Author: Super User

June 5, 2020 by Robert Franklin, JD, Member, National Board of Directors

It’s hard to know what to make of this awful, tragic case (Fox San Antonio, 5/20/20).  Perhaps San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said all that can be.

“We have seen this happen over the years in the past where parents who have lost custody or are involved in divorce have resorted to murder-suicide,” McManus said.

One day after a San Antonio judge gave primary custody of Clara and Robert Deitering, 5 and 3 years old respectively, to their father Jason, their mother Karina shot the two children, her own mother and finally herself.  Never before had she given any indication of a propensity toward violence.

What she had done is make a false allegation of sexual abuse of Clara against Jason.  That too came on the heels of Judge David Canales’ ruling that, during the pendency of the divorce, Jason have primary custody of the children.  Canales immediately ordered an expert in sexual abuse of children to investigate the allegation and that Jason have no contact with his kids.  The results of that investigation were unequivocal.

“After a complete child custody evaluation by an independent court-appointed clinical psychologist came out in favor of the father having custody in Mississippi, the mother claimed that their daughter made a sexual abuse outcry,” [father’s attorney Charles] Hardy said, detailing the two days of testimony from multiple witnesses that followed. “In an abundance of caution, after the first day of testimony (in early February), the judge appointed the top sexual abuse expert in San Antonio to interview the child who the mom alleged made the outcry. Although the mother delayed in taking the child to the expert, the psychologist ultimately testified in the second day of the hearing (in April) that the child reported to her that her mother had told her that she was abused while the child was sleeping.”

Canales then ordered that Jason should have primary custody.

On April 24, records show Judge David A. Canales found it in the best interest of the children – “for their safety and welfare” – that the rights to decide their primary residence be awarded to Jason. Jason’s monthly obligation to pay child support to Karina would be terminated effective May 1. And Karina was ordered to surrender the children to Jason immediately…

Jason’s attorney, Charles Hardy added that the judge’s order specified that Karina was to have “liberal visitation” with the kids.

In short, it appears that Judge Canales did everything right.  He took seriously the accusation of sexual abuse and also the finding that Karina had originated the allegation herself.  Canales seems to have understood that levelling the false allegation was sufficiently wrong, sufficiently at odds with the children’s interests that Jason should have primary custody.  But Karina had never been violent before and her past, while far from spotless, in no way indicated that she shouldn’t continue to be a prominent presence in her children’s lives.  So Canales gave her “liberal visitation” of the type fathers routinely receive in Texas courts.

What could anyone have done to prevent Karina Deitering’s horrible, utterly senseless act of brutality?  Nothing that I can see.

Yes, the family court system itself plays a role in this sort of case.  As I’ve said countless times before, the very fact that one parent will emerge from a custody case the winner and one the loser is the wrong approach, one that all but ensures heightened conflict.  Equal parenting orders can reduce that conflict by telling both parents “you won’t lose your children.”

Still, Karina Deitering had lied to the court for the purpose of depriving Clara and Robert of their father.  She’d fired the proverbial “silver bullet” and, as such, she was guilty of child abuse.  Children need both parents and Clara and Robert needed Jason.  To attempt to remove him from their lives based on a lie was an attempt to make their lives worse, less stable, less prosperous, less happy.

So, at least for a time, it was appropriate of Judge Canales to restrict her access to them.  But his order allowed equal time for the parents as the summer wore on.

What made Karina Deitering do what she did?  And who could have prevented her from doing it?

I have no answer to either question.  Perhaps, as Chief McManus said, sometimes, unthinkable as it may be, it just happens and we don’t know why and we can’t prevent it.

June 3, 2020 by Robert Franklin, Member, National Board of Directors

Three Cherokee County, North Carolina employees of the Department of Social Services face multiple indictments by a grand jury stemming from their use of “custody and visitation agreements” (CVAs) to coerce parents into giving up their children to foster care (Carolina Public Press, 5/19/20).  In all, the three face 41 felony and misdemeanor charges with the possibility of more to come.  Former DSS Director Cindy Palmer, former DSS attorney Scott Lindsay and former Child Protective Unit supervisor David Hughes were booked into the Cherokee County jail.

