Talk:Child protection

More needed

It would be good if someone could add material on other aspects of Child welfare, such as AFDC, food stamps, and maybe even a brief history section that would describe the history of child welfare in the UK, Canada, and the US. My backgroud is primarily in the eval and trt of children and adolescents, mostly in or from the child welfare system Dr. Becker-Weidman_talk 20:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition, information on the Child Welfare systems on other countries would be very useful. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 20:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Less Feminist Dogma Needed

As is customary, most social services related articles get around to mentioning that men are abusing women (and presumably or explicitly, children as well)--but fail to mention that there is FAR MORE NEGLECT than abuse, and that men are the victims well over a third of the time. Everyone reading this entry should note that children living with both of their biological parents (under the same roof) are dramatically less involved in child welfare systems, they complete school far more often and are dramatically less involved in the criminal justice system. It should also be a lot clearer that women are far more involved in child neglect and homicide than men and overall neglect leads to placements away from the home ten times as often as abuse. Homebuilding75.41.35.141 (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: A brief History Section

I added in the US History and policy and legislation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikialo (talk • contribs) 17:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"...our rulers will find a considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects: we were saying that the use of all these things regarded as medicines might be of advantage.

And we were very right.

And this lawful use of them seems likely to be often needed in the regulations of marriages and births.

How so?

Why, I said, the principle has been already laid down that the best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior as seldom, as possible; and that they should rear the offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the other, if the flock is to be maintained in first-rate condition. Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebellion.

Very true.

Had we better not appoint certain festivals at which we will bring together the brides and bridegrooms, and sacrifices will be offered and suitable hymeneal songs composed by our poets: the number of weddings is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the rulers, whose aim will be to preserve the aver age of population? There are many other things which they will have to consider, such as the effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far as this is possible to prevent the State from becoming either too large or too small.

Certainly, he replied.

We shall have to invent some ingenious kind of lots which the less worthy may draw on each occasion of our bringing them together, and then they will accuse their own ill-luck and not the rulers.

To be sure, he said.

And I think that our braver and better youth, besides their other honours and rewards, might have greater facilities of intercourse with women given them; their bravery will be a reason, and such fathers ought to have as many sons as possible.

True.

And the proper officers, whether male or female or both, for offices are to be held by women as well as by men - Yes -

The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents to the pen or fold, and there they will deposit them with certain nurses who dwell in a separate quarter; but the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be.

Yes, he said, that must be done if the breed of the guardians is to be kept pure."

Plato's Republic chapter 5: On matrimony and philosophy 202.0.106.130 01:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

government services

how is it possible to "protect children" (from their abusive parents) AND "encourage family stability" ?????????????????

i would have thought these objectives were mutually exclusive 202.0.106.130 04:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Does this discussion relate to how we can all make this article better? If not, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for talking about things that don't actually relate to Encyclopedia. If that's the case, sorry :( Gracenotes^T § 04:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

this relates to NPOV rather than promoting government policy. why are you sorry? 202.0.106.130 04:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the mission of most state or county departments of social servies is to both protect children and encourage family stability. So, for example, family support services are provided to help abusive/neglectful parents become better parents and thus keep families together. This is not a NPOV issue, but a factual issue. DPeterson^talk 14:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

DSM References Are Not Helpful

Commenting on attachment disorders is not particularly helpful, given the fact that in this questionable reference, all entries are "voted in" by plebiscite. It's hardly useful to comment on a child's inability to "attach" to anything, when there has been no history of something (both of their biological parents) to attach to. Discussing the best means for children to build peer relationships and adult relationships would be far more helpful. Homebuilding 75.41.35.141 (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"protect children and encourage family stability"

My understanding of the system is that woman are encouraged to end their relationships with their abusers (violent and abusive men) the reason being if they don't their children will be placed into the custody of the state. Is that correct? 202.0.106.130 01:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite a reference to support that statement? DPeterson^talk 14:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

DFPS - What happens to my Child? Because I am in a family violence shelter, will CPS automatically become involved with my family?

No, seeking shelter does not result in an "automatic" report to CPS. CPS would become involved with your family only if someone reports abuse or neglect that affects your children. Seeking shelter in a family violence program is a good step to protect your child.

