I just wanted to get my thoughts out about family preservation. I've noticed sometimes people assume that by this, one means family preservation at all costs, even if a child is in danger. Or that it means keeping a child with parents, and not the wider family.

Or that I don't fully understand the circumstances that many kids grow up in so don't understand why they need to be removed.

My starting point, that ideally every child should grow up with their family, is probably influenced by my own experiences as a child. I grew up in a working class family with alcoholism, blazing rows, severe MH issues, aggression, fear, hunger, cold.

Not all the time. Life has ups and downs. But a significant portion of my childhood. Teachers asked if everything was okay at home. I was skin and bone, always ill, always sad. And I always answered that everything was fine.

Even when things were rock bottom, when I considered suicide, the thought of being taken from my family was the very worst thing I could imagine. Even when I hated them, I couldn't bear the thought of losing them.

So I guess my perspective is skewed by that. Even when a life looks incredibly grim, when a child is dirty and hungry and sad, the alternative of removing that child to feed them and clean them might be worse still for that child.

So in those situations, I strongly support putting in as many supports as possible for the family. But I also understand that the family may not be in a place mentally to accept that support. Before any other intervention I feel that providing MH support to parents is vital.

And even then they might just not be in the right place. So other options could be in place until they reach that better place. A long term commitment to bring food, pay the gas bill etc. That would have helped me. And it would have to be discrete and not conditional on engaging.

Of course for some children they are in danger of serious harm. Perhaps one or both parents are violent. And I agree that a child should not be left in that environment. But of course there may be family members who are safe.

And perhaps they can't take a child in because they can't afford another mouth to feed or have no space, but desperately want to keep the child with the family. So then they must be paid to cover costs and a larger house found.

And I know, funding and budgets, but I'm talking about society actually putting the needs of children first. Tax me more if needed. Because we should never be placing a child with strangers in a situation where family members could care for them, if not for money.

And then there are the children, in danger, with no family to care for them. So yes, strangers are the only option. Well trained therapeutic foster carers. If safe and beneficial, contact with family. And support for birth family now more than ever.

Not a ticklist or a list of things they must achieve, but an individual plan. No threats of removing the child permanently. Mental health support, housing, training, anything they need to get back on track.

But the child still needs permanency. So what happens if after all the support and every avenue is investigated they cannot return home? Long term foster care or legal guardianship that allows the child to keep their name (if that's their choice),

to have a relationship with their family.

Of course there are children who suffer horribly at the hands of family. I would never advocate for a child being forced to have a relationship with an abuser.

I'm writing this from the perspective of me as a child. What I would have wanted to happen. And I don't think it's unreasonable for a fairly wealthy society to provide the very best of the shitty options on offer to children who experience abuse and neglect.

We can fight to make changes within the system and also wish to change the system.

The horribly unequal capitalist society we live in has a huge part to play for vulnerable children, and perpetuates the conditions where people turn to drink/drugs/crime.

So when I say I'm pro family preservation, I'm not talking about individual cases. I'm acknowledging that there are people in the world who see taking a child from a poor, maybe failing parent, and putting them with middle class "good" parents, as a positive thing.

As an acceptable solution.

Adoption isn't a solution. It's exchanging one set of problems for another. And that doesn't mean it isn't the best of a lot of crap options for some children, or that adopted children are all worse off.

But even then, when used as the last option, there's no need to change that child's name or to replace their parents.

Every child has a right to know their family and be a part of it in some way. Because the thought of losing that can be the worst thing in the world.

I have no wish to debate my own experiences and feelings. I'm just sharing them. Hence turning off comments. I just needed to clarify things. Albeit not very eloquently.