Talk:Child protection

message: It would be good if someone could add material on other aspects of Child welfare, such as AFDC, food stamps, and maybe even a brief history section that would describe the history of child welfare in the UK, Canada, and the US. My backgroud is primarily in the eval and trt of children and adolescents, mostly in or from the child welfare system  Dr. Becker-Weidmantalk 20:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More needed

message: As is customary, most social services related articles get around to mentioning that men are abusing women (and presumably or explicitly, children as well)--but fail to mention that there is FAR MORE NEGLECT than abuse, and that men are the victims well over a third of the time.  Everyone reading this entry should note that children living with both of their biological parents (under the same roof) are dramatically less involved in child welfare systems, they complete school far more often and are dramatically less involved in the criminal justice system.  It should also be a lot clearer that women are far more involved in child neglect and homicide than men and overall neglect leads to placements away from the home ten times as often as abuse.  Homebuilding75.41.35.141 (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Less Feminist Dogma Needed

message: I added in the US History and policy and legislation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikialo (talk • contribs) 17:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: A brief History Section

message: how is it possible to "protect children" (from their abusive parents) AND "encourage family stability" ?????????????????
i would have thought these objectives were mutually exclusive 202.0.106.130 04:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. Does this discussion relate to how we can all make this article better? If not, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for talking about things that don't actually relate to Encyclopedia. If that's the case, sorry :( GracenotesT § 04:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is that the mission of most state or county departments of social servies is to both protect children and encourage family stability.  So, for example, family support services are provided to help abusive/neglectful parents become better parents and thus keep families together.  This is not a NPOV issue, but a factual issue. DPetersontalk 14:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  government services 

message: Commenting on attachment disorders is not particularly helpful, given the fact that in this questionable reference, all entries are "voted in" by plebiscite.  It's hardly useful to comment on a child's inability to "attach" to anything, when there has been no history of  something (both of their biological parents) to attach to.  Discussing the best means for children to build peer relationships and adult relationships would be far more helpful.  Homebuilding  75.41.35.141 (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: DSM References Are Not Helpful

message: My understanding of the system is that woman are encouraged to end their relationships with their abusers (violent and abusive men) the reason being if they don't their children will be placed into the custody of the state. Is that correct? 202.0.106.130 01:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite a reference to support that statement? DPetersontalk 14:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "protect children and encourage family stability" 

message: could we please have an explanation SPECIFICALLY what kind of harm we are talking about and SPECIFICALLY what measures are we are talking about. somes examples could be helpful. 202.0.106.130 02:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "take adequate measures to protect a child from harm" 

message: I think the article could include a section on PTSD. Specifically does placing children into state custody (or offering to do so) cause PTSD or any other medical conditions? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? 202.0.106.130 02:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-traumatic stress disorder  

message: I think this section could be expanded to include a more comprehensive listing of the reasons children come to the attention of child welfare social workers. Some specific examples could be helpful. Here is a hypothetical example to serve as a springboard for discussion as to how best to expand this section:
the parents host a wild party and everyone in the neighbourhood is invited except for those unfriendly people at number 32 who the parents somehow overlooked. while everyone in the neighbourhood is having a good time the children are at their grandparents place. next day the people at number 32 report the parents to CPS stating their home is an unsuitable environment to raise children. when child welfare come round to investigate the parents assert that raising kids is hard enough without also reporting to the government.
potentially what could be the consequences?
202.0.106.130 02:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a casebook.  Such discussions as you propose are not within the scope of an encyclopeida article. DPetersontalk 14:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: as far as i can see the convention throughout wikipedia is to illustrate theoretical ideas with practical examples drawn from popular culture such as anecdotal evidence in the media   202.0.106.130 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Material must meet Wikipedia standards of being verifiable and also appropriate for encyclopedia articles, meaning NPOV and various other policies and procedures.  Anecdotal material is not consistent with Wikipedia standards.  DPetersontalk 03:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Personal attacks are not acceptable conduct in Wikipedia.  Please read the Wikipedia policies and talk page guidelines for appropriate conduct DPetersontalk 15:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "children who come to the attention of child welfare social workers" 