Apparently, the use of CVAs is illegal in the state and the three attempted to cover up their use of them by, among other things, lying under oath about their use.  In addition, when the investigation began in 2018, Palmer was relieved of her duties as DSS Director, but immediately rehired as the DSS business officer.  Remarkably,

In a series of investigative reports in 2019, [Carolina Public Press] pointed to evidence that an unprecedented and massive number of documents at DSS were shredded at precisely the time she took on the new position.

Needless to say, if those documents had anything to do with the investigation, Palmer could be in for additional charges of obstruction of justice.

What are CVAs?  We’ve seen them before in other states and going by other names.  In a nutshell, they’re documents state CPS agencies use with increasing frequency to avoid facing parents in court.  Caseworkers threaten parents that, if they don’t sign the CVA, the agency will take their kids into foster care.  Once the parents sign, the agency shows the court that there’s a “voluntary” agreement with the parents that they lose the children for a certain period of time.  When parents agree, there’s nothing to litigate and nothing for a judge to decide.  What CPS can’t do via due process of law, it does by threats and intimidation.  Nice.

Parents have said they resisted signing the documents. Tienda Rose Phillips told CPP last year that she thought the documents were “sketchy.”

“But when you have someone who you think is over you and is threatening foster care, who you know can take your kid, you kind of do what they say,” Phillips said. “You kind of feel you have no choice.”

In fact, back in 2018, a judge had already ruled the use of CVAs illegal and a violation of parents’ constitutional rights.

In fact, the documents were an illegal violation of parents’ constitutional rights, and “the product of both actual and constructive fraud on behalf of the Cherokee County Department of Social Services, its agents and employees and Attorney Scott Lindsay and Director Cindy Palmer,” District Court Judge Sellers ruled in 2018.

But well before that ruling, Palmer and the rest of DSS knew or should have known that the use of CVAs violated the law.  That’s because training was provided her and the others explaining exactly that.

State and federal policies require child welfare workers to receive training throughout their careers. Palmer herself had attended a training in 2016 on proper procedures for custody removals, DSS attorney David Moore told the DSS board in a closed session.

David Moore told the board during that closed session “that training in 2016 had covered the appropriate department procedures that should have been followed regarding custody removals,” according to closed-session minutes. “The 2016 training was clear and direct and taught procedures and rules regarding maintaining parental rights.”

Asked by CPP last year whether this meant Palmer should have known better, David Moore said, “Everybody should have known better.”

I suspect they did, but, as we’ve seen elsewhere, the coerced use of “voluntary” agreements with parents is so much easier, quicker and cheaper than adducing evidence in court sufficient to convince a judge of the need to take someone’s kids.  And if you’re the way so many child protective officials are, you opt for the quick and dirty over the hard and constitutional every time.

British MP Philip Davies has it right (Telegraph and Argus, 4/30/20).  There’s a domestic violence bill before Parliament and he wants its definition of DV to include parental alienation, blocking access to children and false allegations of domestic violence.

He said: “I have heard horrific stories affecting parents and children and if we are to save future generations of children from having non-existent relationships with one of their parents, something needs to be done, and my amendment would be a start.

“The definition of domestic abuse should include cases where one parent deliberately denies the other parent contact with their children for no good reason. As far as I am concerned, this is just as abusive as other forms of abuse that are regularly mentioned; it causes significant distress, upset and harm. In some cases, the harm is so bad that it can tragically lead to suicide.”

Just so.  It’s long past time when judges and lawmakers should have put a stop to the twin scourges of parental alienation and non-enforcement of orders for access to children.  Exactly what it takes to get them to realize the obvious – that both behaviors are destructive to children’s psyches – remains a mystery, but maybe Davies’ amendment to the DV bill will help.  We call them “family courts,” but they can be the opposite; they can be, and often are, co-conspirators in the abuse of children by preventing one parent from having meaningful time with them.

