What are the strengths/weaknesses of the author’s arguments? The author’s greatest strength in my opinion is how he used the cases of David and Marie and other child abuse and neglect cases to assist his arguments. He broke down the cases so they were more tangible for the reader to understand and gave valid reasons why there are problems with family preservations. However, the only issue I did find with the book itself was how it was laid out. Even though Gelles easily broke down David and Marie’s cases, he would alternate between their cases and often I felt it was a little choppy and slightly confusing at times. Another strength I found most beneficial was that he claimed to not know all the answers to resolve the child welfare system
…show more content…
Overall, I found that his arguments were insightful and gave me a clear idea of his beliefs and his understanding of child protection services.
What aspects of the author’s arguments do you agree with and with which do you disagree? Gelles makes an interesting argument on how family preservation cannot be applied to every case when neglect or abuse is involved with a child. Popple & Vecchiolla (2007) claims that in today’s society, the child welfare is continuing to establish home-based and family-centered services that match assessment with intervention rather than just placing families into any available service (p.184). I agree that it is not always best to reunite families if there is clear evidence of abuse and neglect, if there is no signs of willingness to change, or if there is a great chance that the child could be harmed again. Instead of solely focusing on family preservation, the main focus should be on child safety. Child safety is explained as “the absence of risk factors or threatening family conditions that could lead to imminent risk of harm or imminent risk of severe harm” (Popple & Vecchiolla, 2007, p. 98). Another argument I agree with is that social workers should be better trained with risk assessment …show more content…
With Gelles experience with working with teams who reviews children’s death has formed the conclusion that child welfare needs to return to child protection rather than child preservation (Popple & Vecchiolla, 2007, p. 56-57). Gelles states that “children need to come first in social policies and the allocation of social resources, children must come first in the words and deeds of the agencies that are entrusted with protecting them. It is time to move beyond the lip service paid to children and to develop a social structure, from the top to bottom, that guarantees their safety, both by supporting families so that abuse will not occur in the first place and by absolutely guaranteeing the future safety and developmental integrity of children who have been abused and neglected” (Gelles, 1996, p. 171-172). Conversely, it was the case of Marie and David that convinced him that the system needs to be changed. Gelles has devoted a lifetime of research in hopes of protecting children only to find that current policies are not taking into account the results of the research. The purpose of Gelles writing this book was to bring awareness to the troubling aspects of that the child welfare system and knowledge to those who strictly supports family preservation. It is important to remember that a child’s welfare must come first. In a
Overall, I found that his arguments were insightful and gave me a clear idea of his beliefs and his understanding of child protection services.
What aspects of the author’s arguments do you agree with and with which do you disagree? Gelles makes an interesting argument on how family preservation cannot be applied to every case when neglect or abuse is involved with a child. Popple & Vecchiolla (2007) claims that in today’s society, the child welfare is continuing to establish home-based and family-centered services that match assessment with intervention rather than just placing families into any available service (p.184). I agree that it is not always best to reunite families if there is clear evidence of abuse and neglect, if there is no signs of willingness to change, or if there is a great chance that the child could be harmed again. Instead of solely focusing on family preservation, the main focus should be on child safety. Child safety is explained as “the absence of risk factors or threatening family conditions that could lead to imminent risk of harm or imminent risk of severe harm” (Popple & Vecchiolla, 2007, p. 98). Another argument I agree with is that social workers should be better trained with risk assessment …show more content…
With Gelles experience with working with teams who reviews children’s death has formed the conclusion that child welfare needs to return to child protection rather than child preservation (Popple & Vecchiolla, 2007, p. 56-57). Gelles states that “children need to come first in social policies and the allocation of social resources, children must come first in the words and deeds of the agencies that are entrusted with protecting them. It is time to move beyond the lip service paid to children and to develop a social structure, from the top to bottom, that guarantees their safety, both by supporting families so that abuse will not occur in the first place and by absolutely guaranteeing the future safety and developmental integrity of children who have been abused and neglected” (Gelles, 1996, p. 171-172). Conversely, it was the case of Marie and David that convinced him that the system needs to be changed. Gelles has devoted a lifetime of research in hopes of protecting children only to find that current policies are not taking into account the results of the research. The purpose of Gelles writing this book was to bring awareness to the troubling aspects of that the child welfare system and knowledge to those who strictly supports family preservation. It is important to remember that a child’s welfare must come first. In a