When I see the heading news which is "Protecting the weakest" in The Economist, I suspect that how they can protect and who is the weakest.
According to the news, the weakest is American children and the recession may hurt them because their parent do not have enough money to take care them. They may be abused and neglected by their parent. The most serious case is that their parent abandon them.
I think that normally parents love their children very much and they can do everything for their kids, so it means that the economy is really bad and it forces the parents to do the bad thing for their children. I am not sure that what the parent think. Maybe they think that the America's welfare is very good and it is better if their kids stays in foster care.
According to the news, the weakest is American children and the recession may hurt them because their parent do not have enough money to take care them. They may be abused and neglected by their parent. The most serious case is that their parent abandon them.
I think that normally parents love their children very much and they can do everything for their kids, so it means that the economy is really bad and it forces the parents to do the bad thing for their children. I am not sure that what the parent think. Maybe they think that the America's welfare is very good and it is better if their kids stays in foster care.
__________
References
Protecting the weakest. (2010, February 25). The Economist. Retrieved March 4, 2010 from http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15580538
I rather wish that Ann's article had also told us either the percentage of kids in foster care, or the total number of kids in teh US. The numbers quoted, 463,000 in 2008, sound very high, but it's hard to say without knowing the total for comparison.
ReplyDeleteI just did some quick research. According to official US Census data, in 2008 there were about 61,000,000 people in the 0 - 14 age groups. (Data available for download from http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2008-sa.html), so the percentage is a little under 1% in foster care, which although still higher than I would have guessed is not so bad.
And of course, now I'm wondering what the figures are for THailand and other countries. Does anyone know? If economic malaise is a strong determinant, what might that suggest?
And Ann's speculations were also the sort of things I would wonder about, although I'm not sure that my conclusions would be the same.
As a mother I am, sometimes, I feel so sorry about the news like that. Financially, taking a child need lots of money as well as love and concers. However, I don't think the foster care is a best way to protect abandoned chldren, actually, it could be worse.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the American government have, like, social welfare for the people in need? It's like salary that government pays to support them. Does anyone know anything about that?
ReplyDeleteI think foster homes would be terrible places for kids to stay. Why could parent do such thing to their own children?
Well, I shouldn't be asking that question because apparently parents can do much worse than that. We, Thai, see it every morning on the news, about fathers who rape their kids or mothers, oftenly young, who get annoy and beat their own babies to death.
On second thought, foster homes sound like a great idea.