the older, well behaved dogs, but no one wants one that's gone aggressive from abuse. So it goes with children. Even those people who want to do the right thing and rescue one of the many older children from a life in a foster care home, aren't really going to fall in love with a delinquent who now holds a grudge against the world.

Could this be why emotionally damaged children are left in their abusive situations while children who are more emotionally stable, because their parents care about them, are removed? Then babies are removed very quickly from some parents, before those parents are even given a chance to prove themselves, because why take the risk of letting the child get too old then having to remove them later anyway. It's far easier and much more cost effective to take them early and get them adopted straight away.

If things turn really bad and a child left in a vulnerable situation ends up dying, then this is justification for the existence of child protection services and more money for more resources can be requested to help them do their job better. Media attention helps get the public outraged and demanding more help and resources for the agency, believing they're doing the righteous deed.

Being a foster carer is not easy and not everyone is willing to take in children, especially emotionally damaged ones, purely out of the goodness of their heart. It seems only fair too, that they should get some sort of financial assistance for doing something like this. Increasing the financial assistance to a point where someone can affectively earn a living on it would encourage more people to become foster carers, which can't be a bad thing, surely? At this point, though, you are bound to get unscrupulous people stepping up to foster, because it's become about the money more than the child. Any abuse or deaths in foster care can be covered up as much as possible, though. Let the media know only about the stories the department wants released, which will be the ones about the children that died or were subjected to terrible abuse in their parents’ care. Keep the justification for them going and keep the money rolling in. 

It's entirely possible that some of those working in child protection see so much abuse and encounter so many lies from those abusers, that they reach a point where they believe that everyone they investigate is lying and a terrible parent. When you're dealing with things day in and day out it's easy to get jaded and start to think that the majority of people are awful, when in fact the opposite is true. It's also easiest to just get on with your job and wrap things up as quickly as possible, even if it means some children get taken when they shouldn't. It's just a minor moral adjustment to accept the mistakes as collateral damage and tell yourself it's for the greater good.

However, tweaks to moral adjustment can accumulate and over time you start justifying more and more. Then it becomes purely about the job and covering your back; but for the collateral damage, it's their whole world that's being destroyed.

When we had our communities and dealt with things within them, we knew each other. It's harder to destroy, or allow the destruction of lives we know. Now we are more disconnected, we don't necessarily know the people around us to be able to stand up for each other and are faceless to the people who might come and take our children. Their system is disconnected and the caseworkers aren't the ones that even care for the children that they remove from their homes. If the caseworkers were looking after them, the children could express their distress at being removed from their homes, but they are passed onto others, often moved from one carer to another. The caseworker is essentially a middleman.

How can such a disjointed system be trusted to have the children and families best interests at heart? It is a system ripe for abuse. As the old proverb goes, **“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.** I believe that these departments were set up with the best intentions, but it is in the nature of mankind that things eventually go astray if they don't have a [counter balance to question their moves and keep them on track.]( https://steemit.com/familyprotection/@life-relearnt/why-the-cps-needs-to-be-questioned)

<center>~○♤○~</center>


[![DQmVSAe2CE48YFuzN8yJHS1KN1S5rsMkUQnCMR6B9idwmg5_1680x8400.png](https://steemitimages.com/DQmVSAe2CE48YFuzN8yJHS1KN1S5rsMkUQnCMR6B9idwmg5/DQmVSAe2CE48YFuzN8yJHS1KN1S5rsMkUQnCMR6B9idwmg5_1680x8400.png)](https://steemit.com/@familyprotection)