message: Your change  was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.
Deleting the comments of others on a talk page is considered vandalism.  Plese do not continue such behavior. DPetersontalk 22:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''''For user 202.0.106.130''''

message: I removed the following section because there are not verifiable citations or references to support was appears to be a specific POV series of statements.  If supporting references can be cited that meet the Wikipedia standard of being verifiable then the section can be added back. "===Disproportionality & Disparity in the Child Welfare System==="
In the United States, data suggests that a disproportionate number of minority children, particularly African American and Native American children, enter the foster care system.  Additionally, once they enter foster care, research suggests that they are likely to remain in care longer.  This disparity exists despite the fact that research shows no difference in the rate of abuse and neglect among minority populations when compared to Caucasian children.  (The National Incidence Studies conducted in phases in 1980, 1986, and 1993 established that the rate of abuse among children of color is not higher than that of white children.)
Disproportionality is not unique to the child welfare system.  Juvenile justice and education also have been challenged by disproportionate negative contact of minority children.  Because of the overlap in these systems, it is likely that this phenomenon within multiple systems may be related.  Several organizations and individuals are attempting to address this through analysis, community outreach, and collaboration aimed at reducing disparity and disproportionality.
DPetersontalk 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the following material is also unsourced: This disparity exists despite the fact that research shows no difference in the rate of abuse and neglect among minority populations when compared to Caucasian children. (The National Incidence Studies conducted in phases in 1980, 1986, and 1993 established that the rate of abuse among children of color is not higher than that of white children.) Disproportionality is not unique to the child welfare system. Juvenile justice and education also have been challenged by disproportionate negative contact of minority children. Because of the overlap in these systems, it is likely that this phenomenon within multiple systems may be related. Several organizations and individuals are attempting to address this through analysis, community outreach, and collaboration aimed at reducing disparity and disproportionality. DPetersontalk 02:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recently removed section on "disproportionality"

message: Evansville Courier & Press. September 24, 2004: "....systemic and premeditated deprivations of fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. and Indiana constitutions...."  
202.0.106.130 08:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  law suit against state child welfare system 

message: Please see Talk:Child_abuse#ivorcatt.com_material, regarding edits done to this article and others, which I feel should be discussed. Clayboy 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I did not delete that content, I would say it was deleted because the content was a copyright violation. Read Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors.27_rights_and_obligations. The bottom of the submission form also says "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted." -- Cameron Dewe 08:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: See this edit history and the above note by Clayboy for an explanation. -- Cameron Dewe 09:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that if it is less than 400 words it is considered fair use if stating these words are needed to purvey the concept. Fraberj (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ivorcatt.com material

message: i amwriting from a shared IP used by both children and adults. i contributed the content below from a different shared IP but it was deleted.  210.87.18.78 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I did not delete that content, I would say it was deleted because the content was a copyright violation. Read Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors.27_rights_and_obligations. The bottom of the submission form also says "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted." -- Cameron Dewe 08:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: See this edit history and the above note by Clayboy for an explanation. -- Cameron Dewe 09:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that if it is less than 400 words it is considered fair use if stating these words are needed to purvey the concept. Fraberj (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  content deleted 

message: The term Child welfare has different meanings around the world. Firstly, definitions of a Child vary around the world, with people under some age that seems to vary anywhere between 10 and 25 (even in one jurisdiction) being applicable. Also, Welfare is the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being, quality of life. 
As this article stands  it seems to be talking about Child Welfare, with a capital W. That means the article is probably talking about one of the following redirects, Child Welfare, Child Welfare Bureau, Child protection; all of which are probably Child Protective Services, and so much of the current contents of this article are better placed there, though summarised here. Child welfare advocates recognise that child welfare agencies are a tertiary intervention, with social services and community services playing far more significant secondary and primary roles in promoting child welfare.
What I think this article should also discuss are the wider aspects of the topic concerning the welfare of children. While child abuse is one aspect, other need to be covered, including child poverty, early education, child wellness, immunisation and other social interventions that apply to all children to promote their welfare. It should probably also discuss the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the role of parents, guardianship and other legal protections of children. It might even cover issues like child support, free education, minimum working ages and children's involvement in decision making processes such as Courts, School Governance and the overall democratic process. -- Cameron Dewe 23:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide views 

