Finnish Social Workers’ “Maximum Benefit for Children”: a Lie, a Fraud, a Scam and a Scandal

 

 

 

Finnish Social Workers’ “Maximum Benefit for Children”: a Lie, a Fraud, a Scam and a Scandal

 

I call for the court to overthrow the social workers’ decisions on our child’s removal from family and return her as soon as possible.

 

1. Introduction:

 

Our child was removed from family on September 22, 2022 by social workers due to her crying at school. The school teachers, particularly her class teacher Anne Kurumäki conspired in the incident. After the incident, her situation becomes worse and worse in every aspect of her life.

The protection and well-being of children are paramount concerns for societies worldwide. Child protection agencies and social workers play a crucial role in safeguarding children from abusive or neglectful environments. However, the practice of removing children from their biological parents under the banner of “maximum benefit for children” has been increasingly scrutinized. This writing aims to critically examine the key elements of this argument and shed light on the fallacies, fraudulence, scams, and scandals associated with it.

The Rationale behind the “Maximum Benefit for Children” Argument:

The “maximum benefit for children” argument asserts that removing children from their normal parents and placing them in alternative care, such as foster institutions, is in the best interest of the child. Advocates of this approach argue that it provides a safer and more conducive environment for the child’s growth, development, and well-being. They contend that children may experience adverse conditions, such as abuse, neglect, or unhealthy living conditions, in their biological families, warranting their removal for their own welfare.

Critical Examination of the Argument’s Key Elements:

This writing critically evaluates the key elements of the “maximum benefit for children” argument to expose the fallacies, fraudulence, scams, and scandals underlying its claims. The following aspects will be scrutinized in detail:

Limited Freedom: Children’s freedom to meet and communicate with their parents is infringed upon, restricting their natural rights and impeding their emotional well-being. The loss of freedom to act independently also hampers their personal growth and self-determination.

Psychological Trauma: Separation from parents and family can result in significant psychological trauma for children. Issues such as insomnia, depression, anxiety, and other psychological problems can arise due to the disruption of the child’s attachment bonds and the loss of a familiar and nurturing environment.

Loss of Friendship: Placing children in foster institutions often isolates them from the outside world, including friends and peers. This lack of social connection can lead to a loss of emotional support, hinder social development, and contribute to feelings of loneliness and alienation.

Stigmatization: Children removed from their biological families may bear the label of “children from child prisons” throughout their lives. The negative reputation associated with institutional care can have a detrimental impact on their self-esteem, identity formation, and integration into society.

 

2. Limited Freedom: A Constrained Existence

 

One of the fundamental concerns regarding the removal of children from their biological parents is the severe restrictions imposed on their freedom. When children are placed in alternative care, their ability to communicate and maintain contact with their biological parents is often severely curtailed. This loss of connection with their family can have profound implications for their well-being and development.

Restrictions on Communication and Contact with Biological Parents:

In the name of protecting the child’s best interests, child protection agencies and foster institutions often impose strict rules and regulations that limit the frequency and nature of communication between children and their biological parents. This can include supervised visitations, scheduled phone calls, or even complete cutoffs of contact in some cases. While these measures may be intended to address concerns of abuse or neglect, they can inadvertently infringe upon the child’s right to maintain a meaningful relationship with their parents.

At some points of time, our child was not permitted to contact parents freely and our phone call was also limited in frequency and length. She was put into three different institutions and the situation becomes tougher and tougher. At the final stage, she completely blocked all our communication methods. Only upon our strong insistence, she could make contact with us recently.

Loss of Personal Agency and Autonomy:

Placing children in alternative care also results in a loss of personal agency and autonomy. In intact families, children often have the freedom to make choices and decisions that align with their own preferences and desires. However, when children are removed from their biological parents, decision-making power regarding their daily lives is transferred to social workers, caregivers, or institutional authorities. This transfer of authority can undermine the child’s sense of self-determination and hinder their personal development.

The consequences of limited freedom and restricted communication can be far-reaching. Children may experience feelings of confusion, abandonment, and a sense of loss. They may be unable to express their emotions or seek support from their parents during challenging times. The inability to maintain a close bond with their family can result in a sense of disconnection and disrupt the child’s sense of identity and belonging.

Furthermore, the loss of personal agency and autonomy can impede the child’s development of essential life skills, such as problem-solving, decision-making, and self-advocacy. These skills are crucial for navigating the complexities of adult life and establishing a strong sense of independence.

In conclusion, the limited freedom imposed on children removed from their biological parents in the name of their “maximum benefit” poses significant concerns. Restrictions on communication and contact with parents not only disrupt the child’s emotional well-being but also infringe upon their fundamental rights. The loss of personal agency and autonomy can hinder their development and impede their ability to navigate their future effectively. It is imperative to critically examine the impact of these constraints and explore alternative approaches that prioritize the preservation of family connections and the empowerment of children within the child welfare system.

 

3. Psychological Trauma: The Hidden Costs

 

One of the most significant hidden costs associated with the removal of children from their biological parents is the psychological trauma they often experience. Separation from parents and the disruption of the family unit can have profound and long-lasting effects on the emotional well-being of these children. From the first day of her removal from family, she became completely another person due to the trauma, which social workers and psychologists made false efforts to impose on the child herself, or even impose on parents. The school teachers and social workers are real criminals to blame.

Insomnia, Depression, and Psychological Distress:

The removal of children from their parents can lead to a range of psychological difficulties, including insomnia, depression, and various forms of psychological distress. The sudden and forced separation from familiar caregivers can create feelings of confusion, anxiety, and sadness. Children may struggle to adapt to their new environment and may experience a profound sense of loss and grief for their parents and the stability they once knew.

The trauma of separation can manifest in sleep disturbances, such as insomnia or nightmares. The emotional distress and anxiety associated with being separated from their parents can disrupt a child’s ability to achieve restful sleep, contributing to further psychological and physical health challenges.

Depression, characterized by persistent feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and a loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities, is another common psychological consequence of being removed from one’s family. The disruption of attachment bonds and the loss of a nurturing and familiar environment can significantly impact a child’s emotional well-being and increase the risk of developing depression.

Impact of Separation from Parents and Family Unit:

The family unit plays a vital role in a child’s social, emotional, and psychological development. The removal of children from their biological parents disrupts this foundational unit, leading to a range of negative consequences. The loss of a secure attachment figure, who provides comfort, guidance, and support, can leave children feeling emotionally adrift and vulnerable.

The separation from parents also disrupts the child’s sense of identity and belonging. The family unit serves as the primary source of a child’s cultural, social, and interpersonal framework. Being uprooted from this context can result in a loss of cultural and familial connections, creating a sense of disconnection and identity confusion.

Furthermore, the trauma of separation can have long-term effects on a child’s ability to form healthy relationships and trust others. The disrupted attachment bonds can lead to difficulties in establishing secure relationships in the future, impacting their ability to develop and maintain meaningful connections with others.

It is important to recognize that the psychological trauma associated with separation from parents and the family unit is not easily mitigated. These hidden costs of child removal should be carefully considered in decision-making processes related to child protection, with a focus on preserving and strengthening the family unit whenever possible.

In conclusion, the psychological trauma experienced by children who are removed from their biological parents has significant hidden costs. Insomnia, depression, and psychological distress are common consequences of separation. The disruption of attachment bonds and the loss of the family unit can have profound and long-lasting effects on a child’s emotional well-being, identity formation, and ability to form healthy relationships. It is essential to prioritize the preservation of the family unit and explore alternative approaches that minimize the traumatic impact of child removal, emphasizing the child’s holistic well-being and long-term psychological development.

 

4. Loss of Friendship: Isolation and Social Consequences

 

Another significant aspect that challenges the notion of “maximum benefit for children” in the context of removing them from their biological parents is the loss of friendship and the subsequent social consequences they experience. Placing children in foster institutions often isolates them from the outside world, including their friends and peers. This isolation can have detrimental effects on their social development, emotional well-being, and overall quality of life.

Limited Access to Peer Relationships and Support Networks:

Friendships and peer relationships play a crucial role in a child’s social and emotional development. Through interactions with peers, children learn important social skills, develop a sense of belonging, and gain support during challenging times. However, when children are removed from their biological families, their access to peer relationships becomes severely limited.

In foster institutions or other alternative care settings, children may have limited opportunities to engage with peers their own age. They may be geographically isolated or placed in an environment where interaction with peers is minimal. The absence of meaningful peer relationships deprives children of the social support and companionship they need for healthy development and can contribute to feelings of loneliness, social withdrawal, and emotional difficulties.

Negative Reputation Associated with Institutional Care:

Foster institutions and other alternative care settings often carry a negative reputation, which can further compound the social consequences for children removed from their biological parents. These institutions may be stigmatized and associated with a perception of being “child prisons” or places where children are placed as a result of wrongdoing or misbehavior.

The negative labeling and stereotypes associated with institutional care can have long-lasting effects on a child’s self-esteem, self-concept, and social integration. Children may bear the burden of this reputation throughout their lives, which can lead to feelings of shame, alienation, and a distorted sense of self-worth. The negative perception of institutional care can also impact the way society views and treats these children, perpetuating a cycle of discrimination and marginalization.

It is essential to recognize the value of maintaining and nurturing peer relationships for children’s healthy development. By isolating children from their friends and peers, the practice of removing them from their biological parents can hinder their social growth, emotional well-being, and ability to form meaningful connections with others.

In conclusion, the loss of friendship and the subsequent social consequences faced by children removed from their biological parents challenge the notion of “maximum benefit for children.” Limited access to peer relationships and support networks in foster institutions can impede their social development and emotional well-being. Additionally, the negative reputation associated with institutional care can have a detrimental impact on a child’s self-esteem and social integration. It is crucial to consider the importance of maintaining social connections and explore alternatives that prioritize preserving these relationships when making decisions regarding child protection and welfare.

 

5. Stigmatization: Children as “Prisoners”

 

One of the lasting consequences of removing children from their biological parents and placing them in foster institutions is the stigmatization they experience. The labeling and societal perceptions associated with institutionalized children can have a profound impact on their self-identity, social integration, and overall well-being.

Labeling and Societal Perceptions of Institutionalized Children:

Children removed from their biological parents and placed in foster institutions often bear the label of “children from child prisons” or similar derogatory terms. This labeling reinforces negative stereotypes and assumptions about their character, behavior, and worth. It perpetuates the perception that these children are somehow inherently problematic or deserving of their circumstances.

Society’s perception of institutionalized children as “prisoners” can lead to marginalization, discrimination, and a lack of empathy and support. These children may face judgment and prejudice from their peers, educators, and other community members, further exacerbating their feelings of social isolation and self-stigmatization.

The Enduring Impact on Self-Identity and Social Integration:

The stigmatization experienced by institutionalized children has lasting effects on their self-identity and social integration. The negative labels and stereotypes they encounter can erode their self-esteem, self-worth, and sense of belonging. Children may internalize these negative perceptions, leading to a distorted self-image and diminished confidence.

The enduring impact of stigmatization on self-identity can manifest in various ways. Children may develop feelings of shame, guilt, and inadequacy, believing that their circumstances define their worth as individuals. This negative self-perception can hinder their ability to form healthy relationships, engage in social activities, and participate fully in educational and community settings.

Moreover, the stigma associated with institutionalized children can create barriers to social integration. Peers may distance themselves due to fear, lack of understanding, or the influence of societal stereotypes. The isolation and rejection faced by these children can further perpetuate their sense of being “different” or “other,” hindering their opportunities for meaningful social connections and inclusion.

It is crucial to recognize the impact of stigmatization on institutionalized children and address the societal perceptions that contribute to their marginalization. By challenging negative labels and promoting empathy and acceptance, we can create an environment that supports the healthy development, self-esteem, and social integration of these children.

