Max Selver expressed to Gothamist, “There’s nothing scarier for a parent than to have the government come to their home and forcibly take away their child, and not know where they’re going or when they’ll see them again.” Yet, perhaps he might reconsider that sentiment. Representing Meredith Traynor in a recent lawsuit against the city’s Department of Children’s Services for removing her 11-month-old daughter, it’s clear that context matters.
Before this so-called abduction, many parents might discover troubling details about the situation. For instance, Traynor’s baby was in the emergency room, she had consumed cocaine while with the child’s father—who admittedly has a drug history—and the father claimed the girl might have gotten something harmful at the playground. It’s possible some would find this even more disturbing than a mere government intervention.
To grasp the full scope of the situation leading to the emergency removal, one would need to dive into a lengthy article with numerous data points.
These days, it seems the prevailing concern among media, activists, and some child welfare advocates is less about the risk of child abuse and more about potential government intervention.
When it comes to parental drug use, which complicates matters significantly—especially with the father’s past—there’s a noticeable bias in responses.
A recent report from upEND and the Drug Policy Alliance, which is known for promoting drug legalization, suggests a rather radical approach to child welfare. Their publication, “Reclaiming Safety for Children whose Parents Use Drugs,” challenges conventional safety standards, dismissing traditional views on what constitutes “good parenting.” This isn’t a perspective that most would typically support.
The report’s foreword, penned by Angela Barton—previously in line for a management position with ACS—excitedly endorses a shift towards prioritizing the individual circumstances of families rather than adhering to outdated standards about parental drug use.
A brief look at factual concerns surrounding substance abuse reveals serious implications: annually, between 400,000 to 480,000 infants in the U.S. are born exposed to substances, many suffering long-term effects. Unsafe sleep deaths, often linked to intoxicated parents, are alarmingly common. Moreover, the toll of opioid addiction has left 15,000 children dead over the last 25 years, with an additional 70,000 affected by severe poisonings. About 90% of families in the child welfare system battle substance addictions.
The statistics stand out starkly—in Arizona, for instance, drug use was responsible for 59% of child deaths due to abuse and neglect in 2021. When parents struggle with drug addiction, it often means they can’t adequately supervise young children, which poses significant risks.
New recommendations for addressing this issue suggest rather than mandating parents to overcome their substance problems or removing children from their care, society should simply provide financial support. Proponents argue that instability in housing and economics often drives family crises, a narrative that seems to overlook the fundamental issues stemming from substance abuse itself. There’s little evidence to suggest cash helps reduce child abuse rates.
Moreover, the report hints at a way to prevent harm without more scrutiny or removal of children, expressing disappointment that treatment is often viewed as coercive. However, in many scenarios, what’s truly necessary is a certain level of enforcement.
The ongoing efforts, such as Washington state’s Keeping Families Together Act—aimed at curbing foster care placements—have unfortunately had tragic outcomes, with over 100 children suffering severe harm while living in homes deemed unsafe by authorities. A notable portion of parents declined offered assistance.
This raises questions about whether we set unrealistic benchmarks for what “good parenting” looks like. Perhaps, if we could inquire of the children involved, we’d gather a different perspective.
