> Defenders of the tests say they offer a more objective method of assessment than the potentially anecdotal and subjective evidence of social workers and other experts.
> But critics say they cannot meaningfully predict whether someone will make a good parent.
1) If that is a problem, then just shut the child protection agency. Because subjective evidence of social workers and other "experts" ALSO cannot meaningfully predict that (besides, we all know what education social workers get, ie. 6 months of legendarily easy theory with zero tests. There are barely any psychologists "in the system" and psychiatrists ... well, has anyone seen any at all?)
2) I find it baffling the real issue is never discussed. What fundamentally matters is whether the situation of children in government care, with the help of social workers and other "experts", is better than children abused at home. Is that the case?
Study after study shows the same pattern. Again, and again, and again: even abusive birth parents or absent ones or addicts or ... with AND without any help (including the ones that refuse help) are better caregivers than "professionals". And that's ignoring the real, horrible, problem.
The real problem is that children who get abused generally become abusive themselves. This causes professionals to refuse these children, because they cannot deal with such children, and even if they can, they get stronger, smarter and sneakyer every year, while professionals don't. Of course, they do need children, otherwise not even the most absurd politician will let them keep their job.
So ... they are regularly accused of "filling beds". Which essentially means foster care is full of children who don't need or want foster care AND children who do want foster care can't get or stay in the system.
This is why obvious, simple rules that would force the system to work for children aren't allowed to exist. For example, above a minimal age, say 8 years or even 12, you could say that without agreement from the child they cannot be kept against their will. If such a rule exists, you can just shut child protection since almost no children will choose child protection, and those that do will be the worst ones the system doesn't want.
Somehow that never actually applies to the people actually working with children, which are either front-line child protection "agents" (US term) or the people who actually take day-to-day care of children in care.
So let's check an actual social worker job in Denmark, working with these children. Nope. Denmark is the same as everywhere else. No requirements. If I understand this page (I'm using Firefox translate) correctly they state they're flexible if you don't even know the language.
So I think it's safe to say: the social workers in Denmark, who actually work with children, doesn't require any education at all, nothing, nada, zero, niente, just like everywhere else, and clearly: some don't even know the language the children speak.
This very, very large difference in what people think they know about the child protection system and what actually happens is extremely common everywhere, including in the Netherlands. Another point where people often have no idea how bad things really are is how locked up these children are in these institutions. One can make comparisons to point out how ridiculous it is: in the Netherlands a high security prisoner additionally punished with isolation on death row (yes, the Netherlands has a death row, just no executions) has significantly more rights than children in state care. (Some) children in care are isolated in a room 23 hours per day and are not allowed any personal effects, and never get to see other children. On death row, in isolation, you are isolated in a bigger room with a shower and a TV, and you're allowed personal effects like books. You also get 1h with other prisoners in the open air. Also, ironically, a prisoner on death row cannot be denied access to an (if necessary free) lawyer (children don't get lawyers, despite having to appear before a judge regularly. Not that those legally required judge appearances aren't often canceled), and also prisoners have the right to an education and whatever that requires (including web meetings with teaching staff, as many as required). The prison literally pays for the books. Some children in state care can and are denied education, and none get their books paid by the institution.
> But critics say they cannot meaningfully predict whether someone will make a good parent.
1) If that is a problem, then just shut the child protection agency. Because subjective evidence of social workers and other "experts" ALSO cannot meaningfully predict that (besides, we all know what education social workers get, ie. 6 months of legendarily easy theory with zero tests. There are barely any psychologists "in the system" and psychiatrists ... well, has anyone seen any at all?)
2) I find it baffling the real issue is never discussed. What fundamentally matters is whether the situation of children in government care, with the help of social workers and other "experts", is better than children abused at home. Is that the case?
NO, it isn't!
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3135630/
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/shared/ods/documents?PublicationDoc...
and most dramatic:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/05/980505092617.h...
Study after study shows the same pattern. Again, and again, and again: even abusive birth parents or absent ones or addicts or ... with AND without any help (including the ones that refuse help) are better caregivers than "professionals". And that's ignoring the real, horrible, problem.
The real problem is that children who get abused generally become abusive themselves. This causes professionals to refuse these children, because they cannot deal with such children, and even if they can, they get stronger, smarter and sneakyer every year, while professionals don't. Of course, they do need children, otherwise not even the most absurd politician will let them keep their job.
So ... they are regularly accused of "filling beds". Which essentially means foster care is full of children who don't need or want foster care AND children who do want foster care can't get or stay in the system.
This is why obvious, simple rules that would force the system to work for children aren't allowed to exist. For example, above a minimal age, say 8 years or even 12, you could say that without agreement from the child they cannot be kept against their will. If such a rule exists, you can just shut child protection since almost no children will choose child protection, and those that do will be the worst ones the system doesn't want.