On the last day of the school they were drawing pictures of what they'd do that summer. His photo was of him being sad. He told her.
"Some of us are sad because of summer vacation because we don't want to be at home every day."
Just brutal to hear.... some kids have the deck stacked so far against them....
I wish there was a community just for people in tech who've overcome messy childhoods.
I hire people with these qualities, most intelligent people I know are like this :)
Saying "not trying to be snarky" does little to minimise the snarky attitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_attachment_disorder
Reality is that, certainly on average, CPS is worse than neglect, worse than abuse. Reality seems to be that what parent figures provide for children is simply a predictable, stable environment. It does not matter if said environment has violence (especially if it doesn't directly harm the child). If the child is well provided for (ie. even poverty or neglect to the point of irregular availability of food). The vast majority of cases, by the way, are neglect, which means in practice the child being left alone for longer periods of time (hours, not days). Needless to say, this is not going to seriously damage any child over the age of 3 or 4.
The same even with violence against a child. The not-so-common-but-considered-typical image of a father who gets drunk on fridays and then yells or even hits a child with flimsy excuses, but otherwise cares for them is just not going to do the damage even a single CPS placement does.
Just to be clear: none of those things are good for a child. But they do not prevent the formation of a stable adult. CPS and child placement (and especially re-placing them on average 14 times before they grow up) prevents the formation of a stable adult in something like 45-60% of cases.
I guess CPS just feels they "need to do something". The result of that need is tens of thousands of destroyed lives per year. But nobody can be blamed for doing nothing ...
As for the idea that "even a single CPS placement" is worse than being left with violent parents - I've never seen anything supporting this but if you have some I'd love to read it.
https://sci-hub.se/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583
> As for the idea that "even a single CPS placement" is worse than being left with violent parents - I've never seen anything supporting this but if you have some I'd love to read it.
Well, reactive attachment syndrome is the expected outcome for something like 60% of placements, and 80%+ of kids that are placed more than once. These multiple replacements are not exactly rare. Apparently there is a small group where the first placement remains stable for a long time which has reasonable results, and there is a large group that keep getting placed again and again where the outcomes are terrible.
The vast majority of parents aren't violent but neglectful. And even then, our standards of neglect have moved quite a bit. These days some interventions are done because of "bad" food in lunch boxes (think: mars bars, not sandwiches).
The long term consequences of neglect and violence that isn't random are "parentification. TLDR: kids start acting like adults at a very young age, and obviously with less than ideal success. Think 7 year olds that make sure the rent is paid and their little sister sees a doctor once a year, or when she's ill. These kids will fight for their independence, for obvious reasons, at a very young age. This can, and does, lead to depression and less than ideal school results (because in that situation the kids don't consider school very important and of course caring for others takes time that can't be spent on homework or hobbies or even actually going to class when there's a crisis). The worst outcomes are observed where the kid takes total control of the home situation and the KID abuses this power. But even that is nothing compared to even mild attachment syndrome.
The worse cases of reactive attachment disorder, well, from Wikipedia: "Actions that otherwise would be classified as conduct disorder, such as mutilating animals, harming siblings or other family, or harming themselves intentionally"
And of course, it is anecdotal and probably lacks validity but if you look up mass murderers, whilst diagnosis is missing their family background is really quite common and are the sort of circumstances that you'd expect to generate RAD. Obviously, that outcome is very rare, but does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parentification
I would say, read both entries and judge for yourself which is the worse one. But I don't think there will be much disagreement.
> Well, reactive attachment syndrome is the expected outcome for something like 60% of placements,
Absolutely, completely false. Also nonsensically false that "mars bars instead of sandwiches" would get any intervention.
You are very misinformed on this topic. Almost everything you have said is directly, easily contradicted simply by looking at the widely available data on foster care. Children arrive in foster care with attachment disorders - the majority of children don't even enter foster care until they are too old to develop an attachment disorder, according to the diagnostic criteria. Almost 50% of children who are taken into foster care in the US have only one placement (1). (Unsurprisingly, being diagnosed with RAD correlates very highly with having more placements. There's likely causality in both directions there.)
I don't know why you have such a strong opinion here, but it's not based on reality.
(1) https://www.childtrends.org/blog/the-share-of-children-in-fo...
Non-permanent placements (most obviously crisis care), which by itself happens to 20-30% of children in care. A placement in a youth institution is a per-6-month assignment by a judge and therefore obviously very unstable in essentially all cases. Even when they are stable, because of the 6 month time limit, after which a decision the child has zero possibility to influence might change their environment 100%, do you really think this will be experienced as stability and is correctly classified as "no change"?