How will CPS help my children and me?

Your caseworker and supervisor will work with you to plan services best suited to support you and prevent harm to your children. Some of the services that CPS may provide include giving families information; referring them to community resources; providing child day care, homemaker services or parent training for helping find re sources to pay for things such as essential household items or utility deposits.

Will CPS take my children away?

Being investigated by CPS does not mean that your child will be taken away. CPS believes that children should not be taken away unless there is no other way to protect children from harm. Only when there is immediate danger to the children's physical health or safety, or after a court orders it, is CPS allowed to remove children from their parents' care.

If my children are taken away, can I get them back?

Most removals are temporary for the protection of the children. Only in extreme cases are children taken away permanently. If your children are removed, the caseworker will work with you to make it safe for the children to return.

"take adequate measures to protect a child from harm"

could we please have an explanation SPECIFICALLY what kind of harm we are talking about and SPECIFICALLY what measures are we are talking about. somes examples could be helpful. 202.0.106.130 02:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Post-traumatic stress disorder

I think the article could include a section on PTSD. Specifically does placing children into state custody (or offering to do so) cause PTSD or any other medical conditions? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? 202.0.106.130 02:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

is the following suitable for including in the article and is it evidence that child welfare authorities are causing PTSD? 202.0.106.130 03:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

DFPS - What happens to my Child? When investigating a report, a caseworker talks to and visually examines the child reported as abused or neglected. Other children in the family are also interviewed and visually examined. Caseworkers gather as much information as they can to determine if abuse has occurred, if the child is currently at risk of abuse, and who caused the abuse. After gathering all of the facts, the caseworker and supervisor decide whether abuse or neglect has occurred and whether further. CPS involvement is needed to protect the child.

"children who come to the attention of child welfare social workers"

I think this section could be expanded to include a more comprehensive listing of the reasons children come to the attention of child welfare social workers. Some specific examples could be helpful. Here is a hypothetical example to serve as a springboard for discussion as to how best to expand this section:

the parents host a wild party and everyone in the neighbourhood is invited except for those unfriendly people at number 32 who the parents somehow overlooked. while everyone in the neighbourhood is having a good time the children are at their grandparents place. next day the people at number 32 report the parents to CPS stating their home is an unsuitable environment to raise children. when child welfare come round to investigate the parents assert that raising kids is hard enough without also reporting to the government.

potentially what could be the consequences? 202.0.106.130 02:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a casebook. Such discussions as you propose are not within the scope of an encyclopeida article. DPeterson^talk 14:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

as far as i can see the convention throughout wikipedia is to illustrate theoretical ideas with practical examples drawn from popular culture such as anecdotal evidence in the media 202.0.106.130 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Material must meet Wikipedia standards of being verifiable and also appropriate for encyclopedia articles, meaning NPOV and various other policies and procedures. Anecdotal material is not consistent with Wikipedia standards. DPeterson^talk 03:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"various other policies and procedures".....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! are you serious? looks to me like the children of America are in capable hands 202.0.106.130 03:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not acceptable conduct in Wikipedia. Please read the Wikipedia policies and talk page guidelines for appropriate conduct DPeterson^talk 15:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

'For user 202.0.106.130'

Your change was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Deleting the comments of others on a talk page is considered vandalism. Plese do not continue such behavior. DPeterson^talk 22:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Recently removed section on "disproportionality"

I removed the following section because there are not verifiable citations or references to support was appears to be a specific POV series of statements. If supporting references can be cited that meet the Wikipedia standard of being verifiable then the section can be added back.

"===Disproportionality & Disparity in the Child Welfare System==="

In the United States, data suggests that a disproportionate number of minority children, particularly African American and Native American children, enter the foster care system. Additionally, once they enter foster care, research suggests that they are likely to remain in care longer. This disparity exists despite the fact that research shows no difference in the rate of abuse and neglect among minority populations when compared to Caucasian children. (The National Incidence Studies conducted in phases in 1980, 1986, and 1993 established that the rate of abuse among children of color is not higher than that of white children.)