In conclusion, the stigmatization faced by children removed from their biological parents and placed in foster institutions undermines the concept of “maximum benefit for children.” The labeling and societal perceptions of institutionalized children perpetuate negative stereotypes and have a lasting impact on their self-identity and social integration. It is essential to promote understanding, empathy, and inclusive practices that foster positive self-image and support the social well-being of institutionalized children, enabling them to thrive and reach their full potential.

 

6. Financial Motives: The Profit-Driven System

 

An alarming concern surrounding the removal of children from their biological parents is the presence of financial motives within the child protection system. The existence of institutional incentives and state subsidies raises questions about the ethics and integrity of child removal for financial gain.

Institutional Incentives and State Subsidies:

Foster institutions and other alternative care providers often receive financial support in the form of state subsidies or payments for each child placed under their care. While these subsidies are intended to cover the costs of providing a safe and nurturing environment, they can create a perverse incentive to maximize the number of children within the system. This financial motivation raises concerns about whether the best interests of the children are truly prioritized or if they are being treated as commodities to generate revenue.

The presence of institutional incentives tied to the number of children in care can lead to a system that values quantity over quality. This can result in rushed decision-making processes, insufficient assessments of the child’s circumstances, and a lack of focus on family preservation and reunification efforts. The financial gain derived from child removal may create an inherent bias that undermines the objective evaluation of whether removal is truly in the child’s best interests.

Questioning the Ethics of Child Removal for Financial Gain:

The involvement of financial motives in the decision-making process of child removal raises ethical concerns. It challenges the integrity of the child protection system and calls into question whether the welfare of children is truly the primary focus. When financial gain becomes a driving force, there is a risk that decisions regarding child removal may be influenced by economic considerations rather than a genuine concern for the child’s well-being.

Furthermore, the pursuit of financial gain may perpetuate the cycle of removing children from their biological parents unnecessarily or prematurely. This can have detrimental effects on both the children and their families, disrupting their relationships, causing trauma, and hindering their long-term development.

It is essential to critically examine and address the potential conflicts of interest and ethical dilemmas that arise when financial motives are intertwined with child removal. The child welfare system should prioritize the holistic well-being of children, ensuring that decisions regarding their removal from their biological parents are made based on comprehensive assessments, transparent processes, and an unwavering commitment to their best interests.

In conclusion, the presence of financial motives within the child protection system casts doubt on the integrity and ethics of child removal practices. Institutional incentives and state subsidies can create a profit-driven system that raises concerns about the prioritization of financial gain over the well-being of children. It is crucial to question and address these motives to ensure that decisions regarding child removal are grounded in the best interests of the child, free from undue financial influences, and committed to preserving and strengthening families whenever possible.

 

7. Lack of Qualifications: Questioning Decision-Making Authority

 

Another critical aspect that challenges the idea of “maximum benefit for children” in the context of child removal is the question of qualifications and expertise of the social workers who make decisions regarding family separation. The competency and qualifications of these professionals need to be carefully examined to ensure that they possess the necessary knowledge and skills to make informed decisions about a child’s welfare.

Assessing the Competency and Expertise of Social Workers:

Social workers play a crucial role in the child protection system, responsible for assessing the safety and well-being of children and making recommendations regarding their placement. However, it is essential to evaluate the qualifications and expertise of these professionals to ensure that their decisions are well-informed, unbiased, and based on a comprehensive understanding of the unique circumstances of each case.

Questions may arise regarding the educational background, training, and ongoing professional development of social workers involved in child protection. Are they equipped with the necessary knowledge and understanding of child development, family dynamics, trauma-informed care, and other relevant fields? Do they receive regular training to stay updated on best practices and evidence-based interventions?

The Need for Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Child Welfare Cases:

Given the complexity and multidimensional nature of child welfare cases, it is crucial to emphasize interdisciplinary collaboration and decision-making. Child protection decisions should not be solely reliant on the expertise of social workers alone, but rather involve professionals from diverse fields such as psychology, law, education, and healthcare.

Interdisciplinary collaboration brings together a range of perspectives, expertise, and insights, ensuring a more comprehensive and holistic approach to decision-making. It helps to minimize the risk of biases, narrow viewpoints, and the potential for errors or oversights that can occur when decisions are made by a single professional or a limited group.