That brings us to false allegations, i.e. one of the chief ways in which parental alienation and the prevention of child access are carried out.

Other measures Mr Davies wants the Bill to cover are including false allegations in the definition of domestic violence, in a bid to stop it happening and stop some parents having their reputations and lives “trashed by malicious, vexatious accusations”.

Mr Davies also wants every victim and perpetrator of domestic violence treated equally regardless of gender.

He said: “While there are more recorded female victims of domestic abuse, there are still many male victims, and a further body of evidence shows how their numbers are also likely to be underestimated. They should not be ignored. I really want to reiterate for the record that we need to be very clear that women are not the only victims of domestic violence and that violence against women is not always perpetrated by men either.”

The fact that those stances should even be controversial indicates how entirely out of touch law and policy on families is.  It should go without saying that parental alienation, false allegations and interference with custody or parenting time should be tightly policed.  We say we care for kids, that they’re the future, that they’re our most valuable resource, and they are.  But we routinely behave in direct opposition to those ideas.  We know what parental arrangements are best for children when their parents divorce.  But equal parenting remains the rare exception in custody orders.

Davies is clearly doing the right thing.  The question is whether other MPs will step up to support his sensible and much needed reforms.

June 1, 2020 by Indiana Lee

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed so much about the world we live in, and the impact will likely be felt for a long time. For divorced parents who have different custody arrangements for their children, though, it’s more important than ever to work together to keep your kids safe, happy, healthy, and to make sure they’re staying on top of their schoolwork.

Whatever your child custody arrangements are, you should work to keep them the same throughout this pandemic. There is so much uncertainty going on in the world, that having some kind of normal routine can help your child to feel comfortable.

It’s been shown that strained relationships with one or more parents are leading causes of mental health conditions in children. So how can you continue to foster a healthy relationship between a child and your co-parent, keep them safe, and continue their education throughout this pandemic?

Making Your Custody Arrangements Clear

Use this time to serve as a reminder of your custody arrangements and what they really mean. If you have joint physical custody, you’ll need to decide with your estranged partner what arrangements work best for you when it comes to transporting your child.

If you have joint legal custody, you’ll both have a voice in making decisions about healthcare and school for your child. Though you might not agree on everything, it’s important to come to compromises that will benefit your child. During these strange times, being able to co-parent and stay positive is one of the best things you can do. Though you might be stressed, badmouthing your co-parent can actually wound your child and create a lasting negative impact.

You might typically have parallel parenting (with different rules and ideas), but working together through this pandemic and trying to unify as much as possible can help your child to feel more comfortable and secure. Now isn’t the time to make threats, to try to take your child away from your ex-partner, or to fight over the time you get with your child. Instead, by showing your child that you can work together with their other parent, you can ease some of their fears and also establish a routine that helps to reduce your own stress levels.

Establishing a Health and Wellness Plan — Together

It’s important for everyone to stay healthy right now, including you, your co-parent, and your child. Try working together with your former partner to establish a health and wellness plan you can both agree to. For yourself, it can include basic immune-boosting solutions, including:

-Getting enough sleep

-Eating healthy foods

-Managing your stress

-Exercising

When it comes to keeping your children healthy at both homes, it starts with educating them on how to stay safe. Talk to them about what they can do to stay healthy, including washing their hands frequently.

You should also be aware of the symptoms of coronavirus in children, so you can pay attention to any changes your child might be experiencing. The most common symptoms of COVID-19 in children (and adults) are fever, cough, and runny nose. Keep in mind that if your child does exhibit these symptoms, it doesn’t automatically mean they have the virus. But you should contact their doctor if you’re worried, and keep their other parent informed.

Staying On the Same Page With Education

At the end of 2019, only 12 states in the country had formal e-learning policies. Obviously, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has changed that quickly.