Additionally, in clinic or some forms of foster care one might even say that given the rate of changes in the group (and personnel) even if the child remains in the same location, everyone around them changes in something like 8 months, every 8 months (because 10 children per group, every one has 6 month placement, so you can expect some change every 2 weeks). On top of that, personnel changes are very common in all youth institutions. So even in the case of a stable placement a youth institution will not be experienced as anything remotely resembling stability by a child living there.
The viewpoint of the child is obviously what matters here.
Breakdowns of placements (ie. foster parents/institution requiring child to be removed immediately, without waiting for placement to end): 20% to 65% of children, depending on age and gender.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Rate-of-breakdown-by-age...
Is it really so controversial for you that multiple changes of caregivers and environment are experienced by almost all children in state care? And that constant large changes of environment are experienced by a large subset of these children?
I did not say the worst possible form of reactive attachment disorder is the expected outcome in 60% of cases, some form of attachment disorder is expected in 60% of cases. And granted, you can certainly make a valid argument that this is at least partially because every DSM revision loosens the definition of attachment disorder, which is also seen in other diagnoses and results in absurd levels of comorbidity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6097443/
The real problem that everyone does agree on is that reactive attachment disorder sharply rises when social services intervene in the lives of children, irrespective of the reason. Even abused children have sharply lower incidence of attachment problems than children in clinic or foster care.
This is controversial, that's certainly true. Why? Hmmm, let's ask ourselves ... why might a very good reason to avoid interference in families by social services that has historically been used to deny almost all interference (and with that came the consequence that it robbed many social workers of a job and greatly limited the size of the sector) be controversial? I wonder why that might happen...
> Also nonsensically false that "mars bars instead of sandwiches" would get any intervention.
This is seen as neglect and will most definitely cause intervention by social services. Hopefully placement is rare, but the issue is that if you attract the attention of social services, a child getting an out-of-home placement is greatly dependent on the child services investigator as the first linked study pointed out, not on the child, the parent, or what is actually going on. Just for that reason alone it will happen.
It seems that you are attempting to argue something completely different to your original claims, and I'm not interested in trying to follow you and your goalposts.
I don't get it, you accuse me of conspiracy and then claim this is all because of a conspiracy by the children, the victims. And victims is the correct word because VERY few foster children had any hand in or possibility to influence their placement at all, and the vast majority, as the paper says too, are "marginal", meaning their placement was the choice of the social services investigator. I'm sure it's nevertheless all their fault and they deserve it, and the social workers who are totally financially dependent on robbing them of their home just don't have .
Besides, those are children have experienced firsthand the consequences of social workers' help, and really didn't want that help, don't want it now, and will never want it.
Who would know better than they do? Nobody would.
> let's jump to a conspiracy theory about bad social workers instead
You have met some social workers, right? Bad is the standard there. Even outright malevolence is not rare. Hidden agendas and lies are the norm in youth protection social workers, because if they told the truth to children, it'd be comical: "do you want my help? We can take everything from you, friends, parents, school, ... everything, declare you sick with 20 diagnoses and if we start now we can have you in prison before you're 20. Yes almost all foster children become criminals. So do you want our help?". Children will be running in tears to abusers begging them to take them back ...
The system for helping children is a bad joke.
Can you elaborate on this? It abstractly makes sense, but what does this look like in practice? What kinds of situations come up whereupon a foster-kid-turned-adult wouldn't be "equipped"? What is it they wouldn't know to do? Or, what would they mistakenly think was an appropriate response?
I've known children who left unstructured, chaotic situations and were placed in... unstructured, chaotic foster homes. Many foster homes are like warehouses with upward of 6-8 children at a time. Fostering children is a paycheck for some foster parents.
I've also known a foster child who was placed in a home wherein the foster family had biological children in the house. The biological children were treated better and more lovingly than the foster child. The foster child left an abusive situation, only to find inequitable treatment. The foster child never had anyone model a loving, supportive relationship. So they bounced around from abusive, drug-addicted partner to abusive, drug-addicted partner until they got tired of being around abusive people and drugs.
Without a role model, it's hard to be equipped once you're legally an adult and don't have someone making decisions for you. Being an adult is a big responsibility, and a lot of these children weren't prepared to make healthy decisions. And they don't have health coping mechanisms.
The story about the foster kid who gravitates towards abusive relationships is closest to the level of analysis I was hoping for. In that specific case, what is still unclear to me is exactly how -- in the details -- a lack of a stable/loving home pushes one towards abusive relationships
Do you perhaps have some anecdotes about specific people behaving in ways that well-adjusted people wouldn't? Speaking for the rest of us, I think it's hard to grok this kind of stuff without a lot of detail.
