Nothing personal, but far too much of this post is completely absurd. To begin with it is completely irrelevant to the story as the extent of family services involvement in the case discussed is that they conducted an investigation based on a report that a responsible party neglected or abused a child. That is what they do. Secondly, as the coaches in question don't have custody of the children, family services won't be taking the children from their parents -- the coaches will end up with a black mark on their record that will prevent them from being employed in a position to care for children.
I understand that Seattle has a major homeless child problem, however I'd be willing to bet that the children you speak of are there not due to family and youth services but rather neglectful or abusive parents. Hence the need for said services.
Family and youth services are not "harvesting" children. That is absurd. Despite federal funding it still costs counties more to keep kids in foster care than it does to help them remain in the home. As you said, "They know full well that it costs 1000% more to take kids than to assist the parents if left in the home." There is no profit motive.
It is a fair criticism to point out that they often put kids in foster care because it is easier -- not because it is profitable. It is absolutely true that foster homes in many cases, no where near all, are just as bad or worse than their homes of origin. There is also most certainly a bias against families of lower socioeconomic status which truly is an issue as conditions of poverty are taken for neglect which then sets the process in motion in a ham handed, often unhelpful way.
This is an issue that interests me. I would love to stand corrected with data that supports the claims you have made as I am open to thinking about this differently.
= new reply since forum marked as read
