“The children usually arrived in the dead of night, silent and terrified” (Hager, 2018). This opening line of the heart-wrenching article displays the traumas affecting children who experience abrupt short-term stays in the foster care system. We usually hear how important it is for children to be removed from neglectful or dangerous homes; however, rarely is the removal seen as problematic. To leave a child in their home or to remove them when faced with a threatening situation? Proving that the balance of trying to keep families together and ensuring the children are safe is difficult.
The article “Short Stays” follows the laws and protocols put in place specifically in New Mexico, which documents a higher rate of short-stayers in the Albuquerque area than any other region in the country. Data from sources such as the Federal Department of Health and Human Services and State Child Services are provided throughout this article to back up the points made to get you thinking and build this article’s credibility. The heart-wrenching statistics of children who are ripped from their homes only to be returned days later. Police officers get called to domestic disputes that often end in a child’s removal from their home at all hours of the day. The article argues with a pretty consistent theme throughout that children should not be the ones suffering for their parents’ mistakes. “If a father is being violent, he’s the one who should be removed—through an arrest—not the child” (Hager). This point makes a lot of sense and makes you question why it is that, for so long, the norm has been to separate the children from an abuser when the adult is in the wrong. The system needs evaluation to ensure the child’s best interest comes first. Using language such as “experts,” “nightmare,” “lifelong trauma,” and “studies have shown” builds the authors’ argument, solidifying their credibility and that the claims being made are substantial, relevant, and truthful. This article does a great job of providing facts but also backing up a potential argument against the point being made, increasing the reliability of the information provided. When reading this article, it’s almost impossible not to reflect and think about why things have been done this way for so long. This makes the audience –regardless of who that may be– intrigued further about the situation.
“Police need a warrant to look under your bed but not to take your child away from you,” (Hager) says Tara Urs, a child welfare expert and part of Seattle’s special council for civil cases at the Department of Public Defense. When unqualified officials, such as police officers, remove children from their homes in an emergent situation to ensure child safety, it can be hard to get the point across that “caution would be to wait, try to get the birth parents the help and support they need” (Hager). This article shows that the police are just doing their job as they were trained; however, it proposes that the child welfare system should be making these decisions. As the article says, many factors could contribute to the seeming abuse and neglect. Hence, there needs to be more protocols to prevent children from being abruptly taken from their homes, such as considering that the “neglect” could be a product of poverty. This article makes several points about how the lack of food, a messy house, or an absent parent isn’t necessarily abuse as much as it is a failing system. If the parents are gone working to put food on the table, then what? This situation that has seemed black and white for so long might have more of a grey area, which this article dives deeper into. “We have to ask every time: Is this home dangerous, or are we just uncomfortable with it? Because throwing children into foster care for 48 hours every time we feel uncomfortable, that’s not a solution to anything” (Hager). These few sentences in the article packed a punch. Asking and supporting a question creates a considerable amount of trust, reason, and empathy. Questions such as this are asked throughout the article to force the reader to think and reflect on their views and realize that something we may see, feel, label, or categorize isn’t always the reality of the situation. Where do our priorities lie, and how are they or are they not being exemplified?
“It’s hard to imagine that a week ago, it was such an emergency that we couldn’t even wait to ask a judge to separate a family, but just seven days later, it’s all good; you can go home” (Hager) states Christopher Church. He is an expert on short stays and an attorney at the University of South Carolina School of Law, and he provides a very insightful statement that employs all means of rhetoric to show how illogical the concept of removing a child just to be returned home shortly after is. This statement essentially proves to need one of two solutions: either don’t remove the child and provide support for the family or remove the child for a more long-term period to prevent uprooting them too much. Instead of just making blind claims, the article backs up its reasons by interviewing young children who have experienced the foster care system as a whole and the “fleeting matter” (Hager) that is short stays. A fifteen-year-old from Albuquerque says feeling like luggage due to being a short-stayer, which is a heartbreaking statement that effectively draws the reader in. Another child from New Mexico explains that being removed felt like being kidnapped. These testaments from real-life experiences build trust, emotions, and credibility with the reader that there is some substance behind what is being written. Providing both sides of the argument, such as the removal of a child from their homes for a “short stay,” is damaging to their well-being; however, staying in the house could also be equally as damaging, creates a bond between the reader and allows you to form your own thoughts. New Mexico’s Police Department and the Youth and Families Department eventually partnered together to make a collective decision regarding the removal of children from their homes. The effectiveness of providing solutions to an evident and pressing problem brings awareness to the subject while simultaneously bringing a possible way to fix it. This is important because it shows the audience that there is a problem, but strides are being made in a positive direction. Rather than simply stating the problem and leaving it at that, showcasing a solution and why it would be effective adds to the overall effect of emotional connection, trust, and reliability.
Even though there is no right or wrong way to solve this pressing issue regarding our youth, providing all angles of the situation uses multiple rhetorical devices to connect the reader to what is typically an overlooked problem. The rhetoric within this article makes you think about what could be done differently within the system and that the conventional ways of doing things may not be beneficial for the ones who ultimately suffer: the young kids in this country.
Works Cited
Hager, Eli. “The Hidden Trauma of “Short Stays” in Foster Care.” The Marshall Project, 11 Feb. 2020, http://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/02/11/the-hidden-trauma-of-short-stays-in-foster-care.
Leave a Reply