Children in danger

[emeraldkity4]

<p>Lately- ( actually for the last several years) it seems that every week we read about children being grossly abused- neglected or even killed.</p>

<p>[ABC</a> News: Killing Your Loved Ones – Why?](<a href=“Mothers and Fathers Who Murder - ABC News”>Mothers and Fathers Who Murder - ABC News)
[Man</a> Accused Of Throwing Child Onto Freeway Arrested - KITV-TV - MSNBC.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22718160/]Man”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22718160/)</p>

<p>I think we think of ourselves as a country that loves children and families- but I don’t see much evidence.</p>

<p>I admit I am not a sociologist, but obviously the pressures are multicausal.
We have children living in high rates of poverty in US.</p>

<p>*Nearly 13 million American children live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, which is $20,650 a year for a family of four. The number of children living in poverty increased by 11 percent between 2000 and 2006. There are 1.2 million more children living in poverty today than in 2000.
Not only are these numbers troubling, the official poverty measure tells only part of the story—it is widely viewed as a flawed metric of economic hardship (see box). Research consistently shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice the federal poverty level to make ends meet. Children living in families with incomes below this level—for 2006, about $41,000 for a family of four—are referred to as low income. Thirty-nine percent of the nation’s children—more than 28 million in 2006—live in low-income families. *
[NCCP</a> | Who are America’s Poor Children?](<a href=“http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_787.html]NCCP”>http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_787.html)</p>

<p>And I totally agree with their statement that the stated poverty rate in the US, still leaves out many families who are really struggling to cover basic needs, but leaves them ineligible for support.</p>

<p>

The Official, Yet Flawed, Poverty Measure 2</p>

<p>The current U.S. poverty measure is widely acknowledged to be inadequate. Although considerable research has been done on alternative methods to measure income poverty, we lack the political will necessary to implement an official change.</p>

<p>Data collected in the 1950s indicated that families spent about one-third of their income on food. So the poverty level was set at three times food costs. Since then, the measure has been updated only for inflation. Yet food now comprises far less than a third of an average family’s expenses, while the costs of housing, child care, health care, and transportation have grown disproportionately.</p>

<p>The official poverty measure takes into account a variety of income sources, including earnings, interest, dividends, and benefits, such as Social Security and cash assistance. It does not, however, include the value of the major benefit programs that assist low-income families—the federal Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, Medicaid, and housing and child care assistance.</p>

<p>On the expense side, the official poverty measure does not account for payroll and income taxes or work-related expenses, such as child care and transportation. Nor does it take into account varying family needs, such as out-of-pocket medical expenses. And finally, the poverty measure does not adjust for the substantial variation in the cost of living from state to state and between urban and rural areas.

</p>

<p>Many jobs don’t pay a living wage- & they are not the kind of jobs that ever will. Jobs that used to pay a decent wage-have stagnated, with a larger portion of pay going towards benefits that have risen in cost but declined in coverage.</p>

<p>highlight several countries – including France, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Canada – that provide workable models. Although the details vary, these countries provide some combination of job protection and paid maternal and paternal leave on the birth of a child, provisions for reduced hour and high quality part-time work, at least four weeks of paid vacation each year, and access to free or very inexpensive public early childhood education and quality child care</p>

<p>[uwnews.org</a> | Europe, Canada ahead of U.S. in creating family-friendly policies, say authors | University of Washington News and Information](<a href=“http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=3956]uwnews.org”>http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=3956)</p>

<p>On this CC college site, I rarely venture off the parent board, but when I do, I am struck by the numbers of kids who are on their own, even though under 24, who don’t have a parent or other adult responsible for them.
*
It isn’t pretty on the streets of Seattle, or any big city, if you are a homeless adolescent. But recent research shows life on the street may be an improvement over what many children face at home.</p>

<p>Every night an estimated 2 million adolescents – 2,000 of them in Seattle – roam the streets of America without a permanent place to live. And those numbers are probably on the low side “because it is easy to count kids in shelters, but how do you cou nt kids living under bridges or in abandoned buildings?” asks Ana Mari Cauce, a University of Washington psychology professor, who has been studying homeless street kids for seven years.*
[uwnews.org</a> | For street kids the streets are mean, but they may be better than home | University of Washington News and Information](<a href=“http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=2985]uwnews.org”>http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=2985)</p>

<p>Why do we want to claim that children & families are important- but we don’t want to walk our talk?</p>

[wasj]

<p>Kitty, I understand and agree with your outrage.</p>

<p>You identify some of the reasons yourself: the poverty, struggling parents, lack of resources.</p>

<p>Many children on the streets are there to escape abuse at home, which is usually the result of “the compulsion to repeat”, meaning the parents were also abused.</p>

<p>Other parents just do not understand how to parent. I know highly educated and financially comfortable parents who are abusive, because their education is mainly in business, and that is all they know.</p>

<p>Money for social services for the poor also contribute to the problem. We have all read the stories about abused children who were known to the authorities, who fell through the cracks, because of under staffing.</p>

<p>The reasons are endless.</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>I think events like this are tragic but I don’t think it’s tied to income level. There are countless examples of poor people who would never throw their kids from a bridge and examples of middle-income and higher who do despicable things to their kids. Unfortunately, there was another event reported today:</p>

<p>

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A woman with a history of mental illness purposely walked her young niece and nephew into oncoming interstate traffic to commit a double-murder suicide, a prosecutor said Friday.
…
She then stopped the car, removed her clothes and undressed the children, took both of them into her arms and walked onto the highway. She and the children were struck by two cars and killed.
…
Thibault, of Bellingham, was a stay-at-home mom who was active with her church and loved to be with her own two teenage children. She was one of eight daughters and loved organizing family gatherings.
…

[FOXNews.com</a> - Woman Killed Self, 2 Children When She Walked Into Traffic on Interstate - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News](<a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323906,00.html]FOXNews.com”>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323906,00.html)</p>