Triple Jeopardy/The child’s dilemma
By Gary W. Reece, Ph.D.
Yesterday an 8 year old boy was beaten and tortured by his mother’s boyfriend while she watched. He had a skull fracture, broken ribs and cigarette burns over large portions of his body, he died of his injuries. It was reported that Social Services had made several previous visits to his home. In my recently published book Broken Systems Shattered Lives this type of occurrence is documented. It was also the subject of reports in the Los Angeles Times which has called for and caused many investigations. Over the years it has been well documented that several hundred children have died in care. I wish to explore the plight of children in the foster/adopt system in this blog. I am calling it Triple Jeopardy. First let’s look at the child’s dilemma.
The child’s dilemma is caused by dependency on a parent (s) for protection, safety, security and nurturance. This is rightfully so. That is the parent’s job, to provide a safe, secure, and nurturing environment for their children. The problem for many children not only in Los Angeles, but all around the world, is that their parents are not providing a safe haven. What is a child to do when he/she finds themselves dependent upon a parent who may be violent, drug addicted, mentally ill, neglectful, dismissive, or just plain inadequate? It is a very natural and normal instinct for a child to seek proximity to a parent when under threat. But what is the child to do if the parent is the source of threat? This is the first position of jeopardy. One author characterized it like being dependent on a terrorist. The child cannot leave, for fear of abandonment and inability to take care off himself. If the child stays, there is realistic danger and the probability of harm. This is a problem of fright without solution. What is a child to do?
The second condition of jeopardy comes into play when the child is removed because of “dangerous-unsafe home conditions”. Stop and think for a moment about what removal from home and family represents. What is lost for the child? First, as was previously discussed, the child’s place in the family, the personal and family narrative, is disrupted. Because of such an inborn need to belong, when a child is removed from any family the whole context of that child’s life is lost. This is a major connection. Because we all feel a need to be connected to the people of our past, without being able to draw on this connection, this narrative, it is very difficult to have a base for a safe and secure future. Moreover, it is difficult to grow up as a psychologically healthy adult if we are denied access to our own history. It is like a tree being cut off at the roots. Family, neighborhood, toys, friends, pets, extended family, routines, favorite foods, bed time rituals, and the familiarity of your own room; these attachments are all major components of a sense of identity, and it happens with shocking suddenness. Imagine yourself sitting at home on your couch in you sweats, watching your favorite TV program and someone comes in, packs up all your things, and moves you across town leaving you with a strange family. That is what happens to hundreds of children in Los Angeles every day.
This act of removal is another trauma which compounds the trauma history of the child who is removed. Already having experienced complex, repetive, attachment trauma of various kinds and degrees, this new trauma further accentuates what has been described in the literature as the child’s dilemma. The original dilemma of being subjected to “fright without solution” is the same, only the child is entering a new world of fear and threat: of dependency, helplessness and uncertainty. The dynamics are the same with the child being in a helpless and strange situation without recourse to seeking proximity to a caregiver (albeit a dangerous and inconsistent, or neglectful caregiver), but are compounded by having to endure the shock of being placed with caregivers with whom the child has no previous experience. He is placed in a strange situation with no choice or control. This is the dilemma with a twist. Now he/she has to deal with overwhelming loss while suffering from previous experience of neglect, abuse or sexual trauma and being forced to adapt to a new placement. Is it any wonder they have such complicated emotional psychological, social and behavior problems?
It should be mentioned that trauma and conditions of threat pose real psychological hazards which have a strong possibility of altering the developmental trajectory of a child’s developmental history during a critical developmental period over a lifetime. In my book I have documented these dangers and results stemming from these kinds of trauma. The trauma in most cases is serious enough to cause psychological, biological, and social problems sufficient to warrant a diagnosis of “Developmental Trauma Disorder.” This is all from the impact of early relational trauma, the trauma of disrupted attachment through placement, and finally the third type of Jeopardy: parental reunification.
After having been removed, because of trauma, then placed in a strange situation, now the next level of trauma begins. It is called “family reunification.” Once the child is placed in a surrogate (foster home) where presumably the child is now safe, there begins a new level of trials. The court orders a plan by which the birth parents are given a chance to regain their child. This is done by means of weekly visits to the child while in care of the foster parents. These visits lately have been ordered for as many as 3 times a week for 3 hours at a visit. Imagine the trauma you would experience if someone had beaten you regularly and now you are forced by court order to visit this person for 9 hours a week. This is triple jeopardy, it is a condition which causes secondary trauma.
I was called to testify at The Children’s Court regarding parental visits. It was the case of a little 3 year old boy who was in foster care and being taken to visit his birth mother twice a week at the DCS office. On approach to the office, the child would become fearful and agitated. He would begin screaming and struggling to get away. He clearly did not want to visit his mother. The visits went very badly. He was traumatized and was a terror to deal with days after the visit. I wrote an opinion to the court that these visits were not beneficial to the child, harmful to the placement and disruptive to the foster home’s normal life. I was called in to testify and told the judge the visits were traumatizing to the child and should be discontinued. My reason, I told the judge was that it is normal for a child when he sees his mother to want to go to her. That he was screaming and fighting to get away from her indicated that he was frightened of her for some reason and that he should not be subjected to this trauma. The judge agreed and visits were terminated.
This drama is acted out daily in the Children’s Law Center and daily in foster homes across the city. I have written extensively about this in in my book It is a travesty that needs to be remedied. Our children should not have to be subjected to triple Jeopardy early in their formative years where they are at a critical stage of development. They are at risk for further traumatization, abuse, and even in some cases death. They deserve much better than this.
The entire story: Broken Systems/Shattered Lives--the effects of trauma on children in the foster/adopt system can be obtained through Amazon Books. Gary W. Reece, Ph.D. author.