I recognize that this is a hard question to answer, of course. It effectively asks you to become a novelist. I'm grateful for anything you can provide, but also don't want you to feel obligated.
It's hard to say definitive, concrete examples because trauma is so personal. The same things can cause two divergent reactions in other people. As a random example from a single friend, I had a friend whose dad died via suicide by cop after he became addicted to drugs he prescribed as a small town's ER doctor. She saw her dad murdered by her friend's father from her living room window. This friend said I had it worse than she. While I definitely have my own scars, I don't think they're anywhere close to what she experienced.
I'll share how I was ill-equipped for life. Please note that while I was never put in foster care myself, I likely should have been; the only thing that stopped me going into foster care is a terribly overburdened and underfunded Child Protective Services department. Every single one of the complaints alleged against my family (of which there were several) were true. The social workers and CPS department as a whole simply has too high a caseload and I fell through the cracks. For better or worse.
I never had anyone around me that modeled how to successfully handle stress and anger. So I constantly walked around in fight or flight mode for all of my teen years and most of my twenties. It led to more than a few of assaults (both as a profession--I bounced a bit--and otherwise). I also made many other impulsive decisions, because I only knew how to solve interpersonal problems one way.
It literally took me until I was in my early thirties and hospitalized with what I thought was a heart attack to figure out I had problems with anxiety, ultra-vigalence, and a hair-trigger temper with associated anti-social behaviors. That's how I was ill-equipped for life in normal society. And again I wasn't even in foster care like some of my closest friends and loved ones.
Just one of those times I let my fists do the talking for me could've led to someone geting knocked out, falling the wrong way, and dying after landing with their head against a curb. That's manslaughter (at best). It's blind, stupid luck that I eventually got my shit together and work at a FAANG rather than shooting you a kite from behind bars.
I have someone very close to me who did go into the foster care system, and was placed in what amounted to a juvenile jail. She had a 'bunkmate' who burned their entire house down in an attempt to kill her family. And then the bunkmate tried to burn others while in the foster care facility. Now my friend has troubles sleeping; especially in areas around which she's unfamiliar (e.g. hotels) or around people she doesn't know well (e.g. B&Bs, friend's houses, etc.).
>It literally took me until I was in my early thirties and hospitalized with what I thought was a heart attack to figure out I had problems with anxiety, ultra-vigalence, and a hair-trigger temper with associated anti-social behaviors.
Out of curiosity, how does one get from this place to gainful employment in a FAANG company? I realize much of it has to do with luck, but surely there were a number of "stages" during this recovery/relearning process. Did you go to some sort of therapy? What were the major steps in becoming well-adjusted? For example, do you remember the first time you noticed your hair-trigger temper rising, and managed to get it under control?
>I bounced a bit
I actually did too! In my 20's I was very involved in my local MMA gym, and bouncing seemed like a 'cool' way to make some beer money.
All in all it was a pretty good gig for me because I actually had very little exposure to violence before then, and this was a way for me to confront a pretty severe aversion to conflict that I'd been carrying with me for some time. As a matter of fact, this was very much the reason I'd gotten into MMA to begin with, and bouncing was a way to move from an environment with highly-controlled violence (the ring) to a less controlled one (a bar where I had backup, and a technical advantage in a fight). I ultimately ended up in the military doing MOUT operations, but that's a different story, and I digress. My reason for bringing this up is that I remember being quite shocked and horrified at the unbridled violence in some of my colleagues. You basically had three types of bouncers:
1. Calm professionals looking to get the job done and go home
2. Cocky assholes looking to be the protagonist of a badass story, but nevertheless with some self-control
3. Tough-as-nails guys with zero self-control or ability to direct their violence usefully
I think I was mostly in the first category (though shamefully with about 30% of the second category ... I did have something to prove...). It was the third category that horrified me because it seemed like these people weren't even fixing to get into fights; they just couldn't prevent themselves from falling into a blind wrath at the slightest provocation. There's this idea in evolutionary psychology that the emotion of disgust relates to things that should be inside the body (blood, vomit, feces, saliva, etc) finding themselves outside the body. In that specific sense, I think I was disgusted by the third category of colleague -- this terrible, ugly rage that should have stayed inside was somehow spilling out. Quite a few of those guys ended up getting charged with battery over stuff they did on the job, and it all seemed so damn preventable and absurd.