If your child’s school has implemented an e-learning policy, make sure that you and your co-parent both know how to help them with it and ensure they’re using it properly. It’s also important to understand that what a child experiences at school can often go far beyond what they read in a textbook or learn in a lesson.

At school, children often have the support and reassurance they need thanks to teachers and guidance counselors. Guidance counselors do much more than help with academic counseling. They can also offer personal counseling to kids or teens who might be struggling, whether they’re having a hard time at school or at home. Some children talk to their guidance counselors because they feel safe in telling them things they might not be able to tell anyone else.

While you might not be able to take the place of your child’s guidance counselor, do your best to check in on them as often as possible, especially when they’re with your co-parent. If you’re worried there is a risk that your child is being abused or neglected, they need to know they can talk to you freely and open up.

During this period of online learning and a pandemic that has already caused events throughout the summer to be canceled, striking a balance can be difficult. It can become even more of a problem as a divorced couple with a custody arrangement in place.

If ever there was a time to set aside your personal differences and avoid arguments about custody, it’s now. It’s important to work together to make this balancing act work and to show your child that even during times of stress, their needs come first.

Indiana Lee lives in the Northwest and has a passion for the environment and healthy lifestyles. She draws her inspiration from nature and makes sure to explore the outdoors regularly with her two dogs. Indiana enjoys mountain bicycling and hiking on her off time and has experience in owning and operating her own business. Feel free to contact her at indianaleewrites@gmail.com or follow her on twitter @indianalee3  

May 28, 2020 by Robert Franklin, JD, Member, National Board of Directors

Last time I discussed the fact that marriage rates are at an all-time low in the United States.  That’s not a good thing for anyone because, generally speaking, married relationships are better for men, women, children and society generally than any other kind.  So we should view the decline in marriage rates with concern.

Now, along with the Psychology Today article I linked to, I focused on one likely reason for the decrease in marriage – money.  Put simply, women have gained a lot in the workplace over the past few decades and now often out-earn men.  But overall, they haven’t adjusted their expectations of men to reflect their own well-being.  Men still “marry down,” but women seldom do.  One result is a decline in marriage rates.

But women’s choice to forego marriage with lower-earning men is hardly the only cause of the marriage slump.  Family law is too.  Which is the greater influence, I can’t guess, but no article on the drop in marriage rates is complete without a large section on family law and family courts.

These days, it takes a brave man – or a foolish one – to marry.  He’s even braver or more foolish if he fathers children.  Why?  Because he runs several enormous risks if he does.

First, divorce is a no-fault matter.  That means his wife can divorce him for any or no reason.  If she does, laws on the division of the marital estate uniformly hold that, whatever her contribution thereto, she gets half of what they’ve accumulated, at least.  Particularly if there are children in the family, Mom will get primary custody and the house his earnings likely did the most to pay for.

Primary custody usually means that Dad is relegated to the status of every-other-weekend visitor.  So all the love, affection and support he gave to little Andy or Jenny is as nothing.  He becomes little more than a stranger to them.  Does he experience overwhelming anguish at the loss of his kids?  Well, that’s his tough luck and of course theirs.  Fathers in custody cases are as much as eight times as likely to commit suicide as are other men.  Children without a father exhibit a plethora of emotional, behavioral and educational problems.

Having lost the house and the kids, Dad then gets to pay Mom child support and alimony.  Both are calculated by the judge who may create fictions about what Dad can earn to do so.  As the Office of Child Support Enforcement has long told us, child support orders are routinely set at levels higher than fathers can pay.  If Dad falls behind, interest and fees are tacked on to what he owes.  If he falls too far behind, he loses his license to drive, other occupational licenses, perhaps his passport and of course he may go to jail.  But whatever the case, alimony and child support laws encourage Mom to divorce and Dad to not marry in the first place.