Disproportionality is not unique to the child welfare system. Juvenile justice and education also have been challenged by disproportionate negative contact of minority children. Because of the overlap in these systems, it is likely that this phenomenon within multiple systems may be related. Several organizations and individuals are attempting to address this through analysis, community outreach, and collaboration aimed at reducing disparity and disproportionality.

DPeterson^talk 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

the following material is also unsourced:

This disparity exists despite the fact that research shows no difference in the rate of abuse and neglect among minority populations when compared to Caucasian children. (The National Incidence Studies conducted in phases in 1980, 1986, and 1993 established that the rate of abuse among children of color is not higher than that of white children.) Disproportionality is not unique to the child welfare system. Juvenile justice and education also have been challenged by disproportionate negative contact of minority children. Because of the overlap in these systems, it is likely that this phenomenon within multiple systems may be related. Several organizations and individuals are attempting to address this through analysis, community outreach, and collaboration aimed at reducing disparity and disproportionality.

DPeterson^talk 02:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

law suit against state child welfare system

Evansville Courier & Press. September 24, 2004: "....systemic and premeditated deprivations of fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. and Indiana constitutions...."

202.0.106.130 08:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

ivorcatt.com material

Please see Talk:Child_abuse#ivorcatt.com_material, regarding edits done to this article and others, which I feel should be discussed. Clayboy 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

content deleted

i amwriting from a shared IP used by both children and adults. i contributed the content below from a different shared IP but it was deleted. 210.87.18.78 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

According to The Irish Times: "Too many judges, considering themselves inexpert in matters of child welfare, are willing to accept even the most preposterous constructions by so-called experts rather than take personal judicial responsibility for deciding matters of child welfare on the basis of common sense. The absence of public scrutiny means reason has no jurisdiction where voodoo rules. Most citizens discover too late, on finding themselves at the mercy of this system, that they are in the power of utterly unaccountable, arbitrary and often, it seems, irrational forces; that there are no objective standards which can be called upon; that logic and fairness have no currency; and that they are in the hands of people with the power and freedom to destroy their lives and those of their children on the basis of prejudice, ideology, expediency or whim." Irish Times Feb 04, 2002: When Reason Gives Way to Psychobabble

Though I did not delete that content, I would say it was deleted because the content was a copyright violation. Read Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors.27_rights_and_obligations. The bottom of the submission form also says "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted." -- Cameron Dewe 08:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: See this edit history and the above note by Clayboy for an explanation. -- Cameron Dewe 09:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that if it is less than 400 words it is considered fair use if stating these words are needed to purvey the concept. Fraberj (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide views

The term Child welfare has different meanings around the world. Firstly, definitions of a Child vary around the world, with people under some age that seems to vary anywhere between 10 and 25 (even in one jurisdiction) being applicable. Also, Welfare is the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being, quality of life.

As this article stands [1] it seems to be talking about Child Welfare, with a capital W. That means the article is probably talking about one of the following redirects, Child Welfare, Child Welfare Bureau, Child protection; all of which are probably Child Protective Services, and so much of the current contents of this article are better placed there, though summarised here. Child welfare advocates recognise that child welfare agencies are a tertiary intervention, with social services and community services playing far more significant secondary and primary roles in promoting child welfare.

What I think this article should also discuss are the wider aspects of the topic concerning the welfare of children. While child abuse is one aspect, other need to be covered, including child poverty, early education, child wellness, immunisation and other social interventions that apply to all children to promote their welfare. It should probably also discuss the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the role of parents, guardianship and other legal protections of children. It might even cover issues like child support, free education, minimum working ages and children's involvement in decision making processes such as Courts, School Governance and the overall democratic process. -- Cameron Dewe 23:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

DDP

I have removed Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy from this page. This little known therapy has been extensively advertised on Wiki as evidence based, sometimes the only evidence based treatment for a variety of disorders affecting attachment. Theraplay, also little known and not evidence based has also been advertised in this way. A range of attachment articles including attachment therapy are currently before ArbCom. In the course of this it has transpired that of the 6 users promoting DDP and Theraplay and controlling these pages, DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood, four are definitely socks and have been blocked, and the other two have been blocked for one year. The attachment related pages are in the course of being rewritten. Fainites ^barley 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Update - all 5 are now indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of DPeterson, and DPeterson has been banned for 1 year by ArbCom.[2] Fainites ^barley 21:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Update 2 - User:AWeidman, AKA Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk and Dr Art has now also been indef. banned for breach of the ban on his sockpuppet DPeterson. Fainites ^barley 15:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Child and family services and Child Protective Services

