Open Writing

I know that it’s a hopeless and impractical thought, but I have always wished that parenting could be a privilege not a right. Having the prerequisite organs to produce children or gaining access to invitro fertilisation should not give people automatic right to breed.

There have been recent reports of two women in France who suffocated their new born babies (several between them) one of them was quoted to have said that two children was enough, some women in this country it is reported, are dumping babies in cardboard boxes and leaving them to die, some men are violent to their children or violate them or throw them off bridges. Despite the myths and the emotive issues surrounding parenting, not everyone is suited to it.

That’s why I understood Norman Geschke’s rant. Mr Geschke is a former Victorian ombudsman. He recently caused a controversy by stating serial child neglect / abuse parents should be sterilised. 'Keeping children with abusive parents is "sentencing" vulnerable kids to a life without proper care.’

My first instinct when I read about his remarks was to want to shout hooray from the rooftops. It was a wonderful fantasy for the two seconds that it lasted. Then I thought it through and I was forced, reluctantly, to disagree.

Love Democracy or hate it, what you get is governments that you can toss out if they do the wrong thing by you and a powerful lobby group called people power. Unfortunately you also get experts. Whenever an issue comes up experts are hauled out to respond with quotes but many of them seem to let it all sink into back into the subconscious once the furore is over. Victoria's Child Safety Commissioner Bernie Geary has ‘savaged the concept [of sterilisation] as inhumane.'

Stating what’s obvious to the rest of us is one thing, but the public expects more from a Child Safety Commissioner. How much more impressive would it have been had he followed up that statement with an idea for a workable solution on protecting children.

Joe Tucci Australian Childhood Foundation chief executive seems to be one of a very few proactive fighters for children's rights. He is constantly and consistently called out for an opinion. But more importantly he is constantly and consistently giving voice to his opinions whether asked for them or not. Tucci doesn’t believe in sterilising parents either, but he says that he prefers harsher rules for parents who have a history of abuse. And he wants the rules about terminating rights to be clearer than they currently are. Sounds simple doesn't it?

I think that instead of some emotional experts getting emotive about sterilisation, they should push for stronger laws that will not hesitate in taking vulnerable children from their abusive parents? No second chances, for heaven’s sake. Despite the neo-think, neo-babble children are not better off with such parents. I believe in immediate action without the usual pitty-pattying around political correctness. Surely that’s what most of us want.

Why not push for hefty jail sentences? The civil libertarians will be up in arms about it all, but give them a swift clip across the ears, they will be the first to tell you it didn’t hurt and just maybe it will remind them that the vulnerable are also worthy of their attention.

Of course that begs question, where would these children go? As someone once said, ‘there’s the rub’. I say anywhere but to parents who rape or beat their children or serially abuse them in other even more unmentionable ways. There has been a fair bit of money spent on finding solutions, the will is there, but despite all the theories nobody has yet arrived at a one size fits all solution. Possibly because there’s more than one answer and all should be considered. Institutes that deal with children should also be scrutinised and made accountable as should extended families and foster parents who are to be considered. When we’re dealing with the safety of children checks and balances are vital.

In a piece published on the ABC website, Cathy Humphreys, the Alfred Felton Chair of Child and Family Welfare at University of Melbourne stated that the simple solution (taking children from abusive parents) isn’t necessarily the best one. Partly because it isn’t feasible. There aren’t enough people available to rescue large numbers of children into alternative care. Ms Humphreys believes that the better solution would be to invest in ‘the heavy end of child protection’ and in supportive family services for dysfunctional families at the poor end of the socio-economic scale. ‘Strong family services are needed to support children in their families before significant harm is caused to children through abuse.’ It’s a valid but limited thought, because it addresses only one sort of problem. Financial support or lack of it, isn’t the only reason some adults abuse their children. What does one do with the rest? Perhaps a beginning would be to work out the reason for the shortfall in ‘foster care and kinship care placements, perhaps it’s they who aren’t getting enough support, financial or other, then aim those strong support services their way.

**

To read more of Mary's articles please click on http://www.openwriting.com/archives/a_clutch_of_pearlies/