If Mom chooses to thwart his visitation rights, she probably won’t pay any price for doing so.  He’ll hand large sums of money to a lawyer to file motions, take depositions and appear in court, but it may take several rounds of all that to convince a judge to simply enforce the order as written.  Never mind make-up time or attorney’s fees.

In short, for men and particularly fathers, marriage is a dangerous proposition.  Yes, most women are considerate enough to refrain from using the legal system as a truncheon with which to bludgeon their ex, but if you’re a man, how do you know ahead of time which will and which won’t?  Far too many men have been put through the family court wringer for other men to have failed to notice.

If we really value marriage, and we should, we’ll make wholesale changes to family laws.

May 27, 2020 by Roxanne Remy

Co-parenting a child with a disability is difficult enough. Constant communication, double- sometimes triple-ordering supplies, and a lot of extra effort on both sides is needed. These interventions do more than make for a smooth transition between households. Advanced planning reduces the risk of illness exacerbation and improves safety outcomes for the child. Co-parents need to be in lockstep with each other so the most important ingredient in the successful parenting recipe doesn’t get left out. Just when you think you’ve got a system in place, a crisis snags a loop unraveling your quilted matrix of a plan. Whether it’s an acute resurgence of their chronic illness, new school requirements, or another unplanned event, moms and dads have to assess and adjust to meet the new need. Now, in 2020, we can add national pandemic to that list of aggregavating factors which could interfere with a child’s shared parenting schedule. During these times, the door of communication should be flung wide open, but some parents see it as an opportunity to seal it shut.

Fear makes insecure people do irrational things. Pandemics, unfortunately, lend themselves to the overwhelming distress category of life.  Reactionary parenting can cause even those with the best of intentions to lose sight of their children’s holistic needs. Unfortunately, the alienating parent often capitalizes on the situational unpredictability and uses it as coercive control over the child. Rather than empowering their son or daughter with trust and compassion, the controlling parent undermines the child’s security by convincing them the other parent is in incapable of mitigating the threat. These individuals go out of their way to skew routines in an effort to present themselves as the lantern holding leader during the storm.

Parents of children, with or without special needs, should expect an extra layer of chaos during these times and embrace the opportunity to combine their efforts for an optimal outcome. Collaboration, creative problem solving, and integration are the most effective skills to employ during a crisis. Isolating the child and prohibiting them from engaging with the other parent only limits their development. We have an obligation to allow them to see both parents’ reactions during joyful and stressful times. Their ability to make decisions as adults depends on their ability to mimic the skills their parents employ. Removing that opportunity from them minimizes the critical thinking skills and limits their abilities to react positively in times of need. Shouldn’t our future leaders be more prepared than we are when the time comes for them to navigate their own unprecedented experiences?

Communicable diseases have been around long before the concept of co-parenting. The integration of thoughtfulness, good hygiene, and common sense have long been the keys to success. Nowhere in the mix is the need to isolate routine family members, impose fearful consequences, or frighten children further by disrupting their routines. Stripping children of valuable parenting time, due to one parent’s fear provoked control tactics, only increases emotional stress for the child and could possibly compromise their medical stability. Parents should base their pace of travel through unchartered territory on the all-inclusive needs of the child, not on their own limited perceptions.

Roxanne Remy is a mother to a blended family of three teenage daughters, one of whom has Type I diabetes. She’s a writer, parent advocate, and proponent for family court reform.

Contact information:  Roxanne.Remy127@gmail.com 

Twitter:  @RemyRoxanne 

Instagram:  roxanneremy

May 26, 2020 by Robert Franklin, JD, Member, National Board of Directors

The marriage rate in the U.S. is at an all-time low (Wall Street Journal, 4/29/20).  In 2018, there were just 6.5 new marriages per every 1,000 people.  That’s the lowest ratio since we began compiling marriage statistics in 1867.  The highest came in 1946 at 16.4 per 1,000.  As marriage rates decline, cohabitation rates have increased.

Just over half of American adults were living with a spouse in 2019, down from about seven in 10 in 1970, census figures show. About 7% lived with a partner last year, up from less than 1% in 1970.

