Even at that, lower earnings and higher delinquency rates are exactly the kinds of data point that shows unnecessary intervention, like taking a child from the mother over poppy seeds, which maybe you’ll remember is what we were disagreeing about, is bad for children.
It’s clear that the “take the kids from the parents and investigate later” attitude you’re recommending causes more problems than it solves, even though it’s “well meaning” at first glance.
Eating food isn’t a reason to have your kids taken away from any parent, even one who was at risk of drug abuse. This is a known problem with the tests and they should have confirmed it BEFORE acting, not taken the baby and investigated later.
There are actually 7 studies in that article, and a link to more, however this particular article was written because of the one study that was done, and cited, 3 times.
All of these studies have the same problems, and have lots of criticism about their methodology, particularly in how to get this data. One of the biggest critiques being that they studied kids in bad homes the CS decided to not take in, vs ones they did. This is how they know a child is in a bad home, but not being ethically responsible for them staying. This automatically selects for less severe cases being the stay at homes, and the more severe being the ones taken. Then there are this issues in my last comment, like their estimations being wide. There are also many more when I started finding when putting the titles of these studies into google scholar and adding critique.
Basically these studies aren’t particularly useful because the data is hard to get (privacy laws, parents not wanting to participate, retraction of participation agreements before conclusion of data gathering, etc), the different groupings are already selected based on a varying scales of abuse severity, that it would not be ethical to select groups in a different fashion, and any experimental trials would be unethical. These foundational problems also make meta research faulty from the start. While they can pose some interesting questions, they are not able to make reliable qualitative calls on kids being removed from abusive homes because the ability to conduct this research is just not there in a way it would need to be.
You’re clearly putting a lot of effort into your responses and are being respectful. I don’t think I’ve given you the same respect so far so I’ll try my best.
I agree with the nuances you brought up. I understand you feel it’s better to intervene and be safe than sorry. I see the appeal of that.
I take the opposite stance. I know that the welfare of the child is closely tied to the stress and trauma they endure. In most families that at least nominally love their children that’s related to the stress of the parents. Stressed out parents are bad parents (all else being equal). Taking a child from their parents is a big stressor, that alone will make the child’s life worse.
To me, that’s enough motivation to say that on average the damage you cause through intervention has to be less than the life improvement you gain from intervention.
That’s a hard balance to strike. It can be appealing to say that damage to 100 families is worth it to save one child from irreparable harm.
My personal ethics say that you’re only responsible for your actions. If you don’t act and something bad happens then that’s on the people who did the bad things. On the other hand, if you do act then it’s important to validate that your actions match your intentions to improve the world, using the data you have access to, as best as you can.
I know other people have a value system that compels them to act because not acting can be as much a choice as acting. This type of value system would definitely lead you to intervening more often. I have a hard time internalizing these types of value systems because they’re very problematic at large scale and at edge cases.
I can live in a world with interventionists. But it doesn’t mean I don’t feelthe damage unnecessary interventions cause such as the one in this article.
The article sites 4 studies not one.
Even at that, lower earnings and higher delinquency rates are exactly the kinds of data point that shows unnecessary intervention, like taking a child from the mother over poppy seeds, which maybe you’ll remember is what we were disagreeing about, is bad for children.
It’s clear that the “take the kids from the parents and investigate later” attitude you’re recommending causes more problems than it solves, even though it’s “well meaning” at first glance.
Eating food isn’t a reason to have your kids taken away from any parent, even one who was at risk of drug abuse. This is a known problem with the tests and they should have confirmed it BEFORE acting, not taken the baby and investigated later.
There are actually 7 studies in that article, and a link to more, however this particular article was written because of the one study that was done, and cited, 3 times.
All of these studies have the same problems, and have lots of criticism about their methodology, particularly in how to get this data. One of the biggest critiques being that they studied kids in bad homes the CS decided to not take in, vs ones they did. This is how they know a child is in a bad home, but not being ethically responsible for them staying. This automatically selects for less severe cases being the stay at homes, and the more severe being the ones taken. Then there are this issues in my last comment, like their estimations being wide. There are also many more when I started finding when putting the titles of these studies into google scholar and adding critique.
Basically these studies aren’t particularly useful because the data is hard to get (privacy laws, parents not wanting to participate, retraction of participation agreements before conclusion of data gathering, etc), the different groupings are already selected based on a varying scales of abuse severity, that it would not be ethical to select groups in a different fashion, and any experimental trials would be unethical. These foundational problems also make meta research faulty from the start. While they can pose some interesting questions, they are not able to make reliable qualitative calls on kids being removed from abusive homes because the ability to conduct this research is just not there in a way it would need to be.
You’re clearly putting a lot of effort into your responses and are being respectful. I don’t think I’ve given you the same respect so far so I’ll try my best.
I agree with the nuances you brought up. I understand you feel it’s better to intervene and be safe than sorry. I see the appeal of that.
I take the opposite stance. I know that the welfare of the child is closely tied to the stress and trauma they endure. In most families that at least nominally love their children that’s related to the stress of the parents. Stressed out parents are bad parents (all else being equal). Taking a child from their parents is a big stressor, that alone will make the child’s life worse.
To me, that’s enough motivation to say that on average the damage you cause through intervention has to be less than the life improvement you gain from intervention.
That’s a hard balance to strike. It can be appealing to say that damage to 100 families is worth it to save one child from irreparable harm.
My personal ethics say that you’re only responsible for your actions. If you don’t act and something bad happens then that’s on the people who did the bad things. On the other hand, if you do act then it’s important to validate that your actions match your intentions to improve the world, using the data you have access to, as best as you can.
I know other people have a value system that compels them to act because not acting can be as much a choice as acting. This type of value system would definitely lead you to intervening more often. I have a hard time internalizing these types of value systems because they’re very problematic at large scale and at edge cases.
I can live in a world with interventionists. But it doesn’t mean I don’t feelthe damage unnecessary interventions cause such as the one in this article.