Removing Children from the Home for Reasons of Poverty Persuasive Essay by scribbler

Removing Children from the Home for Reasons of Poverty
A review of the literature on the removal of children from their family when the primary concern is poverty.
# 153170 | 1,361 words | 5 sources | APA | 2013 | US

$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now


This paper looks at how states vary in their definitions of child maltreatment with respect to conditions of poverty and examines studies that show that removing a child from his parents can be more traumatic than allowing the child to live in conditions of poverty. The paper proposes changes to federal mandates that will force states to define neglect in terms of more than just the family's current economic situation, and also weighs the advantages and disadvantages of current definitions of child neglect. This paper proposes that if parents are loving and nurturing, measures must be taken to improve the living conditions for the family rather than removing the child.

Current Law
Current Research and Studies
Proposed Changes
Advantages and Disadvantages of Current Law

From the Paper:

"States vary in their definitions of child maltreatment with respect to conditions of poverty. While some states have highly specific criteria for determining poverty versus genuine neglect, others still have fuzzy definitions open to interpretation or misinterpretation. In Michigan, for example, "an officer or agent may take any child into custody 'whose surroundings endanger his or her health, morals, or welfare' without a court order (Turcios & al, 2009). This vagueness allows for situations in which children are removed without sufficient cause, often causing the child more harm than good (Keegan Eamon & Kopels, 2004).
"Pennsylvania, however, is one example of a state with adequate guidelines to prevent the premature removal of a child for reasons involving poverty. In Pennsylvania, officers or child welfare workers must "have reasonable grounds to believe that the child is su ering from illness or injury or is in imminent danger from his surroundings, and that his removal is necessary" (Turcios & al, 2009). Pennsylvania also has clear-cut definitions for child abuse, including: the act or failure to act must be nonaccidental; the act or failure to act must create "an imminent risk" (physical or sexual) to the child; the child's life must be endangered or development impaired as a result of inadequate resources or medical care (Turcios & al, 2009)."

Sample of Sources Used:

  • Keegan Eamon, M., & Kopels, S. (2004). For reasons of poverty: court challenges to child welfare practices and mandated programs. Children and Youth Services Review , 26 (9), 821-836.
  • Mangold, S. (2007). Poor Enough to Be Eligible? Child Abuse, Neglect and the Poverty Requirement. St. John's Law Review , 81 (3), 575+.
  • Nice, J. (2008). No Scrutiny Whatsoever: Deconstitutionalization of Poverty Law, Dual Rules of Law, & Dialogic Default. Fordham Urban Law Journal , 35 (3), 629+.
  • Paxson, C., & Haskins, R. (2009). Introducing the Issue. The Future of Children , 19 (2), 3+.
  • Turcios, E., & al, e. (2009). Remaining vs. Removal: Preventing Premature Removal when Poverty is Confused With Neglect. Michigan Child Welfare Law Journal , 20-25.

Cite this Persuasive Essay:

APA Format

Removing Children from the Home for Reasons of Poverty (2013, May 05) Retrieved March 20, 2023, from

MLA Format

"Removing Children from the Home for Reasons of Poverty" 05 May 2013. Web. 20 March. 2023. <>