I realize that I'm speaking with someone who may have been this third type of person, and I sincerely hope you don't feel judged. My reason for bringing it up is that I've never fully understood what was going on when these (otherwise super nice!) guys went off the rails. I always suspected there was something like what you described, but never managed to figure out when -- let alone why -- the switch would flip. It was truly terrifying stuff, even for someone who knows their way around a fight, because it all seemed so random and bestial. As an MMA fighter, I was used to clear rules about when the fight started and ended, but with these guys, I would worry that I'd gotten on their nerves without realizing it, and that I'd have a bottle broken over my head before I even knew the fight had begun.
In any case, I'm truly, honestly happy that you seem to be doing well, and I really appreciate this conversation.
I was blessed with an above average intelligence. But I didn't have any role models. So it was really about figuring out how intelligent I am and comparing myself to people.
One of my more stable jobs was working as a gas station clerk. The gas station I worked at was one of the few in a more affluent, medical-oriented district. Lots of doctors, nurses etc. Most of them treated me like crap. And just listening to the way they talked to me I was like... these people really aren't that smarter than me.
So I was like what do smart people do? I have 0 family connections--I was the first person in my family to graduate high school--so I figured I'd go to college. That's what smart people do, right?
Went to community college (my high school GPA wouldn't have gotten me into any school with any sort of selection), and succeeded. Graduated with honors, etc. Then transferred to my state's flagship university. Studied something not related to computers.
Got out of school during the Great Recession. Struggled to find a job. Had a couple of other shitty, albiet generally better-paying jobs. Met someone who worked at a FAANG. We were talking and having a reasonably intellectual conversation about what they do, networking and the like. Asked them where they went to school. They said they never went to college; they just taught themselves.
I was like, really? You can do that? If they can, I can. I have a degree from very selective public university. Graduated with multiple sorts of honors. If I learned one thing, it's how to learn.
So I just started teaching myself Linux. Then networking. Then a bit of coding. Got a job helping a start-up-ish company migrate onto AWS. I was underpaid, but underpaid in that world is twice the salary (at least) than either of my parents made in a year collectively. Learned every day. A year later, a recruiter from AWS reached out. That was a couple of years ago now.
---
Your description of bouncing is spot-in. I was a mixture of 2&3. I learned to fight because I had no self-control. I had to learn it, eventually, out of self preservation. But my form of self-control was 'shut off your emotions until you feel dead inside. Then at least you're not a wrathful rage monster.' Not the most healthy strategy, but it's kept me out of trouble. I've gotten better, but still haven't shed a single tear in over 15 years.
---
> '"I had to pull my alcoholic mom out of a ditch" and "I'm fighting with people all the time". These two things feel disconnected...'
Yeah. They're really, really not disconnected. Someone who grows up in that life has no stabilizing influence. They never learn how to deal with problems or actually plan.
Also, a neglectful parent means that you probably got abused. By your parent, an associate of your parent, or both. Predators are really effective at looking at a family and finding a situation into which they can insert you. Then you got to deal with that trauma.
You're also more than likely to grow up in poverty, which comes with it a whole different set of bad habits and impulses.
Anyways, glad you made it out of such a tough spot doing ok.
How much time does that take of the person who is helping?
Also, from article, “Most of the $30 billion spent on child welfare annually is funneled into foster care or adoption services”, “Roughly 23,000 kids across the country are churned out of the system every year”.
That averages $100000 per child per year, assuming 300000 kids in care and all $30G spent on them.
It doesn't appear to be hours, although they help, but rather consistency over large periods of the child's life. In happier cases this is provided by parents and close family friends; teachers come and go and the family might move, but the parents provide emotional stability in the child's life. In less happy circumstances the issue is that some teachers and some foster parents might be great at what they do, but they only exist inside the child's life for a very short period of time.
Again, I am far from an expert here.
Yes, and you'll find nearly all of that money is spent on employees and organisations, mostly for locating abused (and "abused") children, with most services paid per-child (and of course ALL services have to catch a minimum amount of children or cease to exist).
In the best of countries (not the US) in 60% of foster placements something bad enough happens that the foster family requests their immediate removal (this is called a "break-down"). The US is much worse. Foster care does not offer stability, so every kid has to be found a new foster home on average every 8 months.
https://wehavekids.com/adoption-fostering/What-does-being-a-...
$800 per month per kid is very well paid for foster care. All the other money goes to government services. The child receives, at most, $250 per month (in cases where they care for themselves).
Studies point out that if you take outcomes, it would literally be better (children helped vs children harmed) if these services just outright did not exist. But I guess the problem would be much more visible.