I have proposed a merger of these two articles, as they seem to be more or less both on the same topic from a particularly US perspective. However, I am not an expert on the matter, so I thought it was worth mentioning here; could more knowledgable editors take a look and comment on the relevant talk page? DWaterson (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

British Section

Someone needs to take a look at that british section. "Designated Child-Stealing Officer" "Snitches", "Abduction" instead of adoption? This does not present balanced viewpoint.

198.83.30.88 (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought that so I just deleted it! better to have nowt there than nonsense in my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaisyRF (talk • contribs) 09:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You have no real reason to cut salient facts about the lamentable state of our "protection" system. As for WTSequestrateC, i have cut it because I know people like you will just claim "safeguard". Nothing I wrote undermines SWs, are you an SW or something? The Exposure of Chilren to Abuse & Neglect, Causing Impairments to their health and development and esuring they grow up in circumsatcnes inmcocsisntent woith good parental care and consistent with unnecessaey state intervention, which enables them to have limited life chances and enter adulthood unsuccessfully is A NATIONAL SCANDAL- Nothing less! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.91.250 (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, however, I feel that wording them more appropriately would gain a better reception. The current wording just makes you seem like a conspiracy theorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.60.170 (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"In England, Wales and Scotland, despite the Children Act, there never has been a statutory obligation to report alleged child abuse to the Police. Northern Ireland is the exception to this legislative omission. In 2007 the DCSF (Department of Children Schools and Families) created the Local Authority Designated Officer, "LADO" to whom alleged abuse should be reported. The appointee is designated to act as an independent set of eyes and ears to assess situations prior to contacting any other agencies. However, there is no statutory obligation to report alleged abuse to this officer, and no sanction on any setting or organisation for failing to report. Working together to Sequestrate Children 2006 and the subsequent The Perversion of Childhood in England: A Progress Report [Laming 2009] now combine to create an abominable atmosphere of collaboration and non-consensual information sharing. This is under the false pretence of protecting children from harm but its net effect is to render children more vulnerable to paedophiles[citation needed] and further reduce any privacy within family life. The CAF database has also been identified by a commission as being illegal under the Human Rights Act and Data Protection Act (both 1998) as it allows professionals to disclose information to each other without necessary safeguards being in place to prevent unlawful (eg without consent) or excessive use- and often contains subjective and therefore inaccurate data which subjects have a right to order for correction/deletion under the DPA.[citation needed]"

This section is obviously biased and unfounded, the names of the actual reports are wrong!Working together to Sequestrate Children 2006 - it is working together to SAFEGUARD children. Perversion of Childhood in England: A Progress Report - it is the PROTECTION of childhood in england. This is under the false pretence of protecting children from harm but its net effect is to render children more vulnerable to paedophiles[citation needed] - this satement undermines the whole concept of child protection - why would social workers and professionals work together to make children vulnerable to paedophiles? They don't they protect them from them. There is a duty on everyone to report child protection issues. This entire paragraph should be removed and reworded to be mroe factual and not based around the view of someone who appears to have a poor opinion of social care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.52.34 (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've now deleted that very inaccurate paragraph. At the very least it violates WP:NPOV so shouldn't be left in. Further corrections: the database is ContactPoint, it does not detail the nature of investigations, only whether the agency has any recording; access is by two-factor authentication and all activities are logged in a comprehensive audit trail - so any unnecessary usage can quickly be noted and traced back to the user. In certain cases (e.g. child living in a refuge), their address can be shielded so it cannot be viewed without the express permission of the agency responsible for erecting the shield (or in the case of multiple agencies erecting shields on a record, without the express permission of ALL agencies that erected shields.) Mittfh (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am yet another individual concerned by the government's approach to child welfare in England (the rest of the UK less so) and have to correct some of your 'corrections'. I noticed some good information on the nature of social work in Britain has recently been deleted from this page- despite a section of the Talk page stating that more critical viewpoints were required under WP:NPOV. 1) You may believe in a moral duty to report C/P issues but the paragraph mentioned no STATUTORY duty i.e. punishable under the law to not comply. This is true of the UK but not the US/Canada etc where either the general public or specified professionals have a duty to report concerns to child welfare agencies or the police. 2) The CAF database is NOT ContactPoint. they are two different things and this framework does include case information.- which the government has never mentioned shielding. It does require two factor ID but we are already aware of paedophiles and private detectives bribing their way into the database. We have also heard of social workers/teachers etc accessing the database from home and their families being able to read details on the same computer. 3)Why do you say WTSC 2006 is 'safeguard'? Sequestrate means to forcibly snatch or separate from- which is exactly what SSD do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.96.216 (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Australia Section

