The Myth of Early Interventions and Foster Care Thalamus Message Board
by Peter Klevius
Also read about the Swedish Un-armed and Inhumane Justitia
Add your text here
-Why pay certain, non-biological "parents" for having children when bio- and adoptive parents don't get almost anything?
-Foster homes in Sweden tend to change into institutions because of economic reasoning - and there goes the argument for having "family-placements"!
-A general citizen salary would eliminate this inhumane and costly child trade and social paradox.
There exists a deep-rooted and non-substantial but state-sponsored belief that early interventions could protect children from becoming violent criminals later in life. Nothing could be more misleading and such statements could even be reversed. A "perfect" child could easily end up anywhere if it, in its teens, suddenly looses its main social attachment, e g parents, kins etc. This is a well known fact since the days of Travis Hirschi's social bond theory. We cannot immunize our children against delinquency when they are small but rather check out that their strings of continuous basic attachment does not vanish at a time when they are the most vulnarable and often have the least contact with important long-term adults (in Sweden the average interaction time between parent and child has dropped down to 3,5 ninutes per day) , i.e. exactly the opposite to state interventions such as placements on flimsy grounds in institutions and foster homes (of course the economic grounds for having foster kids or institutions are seldom flimsy but that aspect rises the question whether we should allow such destructive trading of children?)!

Example: An Inuit community was moved from its home to a "better" place with modern accommodations etc. Within a year after the move the teens were sniffing un-healthy gases behind the houses. Early interventions...?!

It should be considered a grave criminal act to remove a child from its roots without knowing for sure that the placement is not only a better alternative but the only alternative! If there is a real abuser he/she, not the child should be removed/treated.

But some might argue that early interventions may be done professionally within the family and without a placement. Unfortunately "professional"  treatment almost always ends up in an un-balanced power relation far from an open and healthy interaction with the family and the child.

Perhaps the most dangerous of intervention approaches are those based on psychoanalytic/sex-segregated  thinking/theories because such un-scintifical psychology/psychiatry is always doomed to fail and the assessments most often ends up in either disaster or a brain-washed (to psychoanalytic interpretations of one's life, parents etc) adult. Read more on the other links!