Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, April 25, 1995 TAG: 9504250084
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RON HERRING
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
In times of great change in the nature of society and its social problems, it's easy to fall into simplistic analysis of cause and effect. We constantly want to return to the former ways or seek the silver bullet to solve all problems.
While I don't disagree with some of his thinking, and I don't think anyone would promote by public policy leaving children in their families when it's not helpful or in their best interest, I challenge some assumptions Wheatley sets forth as being in the children's best interest.
There's clearly a need for the kind of program offered by the Boys' Home and others like it. My challenge is this: it's not the silver bullet to meet the needs of all children.
To use a medical analogy, we don't expect aspirin or penicillin to be the single solution to every disease or health problem. We use the range of different medical approaches depending on the needs, not a single solution as Wheatley seems to support. So, also, with children's needs. The Boys' Home stands as one, but only one useful option in a range of ways to meet children's needs.
Wheatley states that one reason his philosophy and strategy is having difficulty providing help is because other alternatives and public policy are in place. I suggest this logic is flawed. The reason many young people historically have come to institutional programs has been there were few alternatives. With more alternatives today, those needing residential care have greater needs, and thus the greater difficulty and challenge to meet those needs. Historically, difficulty in parenting or other issues in family life were all solved by a single solution - residential care. We've learned this philosophy isn't in the children's best interest. No silver bullets, please, but rather services designed to meet the unique needs of the family and children.
We need to be careful when we analyze "government child-care philosophy" as responsible for many of the issues Wheatley describes. Further, to use a single example such as "Sean,'' a boy abused by a minister foster parent, and by inference to suggest that all foster care isn't useful is another example of poor cause-and-effect thinking. Do these things happen? Yes. Is the logic sound for condemning foster care or service designed to help families before children need to be removed? No.
To suggest that present laws need to change to focus on ``the best interest of the child'' again suggests that any service that bypasses institutional service or is a helpful alternative to it is wrong. Flawed logic!
To infer that most prospective residents coming to programs such as the Boys' Home have used local programs such as foster care and family services without success is another example of unbalanced or biased analysis. I can cite research data that demonstrates most foster care and family services aren't unsuccessful.
While I've not had the experience of living in a boys' home as Wheatley has, I do have a relative by marriage who did. He, too, was a mature adult, but one who didn't describe his experience in such glowing terms. I've also spent a professional career in child care, working in and directing institutional programs as well as family services designed to preserve families without endangering children. After 35 years, I conclude that both are needed to serve the complex needs of families and children - not either/or, but both.
Wheatley's logic and assumptions are too simplistic. There are no silver bullets.
Ron Herring is executive director of the Lutheran Family Services of Virginia in Roanoke.
by CNB