responding to a tag, i made a basic copyedit to Au section - 19:19, 16 September 2008 - to try and make it more readable but edit has been reverted by (apparently) previous editor. Does any other editor want to take a look and see what they think? Scriblio (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

British Section

I appreciate you may consider my contribution biased. However there is substantial evidence of my views being true- I don't believe in gossip or slander. And if you think the phrase I have rendered "common abduction framework"= "adoption", you dont understand the CP/ childrens services system in England. It refers to the pernicious, intrusive, unwarranted idea of sharing files among various "professionals" without consent, as I explain. It is a desecration of innocent young Victoria Climbie for her death to be used as justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.80.183 (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want your concerns on the British Child Protection system to be taken seriously in an encyclopedic article, at least take the trouble to use the official terminology for the legislation, provide a reference to the legislation text, and a reference to a published article from a credible source that explains how "dangerous" the legislation is. WP:NPOV gives helpful guidance as to what is and is not acceptable. Mittfh (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?

I already edited a number of words which were considered to be non-NPOV, the article as it is now should not be further cut to propitiate pro-social services campaigners. (I wonder if the people editwarring with me are in fact SSD, CAFCASS or eCAF practitioners.)My comments are NOT A RANT, they are civilized discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.22.213 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Church

How can Child Protection Laws get post-college adults (about age 22+) removed from a church's Youth/College group? Is it because they are a lot older than the youngest kids in the group? I was removed from one last year. I'm 27. The pastor said it was because I'm so much older than some of the kids in that group. The youngest one is 13. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.209.16 (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why no criticism section?

This whole article seems to be pro-CPS and doesn't mention any of the controversies or cases where CPS has been used to intimidate people. I could find some news articles for sourcing purposes. Does anyone object? 72.70.155.131 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This article now seems to contain a disproportionate amount of material critical of USA social services although there is very little basic information about what their powers and roles are. Most of the article is entirely USA-centric. I would suggest that there be a separate article on the USA CPS containing the details and that this article give a broader view of their role and function and a summary of criticism with a link to a comprehensive more focussed article on the CPS in the USA. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Article is a total C****** ****

this entire article is what we at the Urban Dictionary call a 'chilidog'. What this article needs metaphorically speaking, is a total overhaul / drydock treatment. We need to scoop the chili out, wash off the dog in faucet water, throw away the bun and get a fresh one, and put in new fresh mustard. It is hard to believe all the errors here. It is like someone copy pasted actual british law, but google tranlsated it into turkish and back first. Or people are typing but not even looking at what they are typeing. You (imperative) -- Assign 2 people to read the entire article and correct various errors and nonsense sentances, it will take approximately 2 hours total. God this **** is ******.

Protect the children?

President Obama at Prayer Vigil for Connecticut Shooting Victims: "Newtown, You Are Not Alone": «giving their lives to protect the children in their care». Guess what, he's not talking of what this article deals with. Can we please get a more neutral title for this article? The current one is very ideological, and also insulting to many children who needed (other sorts of) protection. Thanks, Nemo 10:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure what you're even talking about. Do you want to propose a move? If so, to which title? And how does the Newtown shooting or the president's comments have an impact on the field of child protection that would necessitate a move? --213.196.218.39 (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  It shows what "child protection" is really about; the fr.wiki article is more balanced, covering for instance child labour and murder.