Falling marriage rates aren’t good for society generally and children in particular.  Non-marital unions are historically far less stable than married ones and the stress of break-up can hit adults hard.  Marriage is positively correlated with better health, greater happiness, lower involvement in crime, higher involvement on the part of men in paid work, greater longevity and economic security.  And of course children who live with married parents are more likely to have lasting relationships with both than are their peers in non-marital households.  In short, marriage is a societal good.

So, why the decline in something that’s good for everyone?  One reason is money (Psychology Today, 9/10/19).  Yes, married couples are, on average, more financially secure than unmarried ones, but women still tend strongly to prefer as marital partners those men who are better educated and out earn them.  Despite decades of women moving into the workplace and corresponding declines in men’s workplace involvement, the age-old desire on the part of women to “marry up” remains.

New research identifies an interesting quirk in the marriage market that might explain declining rates of marriage (Lichter, Price, & Swigert, 2019). Taking an economic approach, the authors argue that there’s a fundamental mismatch between what available men in the United States have to offer and what available women in the United States are willing to accept.

And what “men have to offer” that “women are willing to accept,” turns out to be earning power.

According to the study, the kind of men that single women likely would marry, if they married… were not only 26 percent more likely to hold a job, and more highly educated, but they also had nearly a 55 percent higher income than what the available men in the U.S. actually make.

So, women are willing to remain unmarried rather than do what men have always been willing to do, i.e. “marry down.”  That of course is far from the optimal situation either for children or for society generally.  That’s even more remarkable given that some 36% of women in their 20s and 30s say that marriage is a very important goal for them to attain.  By contrast, only 29% of men in those age ranges say the same.

A graph of workforce participation rates, using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for men and women aged 16 and over in the U.S. beginning in 1950 and ending in 2015 shows a steady increase in women’s workforce involvement mirrored by a steady decrease in men’s.  In 1950, 88% of men and 33% of women were either working or actively looking for work.  By 2015, women’s involvement had increased to a little over 56% and men’s had declined to about 69%.  Tellingly, during each of those 65 years, the U.S. economy had offered jobs or the promise thereof to between 60% and 66% of Americans over the age of 16.  Stated another way, to a great degree, if one person gained a job, another person lost one.

So it’s no surprise that it’s harder than it used to be for a woman to find a male partner who earns more than she does.  The drive to involve more and more women in paid work inevitably had that result.  What’s remarkable is that the old hypergamy remains, despite marriage being good for women, men, children and society at large.  One would think that women would set aside the desire for a mate who earns more and in many cases they have.  But overall, eons of evolution that taught hominid females to align themselves, if possible, to the highest man in the male dominance hierarchy seems to be winning out over the realities of today’s society and good sense.

Now, the following is speculation on my part, but I suspect it’s sound. 

For untold millennia, hominid females mated with whomever they chose.  Monogamy played no part in our ancestors’ effort to survive.  But along came the Agricultural Revolution and property became important.  Previous hominids had been buried with their belongings which were very few.  But agriculture meant that land came to have value.  Land also meant accrued wealth for at least a few and they typically wanted to pass their property on to their offspring.

How could a man be sure that the offspring to whom he left his property were in fact his?  He never could until the advent of DNA testing.  The best men could do was try to connect one woman to one man so that each man could be confident that children born to his wife were fathered by him.  Needless to say, monogamy is far from a foolproof method of doing that, but until recently, it was the best alternative.

Monogamy meant that more males were able to pass on their genes.  Prior to the Agricultural Revolution, just 40% of males passed on their genes, while 80% of females did.  Monogamy meant that, if a woman wanted children, she usually couldn’t expect them to be fathered by males who were highest in the male hierarchy.  So most women had to look elsewhere for mates and lower-ranking males were able to become fathers.  Women adjusted their expectations downward and the gene pool came to be much broader and deeper than at any previous time.