message: I have removed Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy from this page. This little known therapy has been extensively advertised on Wiki as evidence based, sometimes the only evidence based treatment for a variety of disorders affecting attachment. Theraplay, also little known and not evidence based has also been advertised in this way. A range of attachment articles including attachment therapy are currently before ArbCom. In the course of this it has transpired that of the 6 users promoting DDP and Theraplay and controlling these pages, DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood, four are definitely socks and have been blocked, and the other two have been blocked for one year. The attachment related pages are in the course of being rewritten. Fainites barley 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DDP

message: I have proposed a merger of these two articles, as they seem to be more or less both on the same topic from a particularly US perspective. However, I am not an expert on the matter, so I thought it was worth mentioning here; could more knowledgable editors take a look and comment on the relevant talk page? DWaterson (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge of [[Child and family services]] and [[Child Protective Services]]

message: Someone needs to take a look at that british section.  "Designated Child-Stealing Officer"
"Snitches", "Abduction" instead of adoption?  This does not present balanced viewpoint.
198.83.30.88 (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: British Section

message: responding to a tag, i made a basic copyedit to Au section - 19:19, 16 September 2008 - to try and make it more readable but edit has been reverted by (apparently) previous editor. Does any other editor want to take a look and see what they think? Scriblio (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia Section 

message: I appreciate you may consider my contribution biased. However there is substantial evidence of my views being true- I don't believe in gossip or slander. And if you think the phrase I have rendered "common abduction framework"= "adoption", you dont understand the CP/ childrens services system in England. It refers to the pernicious, intrusive, unwarranted idea of sharing files among various "professionals" without consent, as I explain. It is a desecration of innocent young Victoria Climbie for her death to be used as justification.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.80.183 (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Section 

message: I already edited a number of words which were considered to be non-NPOV, the article as it is now should not be further cut to propitiate pro-social services campaigners. (I wonder if the people editwarring with me are in fact SSD, CAFCASS or eCAF practitioners.)My comments are NOT A RANT, they are civilized discussion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.22.213 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: How can Child Protection Laws get post-college adults (about age 22+) removed from a church's Youth/College group?  Is it because they are a lot older than the youngest kids in the group?  I was removed from one last year.  I'm 27.  The pastor said it was because I'm so much older than some of the kids in that group.  The youngest one is 13.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.209.16 (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church 

message: This whole article seems to be pro-CPS and doesn't mention any of the controversies or cases where CPS has been used to intimidate people. I could find some news articles for sourcing purposes. Does anyone object?
72.70.155.131 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article now seems to contain a disproportionate amount of material critical of USA social services although there is very little basic information about what their powers and roles are. Most of the article is entirely USA-centric. I would suggest that there be a separate article on the USA CPS containing the details and that this article give a broader view of their role and function and a summary of criticism with a link to a comprehensive more focussed article on the CPS in the USA. Fainites barleyscribs 17:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no criticism section? 

message: Why is there only one country (United Kingdom) for Protection by Country? Other countries have child protection laws that cannot be ignored. I would like to help find other child protection laws however, that would be beyond my scope because there would simply be too much information that needs to be sought. Azndrumsticks (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection by Country

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Child welfare. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 1#Child welfare until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Child welfare" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Noting agreement among several experienced aditors at AN/I (subsection "Suggestion"), I have removed the two large additions made on 24 March by : addition; my removal. As noted at AN/I, the referencing is inadequate, notably in including general references to websites rather than to specific pages/articles available through them. The tone is editorialising and personalised, and the English is weak: example 1: ; example 2:  There may be useful material here; the article is very much in need of internationalisation. There is also a tag noting unsuitable tone already present, so the editor may well have been misled by phrasing already present in the article, for example as to the permissibility of "you" and instructions to the reader, of emotive language such as "loot", and (not in either example but elsewhere in the added text) of "our", whether this was intended to refer to parents/society in general or to the people of a particular country. So I invite discussion on whether anything I have removed should be restored with better wording and referencing, and if not, this may be an opportunity to suggest how best to get the article away from being UK-centric. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of extensive additions made in March 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jut008 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing