Comment by logicchains
2 years ago
>But as an altruistic move for the greater good it is good.
That's only the case if overall children taken away from their parents end up with better outcomes than in societies where children aren't taken away from their parents, have you seen any data showing this is the case? Children in foster care tend to have horrifically bad outcomes, statistically speaking.
Children in foster care start off in a much worse situation than average. Or at least that is the normal case, there are exceptions like the article.
Many parents of 'mentally disabled' kids put the kids in foster care because the parents need a break from the constant care of a kid who isn't normal. Many other kids end up in foster care because they have been abused. Both of those will make the kids much worse than normal and thus much harder to care for.
Kids that are close to normal but end up in foster care often end up adopted fairly quick - there are plenty of families who want a kid but not their own (I personally know several people with genetics they don't want to pass on - there are other good reasons to not want someone else's kids) - but they will try to select a kid who is going to be easy to raise thus kids who will end up normal don't spend much time in foster care.
I meant that protesting the bad process, increasing risk of having your child taken away, is good for everyone else except you and your child. I.e. altruistic.