It strikes me that there’s a parallel today with those long-ago times.  It may be that we’re still too early in the process of women taking responsibility for earning for them to have once again adjusted their natural hypergamy to fit the circumstances.  After all, the process of doing so during and after the dawn of agriculture surely required centuries to accomplish, so perhaps something similar may yet take place.

May 20, 2020 by Robert Franklin, JD, Member, National Board of Directors

As I’ve said many times, taking children from their parents, whether by judges or child protective agencies, is traumatic for them.  Therefore, particularly child protective agencies must exercise the greatest restraint in their decision-making about whether to remove kids from their homes.  In some cases, foster care may be the best we can do for them, but it should be a last resort.

Now come a couple of studies that back up what I’ve said.

The first was conducted on data from Finland.

We did a population-wide cohort study using the 1987 Finnish Birth Cohort, which collects longitudinal data linking nationwide child welfare, medical, and criminal registers for all 59 476 livebirths in Finland in 1987.

Researchers then looked at children who’d been placed in foster care at some time between the ages of two and six.  There were 388 of them.  They then selected 386 children with similarly stressful childhoods, but who hadn’t gone into foster care.  Researchers compared the outcomes on three measures of social dysfunction of the two groups between the ages of 18 and 25.

Outcomes were rates of psychiatric diagnoses, criminal convictions, and prescriptions for psychotropic medication filled at ages 18-25 years.

The findings?

At ages 18-25 years, those who had been placed as children had greater odds than never-placed controls of substance-related disorders (odds ratio 2·10, 95% CI 1·27-3·48), psychotic or bipolar disorders (3·98, 1·80-8·80), depression or anxiety (2·15, 1·46-3·18), neurodevelopmental disorders (3·59, 1·17-11·02), or other disorders (2·06, 1·25-3·39). Participants who were placed had more psychotropic medication prescriptions (1·96, 1·38-2·80) and higher rates of criminal convictions (violent offences, 2·43, 1·61-3·68; property offences, 1·86, 1·17-2·97).

In short, foster care looks to be associated with poorer outcomes for children than parental care, even when parents are similarly abusive or neglectful of their kids.

I’m not surprised.  As we know from studies of kids in daycare, when young children are taken from their parents and familiar surroundings, their cortisol (i.e. the stress hormone) levels rise.  Increased cortisol levels over extended periods of time are highly correlated with exactly the types of deficits later in life that the Finnish study recounts.  In the case of foster care, it is, I suspect, the stress of being taken from parents that increases cortisol production that impacts mental/emotional functioning and that in turn produces the later-life anti-social behavior described.  

Meanwhile, another study went about the matter somewhat differently.

There, researchers compared Romanian children who had been orphaned and placed in orphanages with orphans who’d been assigned foster care.  They also compared outcomes for children with no intervention by either institutional or foster care.

Institutionalized kids did worse on all three measures of emotional well-being used by the researchers than did the children who’d never lived in an institution.  Children in foster care did marginally better than institutionalized kids on one of the measures, but there was no difference on the other two.  Therefore,

Early foster care slightly reduced the risk of psychopathology in children who had been living in institutions, but long-term stability of foster-care placements is an important predictor of psychopathology in early adolescence.

In other words, the worst living arrangement for children – institutional care – is only barely worse than foster care for children’s emotional/psychological functioning.

I suspect this has little or nothing to do with the quality of foster care.  Again, it is the act of taking the children from their parents and families that does the damage.  Once that’s done and remains the status quo for a significant period of time, the children have been damaged and for a long time to come, possibly for life.

I can’t overstate the lesson for CPS caseworkers: taking children from their families must be a last resort.  Do everything you can to make their home lives better before concluding that they must live elsewhere.  Far too often, caseworkers seem to believe that taking children from their parents is, per se, the prudent thing to do, that it’s “erring on the side of caution.”  In fact, the opposite is true.  In fact, the act of taking kids damages them.  It should only be done when absolutely necessary.

