Parents, grandparents, teachers, and others genuinely concerned about a child who is in distress – but particularly parents – experience pain, anxiety and often frustration. A quick-fix is a very seductive option to take away their suffering. I gave examples of two such options in a previous post that would have been common in decades past in Ireland.
Now there are so many parallels between the historical quick fix solutions to emotional distress and the current quick fix solutions, that I find it impossible to ignore them.
For example:
~ Children’s circumstances caused by possible State or institutional neglect such as homelessness, poor accommodation, inadequate schooling, inadequate healthcare etc. are rarely if ever subject to urgent action. They may be enquired into and some meaningless surveys and reports may be produced. But action? No!
~ The State or the medical establishment don’t see anything wrong with medicating children to get them to behave better. (Or if they do – I don’t hear them saying it). Sometimes parents may be entitled to some sort of monetary gain if their child has some condition or other.
~ Because practitioners are short of time and resources they may be unwilling to journey with parents. As a result they may unwittingly discourage dialogue about how they might be true and trusted partners in their children’s healing with necessary supports to do that.
~ Practitioners’ consciences are salved as they conclude that we’ve done all we can.
~ The intention is that the suffering of the child, the parents and, perhaps, other members of the family will be eased without (or with minimal) exploration of what is going on within the family, in particular the parents’ behaviour, circumstances and/or the parental relationship. (Sometimes the parent(s) might be crying out for help themselves but their cries are not heard).
~ Ultimately, if a child’s behaviour is so troubled that he cannot remain in the family home any longer, parents may hand over the healing of their child to an institution such as a children’s home, with the full agreement of the state. Sometimes this might alleviate the suffering of the child, and, indeed, contribute significantly to his healing. However, in many scenarios, the suffering of the child may be higher because the institution, with the best will in the world, is almost always a poor substitute to a secure home [1].
Are the above points familiar to anyone?
Do you agree or disagree?
Is this the best we can do?
[1]. I have known many vulnerable children from families that struggled to cope, and for whom the care home was the first institution on the road that ultimately led to imprisonment.