When child abuse occurs, should the child or the perpetrator be removed from the home?

Question

When child abuse occurs, should the child or the perpetrator be removed from the home? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach?

Answer 1

There is no simple or easy answer. It depends upon whether the child can be kept safe at home, and what the laws of that particular jurisdiction say. It also depends on the particular circumstances. Each case should be looked at individually. I am aware of many children who have been more abused after removal from their home than they were when at home. Foster care is not always the best solution. Sometimes it is quite possible to work with the family and keep everyone in the home and keep the child safe. I am also aware of cases where the child appeared to everyone to be quite safe at home, but the child died at the hands of a parent.

Answer 2

The child is not at fault therefore the perpetrator should be removed if a second guardian also lives there. If both guardians are involved in the abuse then the child should be removed.
But the problem is hat normally investigators do not know who is involved an who is not. If the second guardian is aware of the abuse then they have a responsibility to save the child from if they do not save them from it then they are neglectful. So I would have to say ultimately while the child has already gone through a significant amount of trauma the child should automatically be taken out of the abusive/neglectful home. The main disadvantage to this particular situation is that 1 the child has already been through a lot of trauma and removing a kid from it's parents is a trauma in itself. Even though the guardian has abused the child, the child still has a connection and love for that individual. Also if there is domestic abuse against the mother they can be accused of neglect when they do not act but they themselves are in danger. Then moral is that you must take the lesser of the two evils and deal with the consequences. Hope this helps... this is essentially what my major is all about.

Answer 3

Usually, in most cases, the child is removed from the home. The child is taken away into a foster family. The advantage is that the perpetrator will not find him/her. The disadvantage is that...oh, I can't think of one!

If the perpetrator were to be removed, the advantage would be that the child would still feel at home. But, the main DISADVANTAGE is that the perpetrator would know where the child is and get revenge. Back to square one, then. It's risky that way.
Then, the perpetrator would get revenge and perhaps may kill the child. That's not a good thing. If the child was gone, then the perpetrator would be thinking, "Where is that kid!?!?!?!" and go to jail :)

Answer 4

That depends on specific circumstances involved in each child abuse case. In ALL such tragic cases, the perpetrator should be removed from free society and locked up: definitely NOT welcome back to the home. And what about the home itself?

Is the home clean/safe to live in? Does the child victim have one INNOCENT parent that is fit, responsible and able to financially rear the child in a positive loving home? And importantly, would removing the child from such a home damage them emotionally more than they already may be from such abuses; can the home actually help heal them? Surely these are questions posed by and answers sought by trained dedicated child protective workers.

What if the home is a rodent infested, disease ridden firetrap seconds away from killing its occupants? Its clearly evident the victim and innocent parent must vacate such a home. Should state government run child protective services spend tax $$$ to find the victim and innocent parent a new home they can afford??? Better yet: would they???

Child protective service workers have many challenges to face in the course of their duties. There's challenges posed them in the arenas of medical/psychological and the complex legal forum as well. Then there's the political dynamic problem: where they receive complaints that are rife with lies from an embittered relative, "friend" or parent steps away from a nasty legally embattled divorce. In such cases, it's the children--blatantly used as pawns to hurt the other parent--that truly are the victims.

Answer 5

The perpetrator can be charged and placed in a jail cell with few problems. Placing the victim in another home is usually more problematic, and leaves the perpetrator in a position of freedom from where they can possibly harm more children. If there is no threat from anyone but the perpetrator, it makes more sense in every way to jail the perp and leave the child in the home.

Answer 6

Perpetrator because he created the problem and it would lessen the amount of stress on the child related to a move. An advantage of removing the child would be to create a new environment for them.

Answer 7

Why should a child be removed from their own home when the abuse was not their fault to begin with.....Why should the child be punished. I believe the perpetrator should be removed.
The child however depending on the circumstances should be removed if they are still scared for their safety.

Answer 8

The child should be removed from the home. Children belong to the state and not the parents. Once the state determines the parent is not suitable for raising the child, it is taken away and given to another adult to raise. Since children do not technically own anything, the home still belongs to the parents.

Answer 9

The child should leave because the child could not take care of the home by themself. And it would be easier to stay with a relitive or a friend.

Answer 10

This sounds like the type of question that the teacher either wants

1) exactly what was taught in class or in the resources given , which means none of us can help you

or

2) for you to think about yourself, which means you just need to sit down and right out what you think or to research a bit online to support your thoughts.