By incorporating interdisciplinary teams in child welfare cases, the strengths and expertise of each discipline can be leveraged to ensure that decisions are well-informed, balanced, and grounded in the best interests of the child. This collaborative approach promotes a more comprehensive assessment of the child’s needs, considers the broader familial and social context, and increases the likelihood of identifying appropriate alternatives to removal when possible.

In conclusion, the qualifications and expertise of social workers involved in child removal decisions warrant careful examination. Assessing their competency, educational background, and ongoing professional development is essential to ensure that decisions regarding family separation are made by knowledgeable and well-informed professionals. Additionally, promoting interdisciplinary collaboration in child welfare cases can enhance the decision-making process, incorporating diverse perspectives and expertise to ensure the best outcomes for children and families.

 

8. Negative Health Impacts: A Detriment to Well-being

 

The negative health impacts experienced by children placed in institutional care further challenge the claim of “maximum benefit for children” in the context of child removal. The psychological and physical consequences of institutional care highlight the importance of considering alternative family-based care options to promote the overall well-being of children.

Psychological Health Consequences of Institutional Care:

Children placed in institutional care often experience a range of psychological challenges that can have long-lasting effects on their well-being. The abrupt separation from their biological parents and familiar environment can result in feelings of grief, loss, and abandonment. This emotional trauma can manifest in various ways, including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and attachment disorders.

The lack of consistent and nurturing relationships in institutional settings can hinder the development of secure attachments, which are crucial for healthy emotional and social development. The absence of a stable caregiver and the limited opportunity for one-on-one attention and support can contribute to a sense of emotional neglect and a higher risk of developmental delays.

Physical Health Consequences of Institutional Care:

Institutional care can also have adverse effects on the physical health of children. Research has shown that children in institutional settings may experience higher rates of medical conditions, including respiratory infections, malnutrition, and growth delays. The limited resources and overcrowded conditions in these institutions can compromise hygiene standards, access to nutritious food, and medical care, leading to increased susceptibility to illness and delayed physical development.

Comparative Analysis of Family-Based Care and Institutional Settings:

When comparing the health outcomes of children in family-based care versus institutional settings, studies consistently demonstrate the superiority of family-based care in promoting positive health outcomes. Children placed in stable, supportive, and loving family environments experience better psychological well-being, improved physical health, and higher rates of educational attainment.

Family-based care offers the advantages of consistent and nurturing relationships, individualized attention, and a sense of belonging and identity within a family unit. It provides a supportive environment that promotes emotional security, healthy attachment, and opportunities for positive social interactions.

In contrast, institutional care often falls short in meeting the individual needs of children. The lack of individualized attention, limited resources, and a more regimented and impersonal environment can contribute to adverse health outcomes and hinder the overall development and well-being of children.

In conclusion, the negative health impacts experienced by children in institutional care underscore the need to consider alternative family-based care options when making decisions about child removal. The psychological and physical consequences of institutional care highlight the importance of nurturing relationships, stable caregiving, and personalized attention in promoting the overall well-being of children. By prioritizing family-based care approaches, we can better support the health and development of children, aligning with the goal of maximizing their benefits and providing them with a nurturing and supportive environment in which they can thrive.

 

9. Inadequate Provisions: Substandard Living Conditions

 

The quality of food, clothing, and material resources provided in institutions where children are placed following removal from their biological parents is another aspect that challenges the notion of “maximum benefit for children.” Substandard living conditions in these institutions can have a detrimental impact on children’s well-being and overall development.

Quality of Food, Clothing, and Material Resources:

Children placed in institutional care often face inadequate provisions in terms of the quality of food, clothing, and material resources available to them. Due to motivation to making money, these institutions are reluctant to provide nutritious and well-balanced meals for the children under their care. This can lead to poor dietary intake, deficiencies in essential nutrients, and an increased risk of health problems related to malnutrition.

