Wanted an entire village for children (2)

In the event that children are removed from the home, a decision must be made about the child’s future prospects. Can he come home again or does the perspective have to be somewhere else, eg in a foster family, a family home, or in a residential establishment? The term “acceptable term” is used in this resolution. Based on attachment theory, a guideline has been developed in which the acceptable term for children as young as 5 years old is six months and one year for children slightly older. So after the accepted duration, the child’s future no longer rests with the biological parent(s). Within six months or a year, problems with biological parents are often not resolved, and due to the waiting lists alone, they usually do not work. Everything goes wrong in childcare. To be sure, it is not only the tax authorities that have misbehaved, but also neighborhood teams, Safe at Home organisations, accredited institutions, schools, the Child Protection Board and even juvenile courts are involved in unfair situations and in making very little effort to protect children.. to allow for the opportunity to return. Home. These organizations form a monopolistic network, and often believe in their right.

After placement outside the home, children often face multiple relocations, as suddenly the concept of attachment no longer fits. In the Netherlands, more than 40,000 children no longer live at home, for example in a residential institution, and 75% of these children are psychologically or physically abused in the institution. Experts point to the hopeful bona fide placement in an institution such as the conveyor belt for closed reception. Due to the growing criticism, the guide’s authors are now concerned about their own reputation and have begun revising the guideline. They’ve been working on this since the fall of 2021. You can see this as a form of damage control. The Netherlands Institute of Psychologists also has this guideline and does not, of course, want to blame it for not returning the children after the situation in the original family has improved.

So the NIP now brings out the message that the accepted term is different for every child and that the guideline’s incorrect use is due to young professionals who misinterpreted the guideline. So it’s not the directive’s creators, but rather its misinterpretation by others. Why not offer their deepest apologies for all the wrong decisions that were made on the basis of the guiding principles they participated in and that have transformed the lives of so many children in such a dramatic way?

A young woman born in Romania was already given birth as an infant into an adoptive family in the Netherlands. She had a good childhood, slept well and is very satisfied with her life. In adulthood, she felt the need to really know her parents. It took a lot of effort, but she found her mother again. Her father is unknown. Mother and daughter cried their eyes out at the meeting and then developed a deeply meaningful relationship. Communication was of course an issue. What is the accepted term here? Attachment as interpreted by youth care is not discussed here at all however there is intense love, perhaps there is mother-daughter entanglement or prenatal bonding.

We love categories. These parents are wrong, and these adoptive parents are right. Could it be that these wrong parents also have strong points? And can adoptive parents have their problems, too? What kind of message does a child who has been removed from his or her parents receive, for example because of an allowance issue? Your parents are bad, crooks, crooks. You are with us now and we are good? What does it mean to form a child’s identity? Will he wonder if he himself is bad now? And if he secretly loves his parents and must also love his adoptive parents, how complicated is that?

Our suggestion: stop thinking or either. Think a lot about raising the child together and not alienating each other. If biological parents and adoptive parents raise children who have been taken out of their home together, then there is an acceptable childhood for the children. Of course there can be problems with cooperation between biological parents and other teachers, they are everywhere, including between parents and teachers. A third party can mediate disputes.

In this way it is also possible to collaborate with the leaders of the residential enterprise groups. Why does a child have to live in an institution every day, year after year? Why is he not allowed to mix with his biological parents, grandparents, and cousins? And there are ways to involve the community in solving problems within the family, such as a family group plan or community support. Experts working in the Foundation may be deployed to enable a safe stay at home, with the Foundation acting as a facilitator.

Rob van Boven (1951) is a psychiatrist and registered psychotherapist. He was a consultant to several organizations (drug and addiction counseling, skills workshops) and worked as a treatment coordinator in a psychiatric institution for fifteen years. With Rob van Boven, the survivor’s faith becomes conscious and given the right place. The goal is to be free from the compulsion of belief and to develop awareness along with these patterns of thinking and feelings. The more you are freed from the faith of the survivor, without fighting him, but by giving him his due place, the more free you can live.
Luke Moore (1952) is a psychologist who has written three books on the method of community support assistance that he developed himself. He is a member of the Dzogchen Community Netherlands. Dzogchen is a form of Tibetan Buddhism that attaches great importance to the development of individual consciousness. In this tradition one strives not to double consciousness. Not only are people aware (you know you’re reading this), but you can also be aware of that first awareness. This meta-consciousness is called “perception”.

Leave a Comment