Who "reported" child?

Who "reported" child? March 30, 2013. By Arthur Porto It is one of those issues that make lots of noise and that are then processed with lack of time-specific media shortcuts to explain, understand and analyse. And case becomes even more important that it is a measure voted against the advice of the Government in the Senate where the majority, left, is in principle favourable to the Executive. What is it? Senators voted Wednesday, March 27, unanimously, for a proposal of UMP Act which provides that, when a child is entrusted to the child welfare services (ASE), the payment of family allowances and the allocation of school is made directly to the ASE. This is already the case in legal investments. Magistrates indicated in the interim order placement the maintenance of family benefits to families, or the payment to the General Council, as they can add the requirement for a financial contribution from parents. Why so legislate? In investments administrative it is with social workers and the Inspector of childhood that things are organized and "negotiate" between family and the administration based on the study of the situation, always singular of the parents and the child. And why, as soon as a child is "removed" to his family by judicial measure parents can continue to benefit from family benefits while the aim of these grants is to support families with children, therefore intended to raise children, in addition to other measures like the tax abatement on the income or aid to housing. If these benefits are maintained, the intention to allow this aid, that parents remain mobilized despite the separation, can keep their homes for the children in the exercise of the right to accommodation in weekend or holidays, help families in financial difficulty to make purchases for their children, even if the locker room is borne by ESA. These benefits are also sometimes used for parents to pay a transport ticket if instead of their child home is remote, because the administration travel voucher. It is not by laxity or assistantship that these benefits are maintained. This is because often, almost always, there no other options facing the material reality of parents to remain and maintain links to prepare for the return. And yet, is this really the purpose, destination of family allowances? What understanding can we have when we raised her children if the neighbor has the same rights (allowances are a right) while his children to him are the responsibility of the public service? What commitment and how taking responsibility can have these parents if they told that they will still keep the benefits even if their children are not there? Allowances are to raise the child and you could say that they should 'follow' the child where it is and where it is needed. And yet, if families, very various and multiple reasons behind the decision of placement of children (in home, in foster care, in place of life, in a ' third trustworthy ' or another Member of the family), remain isolated, without social support, educational and even psychological, how can we consider the return of the child to its natural habitat in the best possible conditions? That is why it seems to me that the question is not "still stigmatize more parents of children in care" but to have a genuine social and educational policy for parents whose children for the reasons most various are subject to a measure of removal from the family environment. This assumes, and perhaps this is one of the issues that families are stigmatized, equipment sufficient teams monitoring of placement of social assistance to childhood. The parents of the children in care are not entitled to family allowances for parents raising their children, but they are entitled to a real support to keep parents and resume as soon as their children depending on the evolution of their relationship and what right is granted not by default, but by a different policy for childhood. Minister would have been more convincing if it was engaged in accompanying measures respecting parents and helping them to overcome this "bad pass" which was that their children were forced to leave the family home.