Similarly, the clothing provided to children in institutions may be of low quality and insufficient in quantity. Children may be forced to wear the same clothes for extended periods, leading to discomfort, hygiene concerns, and a lack of dignity. The absence of adequate material resources, such as toys, educational materials, and recreational equipment, further limits children’s opportunities for play, learning, and personal development.

Impact on Children’s Well-being and Overall Development:

The substandard living conditions in institutions can have a significant impact on children’s well-being and overall development. The lack of proper nutrition can result in physical health issues, compromised immune systems, and hindered growth and development. Malnutrition can also affect cognitive abilities, attention span, and academic performance, limiting children’s educational opportunities and potential.

The inadequate provision of clothing and material resources can contribute to a sense of deprivation, low self-esteem, and a diminished sense of personal worth. Children may feel marginalized, excluded, and unable to participate fully in social and educational activities. The absence of appropriate resources for play, learning, and personal expression can hinder their cognitive, social, and emotional development, limiting their ability to reach their full potential.

Moreover, the substandard living conditions in institutions can perpetuate a cycle of poverty and reinforce negative societal perceptions. Children may internalize the message that they are not deserving of basic necessities, further impacting their self-esteem, aspirations, and future opportunities.

It is essential to recognize the importance of providing adequate and high-quality provisions for children in institutional care. Ensuring access to nutritious meals, appropriate clothing, and sufficient material resources not only promotes their physical well-being but also contributes to their emotional, cognitive, and social development. By prioritizing the provision of quality resources, institutions can create an environment that fosters a sense of dignity, supports children’s growth and learning, and enhances their overall well-being.

In conclusion, the substandard living conditions in institutions, including the quality of food, clothing, and material resources, pose significant challenges to the idea of “maximum benefit for children.” The lack of adequate provisions can have adverse effects on children’s well-being, physical health, and overall development. It is crucial to prioritize and address these shortcomings, ensuring that children in institutional care have access to the resources necessary for their optimal growth, development, and quality of life.

 

10. Restricted Opportunities: Curbing Educational and Recreational Pursuits

 

Another critical aspect that challenges the concept of “maximum benefit for children” in the context of child removal is the limitation of educational and recreational opportunities. Children placed in institutions often face impediments to their academic progress, personal growth, and overall development due to restricted access to educational resources and limited exposure to extracurricular activities.

Impediments to Academic Progress:

Institutional care settings may lack the necessary resources, qualified teachers, and conducive learning environments to support children’s academic progress effectively. Limited access to educational materials, outdated curricula, and inadequate educational support can hinder children’s educational achievements and impede their intellectual development. The absence of individualized attention and tailored educational plans may further exacerbate these challenges, making it difficult for children to reach their full academic potential.

Personal Growth and Development:

Extracurricular activities play a crucial role in fostering personal growth, developing talents, and promoting well-rounded development in children. However, children in institutional care often have limited exposure to extracurricular activities due to resource constraints, logistical challenges, and the lack of prioritization. The absence of opportunities for participation in sports, arts, music, and other enriching activities can deprive children of important avenues for self-expression, skill development, and social interaction. This can have a significant impact on their personal growth, self-confidence, and the acquisition of life skills necessary for their future success.

Consequences of Limited Exposure to Extracurricular Activities:

The restricted access to extracurricular activities in institutional care settings can result in several negative consequences for children. Firstly, it limits their ability to explore and discover their talents, passions, and areas of interest, potentially hindering their overall personal and career development. Secondly, the lack of participation in extracurricular activities can limit children’s social interactions and their opportunities to develop important social skills, teamwork, and leadership abilities. This can impede their ability to form meaningful relationships, adapt to new environments, and navigate the challenges of adult life.

Furthermore, the absence of diverse extracurricular activities may limit children’s exposure to different cultures, perspectives, and experiences, narrowing their worldview and inhibiting their capacity for empathy, tolerance, and global understanding.

It is crucial to recognize the significance of providing children in institutional care with equal opportunities for educational and recreational pursuits. By ensuring access to quality education, individualized support, and a range of extracurricular activities, institutions can create an environment that fosters children’s academic progress, personal growth, and overall well-being. Collaborative efforts between educational institutions, community organizations, and caregivers are necessary to broaden the horizons of children in institutional care and provide them with a diverse range of opportunities that contribute to their holistic development.

