Ethical Issues, Criminological Theories, and Public Policy
Removing children from the home for a single instance of domestic violence, abuse, or drug/alcohol offenses committed by the legal guardian is terribly severe. Families face challenges and should be permitted to grow, develop, make changes and take ownership of their issues. People should be permitted to fail, to learn from failure, and to have second chances. It is a cruel society that does not permit moments of imperfection. It is all reminiscent of Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter in which the Puritan society marginalizes the woman who commits adultery and punishes her with ostracism. There is nothing human or even Christian in such an approach, and it is a clear ethical violation of the common good doctrine of utilitarianism. Families that are broken up tend to cause more problems for children than families that stay whole and that are permitted to continue on and come together to address their issues (Siegel, 2018). There are better alternatives to addressing these issues than to remove the children. Mandating counseling or family therapy is one possible idea. However, to spit up the family for one infraction is unethical in the extreme, regardless of the idea that social learning theory posits removal of the children from abusive environments to be the best course of action. What guarantee is there that the children will end up in a better environment? The reality is that foster kids are far more likely to develop drug problems, engage in crime, drop out of school and end up in prison than children who come from two-parent homes. Children should be taught to forgive and they can learn from their parents’ bad examples in a positive way just as much as they might be at risk of following parents down the same bad path. Nothing is certain one way or another other than that splitting up families should be a last ditch option—not a first option.

Life course theory and social bond theories are both good perspectives to utilize in explaining why it is a bad idea to break up the family. Children need stability, even if the environment is less than perfect. They need to have social bonds, even if they are not the best. What family is the best? Additionally, parents who fear making a mistake might feel under immense pressure and might snap or engage in abusiveness, as strain theory explains (Siegel, 2018). Thus, in an effort to reform a situation, the reform can actually make the situation even worse or bring about that which it sought to avoid in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

From the deontological perspective, parents have a duty towards their children. It is not the state’s duty to rear the children of imperfect parents or to find new parents...…what about the child’s peers and media consumption? These will also have an impact on what the child learns. Thirdly, social learning theory is just one theory among many. There is no reason to believe it is the end all be all among social and criminological theories to explain deviance. Social bond theory, life course theory and even trait theory can also be used to explain deviance and what can lead one to commit crime.

In conclusion, the Department of Job and Family Services is making a serious mistake in pursuing this policy and it should stop right now in its tracks before it makes a bad situation worse. The best way to address abuse in families that occurs one time is to intervene with counseling and support. Parents have a difficult job and they need to be given assistance when it becomes evident that they are struggling with issues that may be beyond their control for whatever reason. Maybe the parents are struggling with addiction or with emotional issues or with PTSD or with some mental disorder. They likely need counseling and family therapy could be a way to help everyone work through the issues they are facing. Family Services should be focused on keeping families together—not on driving them apart. When the first step taken by Family Services is to break up families their name becomes highly ironic.