  This article is only about laws against child abuse, and actually mostly about child sexual abuse in the USA, so it should be moved to an appropriate title (like Child abuse laws) to start with, then/or perhaps merged to existing articles like Child sexual abuse laws in the United States and the like (Laws regarding child sexual abuse already exists for an international view). --Nemo 14:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please add more information so that we can attempt to understand how the link to that article relates to this wikipedia page. I don't have the foggiest idea of what you are trying to get at. --Daffydavid (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The article shows authoritative usage of the "child protection" term in reference to topics not covered by the article currently under this title, which is in my opinion unbalanced. --Nemo 09:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Child protection → Child abuse laws in the United States – Per above: alternatively, Child abuse laws/Child sexual abuse laws by splitting the small parts of it not regarding this topic. Then, move Child protection (disambiguation) to this title, (in line with the fr.wiki example). Nemo 09:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with move. The article is entirely framed from a U.S. perspective. Even the content on other countries is done almost as a comparison to the U.S. content. Child rights and child protection vary so greatly between different countries that it would be next to impossible to create a sensible article on such a broad topic. This is not to disparage the efforts made with this article, but only to agree that is best to split it apart.—Zujine|talk 19:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:SOFIXIT. None of the sections on other countries looks ready to be a standalone article. The article is already tagged as needing a global perspective; save splitting for when it becomes too large. --BDD (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  By "splitting" I meant keeping on this title the general paragraphs on the topic, namely the first two paragraphs of the lead section and part of the "History" section. --Nemo 09:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with BDD. Article is not big enough to split and the user recommending a change to this title is either being pedantic or has a poor understanding of the common terminology used in the English language. User says, "to be later replaced/expanded with a more balanced and global summary of the topic". NO. Add it now or leave the article alone until it is added. Attempting this move now is illogical.--Daffydavid (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  The better balance is not about "adding" something. A disambiguation page, for instance, would serve the purpose quite well; a page like fr.wiki's, with short summaries of the various child protection articles, is also quickly done if the title is freed. --Nemo 09:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose becasue the artile is not just about the USA. It might be better to split out the USA and UK sections, leaving a summary here and creating new ariticle (including the move target) for each country. Yes neither the US nor UK section is large enough yet to REQUIRE a split, but I suspect there is plenty more content that could be added. The UK law is the result of a series of high profile enquiries starting with that on the death of Maria Caldwell and most recently that of Peter Connelly, with public authorities consistently failing to implement the findings of successive enquiries adequately in day to day practice. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Protection by Country

Why is there only one country (United Kingdom) for Protection by Country? Other countries have child protection laws that cannot be ignored. I would like to help find other child protection laws however, that would be beyond my scope because there would simply be too much information that needs to be sought. Azndrumsticks (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"Child welfare" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Child welfare. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 1#Child welfare until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of extensive additions made in March

Noting agreement among several experienced aditors at AN/I (subsection "Suggestion"), I have removed the two large additions made on 24 March by Ngozi Stella Udechukwu: addition; my removal. As noted at AN/I, the referencing is inadequate, notably in including general references to websites rather than to specific pages/articles available through them. The tone is editorialising and personalised, and the English is weak: example 1: To protect a child is not only when you save the child from physical harm; it also entails mind training and inculcating resilience that will make him/here copes in the face of life challenges. Many parents have negative attitude to life and they hand it over to their children.; example 2: Children are like arrows in the hand of mighty warriors. Shoot them at the right target and you will achieve your desire. Tell children that they are here to add to the system and not to be consumers; they will grow adding values to the entire system. Creativity is embedded in children but when the society is disorganized and do not care for the well being of their offspring, the children will tend to be useless and will one be looking for where they will loot already made wealth. There may be useful material here; the article is very much in need of internationalisation. There is also a tag noting unsuitable tone already present, so the editor may well have been misled by phrasing already present in the article, for example as to the permissibility of "you" and instructions to the reader, of emotive language such as "loot", and (not in either example but elsewhere in the added text) of "our", whether this was intended to refer to parents/society in general or to the people of a particular country. So I invite discussion on whether anything I have removed should be restored with better wording and referencing, and if not, this may be an opportunity to suggest how best to get the article away from being UK-centric. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

L I am not good 2603:6080:E700:96B0:2985:91C0:FDD9:2F (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jut008.

— Assignment last updated by Jut008 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)