Who else is supposed to keep an eye on this other than the government? Or do you think the grandparents or the young parents can handle it?
And if everything is OK, the youth welfare office won't be there every day or every week to check that everything is okay.
There are cases where you think: OK, something was wrong here. But then there are also enough cases where you think: fortunately, this is how it was done.
Anyone who does not see the youth welfare office as an enemy, but accepts the help offered, usually has nothing to fear?!
Well, it depends. Someone in my inner circle was taken away from his parents and put in a youth home, where, as a 13-year-old, he lived with criminals, was constantly under surveillance, and if he did something without telling anyone, several police patrols would come looking for him, then tie him up and bring him back.
He didn't do anything that would warrant such treatment by the youth welfare office. And yet, it fundamentally changed him: social phobia, fear of commitment, self-doubt, etc. And it shouldn't be the case that after such "rehabilitation," the child is a mental wreck.
If the parents neglect the child or something else (alcoholics, domestic violence, etc.), fine – because the child's well-being comes first. But often that's not even the case; then they shouldn't have so many rights. And it's especially true with underage parents, because not every underage child is an irresponsible child who hasn't used contraception properly. Child welfare services should get rid of this perspective as soon as possible!
Unfortunately, that all sounds quite untrue. A child who can't go to school because of illness is supposed to have been placed in a home for difficult children by the youth welfare office? I don't want to imply anything, but I think the story is missing some of the things that actually happened.
Unfortunately, there are always parents who behave in ways that are completely inappropriate or even criminal. A parenting aptitude test should be conducted during pregnancy…
Not feeding children properly, restricting them emotionally, acting aggressively towards them, setting a bad example, smoking in the same room as their child, not encouraging their child to exercise, and so on. Many people are simply not suited to taking responsibility for a child.
Underage fathers and mothers don't neglect or beat their children, do they? They're human beings with completely normal instincts, just like adults. Why would they do such a thing?
Make "added" more specific.
Who else is supposed to keep an eye on this other than the government? Or do you think the grandparents or the young parents can handle it?
And if everything is OK, the youth welfare office won't be there every day or every week to check that everything is okay.
There are cases where you think: OK, something was wrong here. But then there are also enough cases where you think: fortunately, this is how it was done.
Anyone who does not see the youth welfare office as an enemy, but accepts the help offered, usually has nothing to fear?!
Well, it depends. Someone in my inner circle was taken away from his parents and put in a youth home, where, as a 13-year-old, he lived with criminals, was constantly under surveillance, and if he did something without telling anyone, several police patrols would come looking for him, then tie him up and bring him back.
He didn't do anything that would warrant such treatment by the youth welfare office. And yet, it fundamentally changed him: social phobia, fear of commitment, self-doubt, etc. And it shouldn't be the case that after such "rehabilitation," the child is a mental wreck.
If the parents neglect the child or something else (alcoholics, domestic violence, etc.), fine – because the child's well-being comes first. But often that's not even the case; then they shouldn't have so many rights. And it's especially true with underage parents, because not every underage child is an irresponsible child who hasn't used contraception properly. Child welfare services should get rid of this perspective as soon as possible!
And why was he taken away from his parents?
He was absent from school for a week, nothing more. And that was due to illness, not anything else.
And why did he run away from the home so that the police had to search for him?
Probably because it was too much at once; away from family, no friends, no prospects, etc.
As far as I know, the police were always notified as soon as he set foot out of the home
Unfortunately, that all sounds quite untrue. A child who can't go to school because of illness is supposed to have been placed in a home for difficult children by the youth welfare office? I don't want to imply anything, but I think the story is missing some of the things that actually happened.
"School home for the difficult to educate" is the organization's self-proclaimed definition. What is a prison? No; but definitely a feeling.
So it happened when he was new to the home and the home didn't know if he was reliable and would come back or if he was up to no good.
That would mean he was in prison. You're allowed to leave a normal home, but of course you have to register your departure and can't just run away.
The youth welfare office has no "power." It is nothing more than an advisory authority for parents with a view to the child's well-being.
To be more precise: I think the youth welfare office should act much more strictly.
Why?
They let go far too much and sometimes turn a blind eye to horrendous conditions. Yes, you could argue that there isn't enough time or people… Still…
What exactly do you mean by "horrendous conditions"?
Unfortunately, there are always parents who behave in ways that are completely inappropriate or even criminal. A parenting aptitude test should be conducted during pregnancy…
What exactly do you mean by "absolutely wrong" and "criminal"?
Not feeding children properly, restricting them emotionally, acting aggressively towards them, setting a bad example, smoking in the same room as their child, not encouraging their child to exercise, and so on. Many people are simply not suited to taking responsibility for a child.
Absolutely. The child's welfare is paramount.
Is this in the best interests of the child?
Of course. If the child is neglected or beaten. Examples.
Unfortunately, there are also youth welfare offices that look away and let themselves be led by the nose
An example?
"It makes no difference"
But for youth welfare offices, it probably does…
This is too personal, sorry
Not everyone, but some do it anyway. Whether they're minors or adults, it makes no difference.
Underage fathers and mothers don't neglect or beat their children, do they? They're human beings with completely normal instincts, just like adults. Why would they do such a thing?