May 19, 2020 by Indiana Lee

One of the most important lessons you can pass on to your kids is the value of healthy, supportive relationships — and how to nurture them. Just because you’re divorced or separated doesn’t mean you’re a failure at relationships. You can still teach your kids how to relate in a loving and healthy way, so they can grow up to establish their own supportive and healthy relationships.

The simple act of treating others as you’d like to be treated or the way you and your kids treat each other can provide a powerful, lifelong example of what friendships and partnerships should look like. Here are some of the most important factors of a healthy relationship and how you can help your kids develop them.

Learning to Relate — Even in Difficult Circumstances

If you’re in the process of a separation or a divorce, you can teach your kids that even during a difficult time of change when two people don’t see eye to eye in a situation, they can still respectfully disagree and work together towards a greater goal (like co-parenting). Your situation may be far from that reality, but it’s important that your kids see that the adults they love and trust can act objectively and respectfully during difficult times.

There will be times in your child’s life when conflict arises. It could be at school, in the workplace, or even with strangers. Kids need a model of how to deal with combative people. A current divorce or separation may provide lessons.

Although there may be a lot of conflict between you and your soon to be ex-spouse, do not argue with them in front of your kids for your children’s mental health. Avoid making disparaging remarks to your kids about their other parent and try to remain calm and objective when discussing your ex. You may have different feelings about the situation behind closed doors, such as anger or frustration, but as long as they’re expressed privately and away from your kids, they are valid emotions to have.

Model good behavior for your kids by treating your ex with respect. Show them that you can calmly speak with another adult even when you disagree with them, and even if a conversation becomes heated, do your best to avoid being triggered or losing your temper around your children.

Communication Is Essential

All relationships, not just romantic relationships, rely on the pivotal value of communication. Teacher and student, coach and athlete, business colleagues, and romantic relationships all require good communication to be a success.

Communication involves more than saying your piece. Good communication is a two-way interaction that involves listening above all, understanding, and then responding. And one of the best ways you can teach your child the value of good communication is in how you communicate with your kids.

Make good communication a regular part of your day with your child. Have dinner together at the dining table at least a few days a week and discuss how your days went. Ask your kids thought-provoking questions when you’re driving around. Listen and respond accordingly.

When a child understands how good it feels to be heard and understood, as well as practice by reciprocating, they’re building skills that will come in handy in the future to effectively relate to each other, avoid misunderstandings, build trust, and deepen bonds.

Understanding the Languages of Love

Love in one form or another is a significant part of a relationship. It may be the love between family members, or the affection someone may feel for friends, or romantic love. Regardless of the type, not everyone expresses love or feels appreciated in the same way. It would be useful for parents to learn more about the languages of love. According to the NY Times best-selling book, The Five Love Languages, there are five ways people feel most loved and provide it. They are:

-Acts of service
-Giving and receiving gifts
-Affection
-Words of affirmation
-Quality time

Teaching your kids how others may communicate love differently can add empathy and depth to the way your child will relate to others in the future. Take the time to point out to your kids how a kind of act may fit one of the love languages.

For example, if your child tells you about their time at a birthday party with friends, you can point out the different ways his or her friends show their love for them. You can explain how Mary’s complement on your daughter’s braids may be her way of using words of affirmation to show her friendship. Or how Tim let her have his piece of the cake is an act of service.

Using Difficult Times to Provide the Biggest Lessons on Love

It’s often the hardest times that provide the biggest room for growth. A divorce, a time when a child is being bullied in school, or when there’s a conflict with other siblings, can help your child learn what a healthy relationship looks and doesn’t look like, and how they can act to navigate the situation.

Indiana Lee lives in the Northwest and has a passion for the environment and healthy lifestyles. She draws her inspiration from nature and makes sure to explore the outdoors regularly with her two dogs. Indiana enjoys mountain bicycling and hiking on her off time and has experience in owning and operating her own business. Feel free to contact her at indianaleewrites@gmail.com or follow her on twitter @indianalee3