In conclusion, the restricted opportunities for education and extracurricular pursuits in institutional care settings challenge the notion of “maximum benefit for children.” The limitations on academic progress and limited exposure to extracurricular activities hinder children’s personal growth, skill development, and overall well-being. It is crucial to address these limitations by ensuring access to quality education, tailored support, and a diverse range of extracurricular activities to maximize the potential and well-being of children in institutional care.

 

11. Long-term Consequences: Eroding Children’s Futures

 

The long-term consequences of child removal from their biological parents and placement in institutional care raise concerns about the “maximum benefit for children” claim. These consequences have the potential to erode children’s futures and affect their life outcomes in significant ways. It is essential to consider strategies and interventions that can mitigate the long-term effects of child removal and support children in reaching their full potential.

Examining the Potential Impact on Future Life Outcomes:

Child removal and institutional care can have a lasting impact on various aspects of children’s lives, including their educational attainment, employment prospects, mental health, and social integration. Studies have shown that children who experience such disruptions in their early lives are more likely to face challenges in their educational journey, including lower academic achievement and higher dropout rates. These educational setbacks can limit their opportunities for higher education and subsequent career advancement.

The psychological trauma associated with child removal and institutional care can also have long-term effects on children’s mental health. Increased rates of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and other psychological disorders have been observed among individuals who have experienced such disruptions in their childhood. These mental health challenges can persist into adulthood, affecting their overall well-being and life outcomes.

Furthermore, children who have been removed from their families and placed in institutions may struggle with social integration and forming healthy relationships. The sense of stigma and the labeling as “institutionalized” can create barriers to social acceptance and inclusion, potentially impacting their social support networks, employment opportunities, and overall life satisfaction.

 

12. Conclusion:

 

The long-term consequences of child removal and institutional care can significantly impact children’s futures. Addressing these concerns requires a multifaceted approach that recognizes the specific needs of children in institutional care and implements strategies to mitigate the negative effects. By providing stable and supportive care, quality education, mental health support, community integration, and post-placement assistance, we can strive to ensure that children in institutional care have the opportunity to overcome the challenges they face and reach their full potential in life.

This writing has critically examined the concept of “maximum benefit for children” in the context of child removal from their biological parents and placement in institutional care. Through a comprehensive analysis of various aspects, it becomes evident that the claims made by social workers in child protection agencies are questionable and do not necessarily lead to the maximum benefit for children. Several key findings have emerged from the discussion, highlighting the limitations and negative consequences associated with child removal.

Firstly, children placed in institutional care experience a significant infringement on their freedom, including restricted communication and contact with their biological parents, as well as a loss of personal agency and autonomy. This compromises their sense of identity, well-being, and emotional development. Additionally, children suffer from psychological trauma, such as insomnia, depression, and other psychological problems, due to the separation from their parents and family unit.

Moreover, the loss of friendship and limited access to peer relationships and support networks in institutional care settings result in social isolation and negative reputations. Children bear the stigmatizing label of “prisoners” and face challenges in social integration, leading to long-term social and emotional consequences.

The financial motives behind child removal for institutional care raise ethical concerns, as the profit-driven system may prioritize financial gain over the well-being of the children. This calls for a critical examination of the decision-making authority and qualifications of social workers involved in the process. Interdisciplinary collaboration and a comprehensive approach are necessary to make informed decisions regarding child removal and family preservation.

Furthermore, the substandard living conditions, including the quality of food, clothing, and material resources provided in institutions, have detrimental effects on children’s well-being and overall development. Limited educational and recreational opportunities further hinder their academic progress, personal growth, and future life outcomes.

The long-term consequences of child removal erode children’s futures, affecting their educational attainment, employment prospects, mental health, and social integration.

In conclusion, the “maximum benefit for children” claim in the context of child removal and institutional care is not adequately supported by the evidence.

Finally, I call for the court to overthrow the social workers’ decisions on our child’s removal from family and return her as soon as possible.