Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich Paris Montreal Toronto Delhi Mexico City
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ISBN-10: 0134523954
ISBN-13: 9780134523958
www.pearsonhighered.com
Table of Contents
1. Children: Our Most Important Resource 1
2. The Changing Family 9
3. Children and Poverty 16
4. Children and Violence in the Community 23
5. Children Against the Backdrop of War: Addressing the Needs of
Military Families 30
6. Trauma-Sensitive Educational Settings 37
7. Child Abuse and Neglect: Protecting Children When Families Cannot 43
8. Family Preservation or Child Placement? Serving the Child’s Best Interests 49
9. Juvenile Court Justice: Promoting the Rights and Welfare of Children and
Families 56
10. Teenage Pregnancy and Parenting 63
11. Children in Family Foster Care 69
12. The Adoption of Children 79
13. Children in Residential Setting 87
14. Our Children’s Future 94
Answer Key 100
Chapter 1
Children: Our Most Important Resource
CHAPTER SUMMARY
The role of child welfare services is to provide a safety net for children. When seeking to understand how today’s
services for children operate, it is helpful to consider the past. Children have always been at the mercy of their
caregivers. In earlier times, unwanted children were dealt with through abortion, infanticide, and abandonment.
Children were required to work alongside adults who may have disregarded that they were weaker and less able to
work long hours. An early form of child labor was indenture, a system in which children worked as apprentices to
tradesmen. It was not until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that such reformers as Jane Addams,
Homer Folks, Grace Abbott, and Julia Lathrop sought reform in child labor laws. Several agencies have advocated
for children over the years. The U.S. Children’s Bureau (founded in 1912), Family Welfare Association (formerly
the COS), and CDF each played a role in protecting children and advocating for their well-being.
The responsibility for children originally rested entirely with their parents. Children were expected to follow their
parents, even to almshouses, where the conditions could be unfit for adults, let alone their offspring. Later, the care
of orphaned children or children whose parents could not care for them shifted to orphanages. In the late nineteenth
century, Charles Loring Brace, feeling that a family setting was a better environment for children than an
institutional setting, instituted “placing out,” whereby children were sent by train to the Midwestern United States to
live with farm families.
Minority children were excluded from the programs for white children. An African American child might be sent to
a reform school rather than an orphanage or private home. Native American children were often sent to boarding
schools so that they could be better assimilated into white culture.
With advances in research about child development came the recognition that children need a family environment.
Placement in foster and adoptive homes became the priority. In 1874 the well-publicized case of the maltreated
Mary Ellen Wilson gave rise to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the first formalized efforts
to protect children from abuse and neglect. Over the years, numerous pieces of legislation have been enacted to
protect children’s rights and stimulate services for children and families.
Since the early 1900s, there have been numerous advances in the provision of services for children. Today family
preservation (keeping families intact) and permanency planning (finding permanent arrangements as early as
possible for children whose parents cannot care for them) are key concepts of the provision of services. The post-
World War II era witnessed the expansion of women in the workplace, propelling the need for child care outside the
home.
We are also beginning to recognize the importance of attachment in children’s lives and to seek new ways to provide
the consistency that enables children to develop healthy relationships. In recognition of this need, The Adoptions
and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-89) was signed into law by President Clinton on November 19, 1997. The
new law, which amends the 1980 Child Welfare Act (P.L. 96-272), clarifies that the health and safety of children
served by child welfare agencies must be their paramount concern and aims to move children in foster care more
quickly into permanent homes.
ASFA is one of many reforms spurred by CAPTA (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act), passed in 1974 here
priority for provision of services and protection of children was recognized.
Funding, always an issue in the provision of child welfare services, is a major concern. Critics of the move to collapse
funds into block grants contend that services to children would be cut substantially. Others argue that it is the personal
touch that is lacking in today’s agency efforts. The fact remains that children are our most important resource.
Strengthening the safety net that protects them from harm and enables them to develop safely and healthfully is the
obligation of all adults.
By the President:
Abraham Lincoln.
By the President:
William H. Seward,
Secretary of State.
A. G. Curtin,
John A. Andrew,
Richard Yates,
Israel Washburne, Jr.,
Edward Solomon,
Samuel J. Kirkwood,
O. P. Morton,
By D. G. Rose, his representative,
Wm. Sprague,
F. H. Peirpoint,
David Tod,
N. S. Berry,
Austin Blair.
Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law.
The first fugitive slave law passed was that of February 12th, 1793,
the second and last that of September 18th, 1850. Various efforts had
been made to repeal the latter before the war of the rebellion,
without a prospect of success. The situation was now different. The
war spirit was high, and both Houses of Congress were in the hands
of the Republicans as early as December, 1861, but all of them were
not then ready to vote for repeal, while the Democrats were at first
solidly against it. The bill had passed the Senate in 1850 by 27 yeas to
12 nays; the House by 109 yeas to 76 nays, and yet as late as 1861
such was still the desire of many not to offend the political prejudices
of the Border States and of Democrats whose aid was counted upon
in the war, that sufficient votes could not be had until June, 1864, to
pass the repealing bill. Republican sentiment advanced very slowly in
the early years of the war, when the struggle looked doubtful and
when there was a strong desire to hold for the Union every man and
county not irrevocably against it; when success could be foreseen the
advances were more rapid, but never as rapid as the more radical
leaders desired. The record of Congress in the repeal of the Fugitive
Slave Law will illustrate this political fact, in itself worthy of grave
study by the politician and statesman, and therefore we give it as
compiled by McPherson:—
[22]
Second Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.
REPEALING BILLS.
1864, April 19, the Senate considered the bill to repeal all acts for
the rendition of fugitives from service or labor. The bill was taken up
—yeas 26, nays 10.
Mr. Sherman moved to amend by inserting these words at the end
of the bill:
Except the act approved February 12, 1793, entitled “An act
respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the
service of their masters.”
Which was agreed to—yeas 24, nays 17, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Collamer, Cowan, Davis, Dixon,
Doolittle, Foster, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson,
Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Nesmith, Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury,
Sherman, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey—24.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Clark, Conness, Fessenden,
Grimes, Hale, Howard, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy,
Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner, Wilkinson, Wilson—17.
Mr. Saulsbury moved to add these sections:
And be it further enacted, That no white inhabitant of the United
States shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or held to answer for a
capital or otherwise infamous crime, except in cases arising in the
land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of
war or public danger, without due process of law.
And be it further enacted, That no person engaged in the
executive, legislative, or judicial departments of the Government of
the United States, or holding any office or trust recognized in the
Constitution of the United States, and no person in military or naval
service of the United States, shall, without due process of law, arrest
or imprison any white inhabitant of the United States who is not, or
has not been, or shall not at the time of such arrest or imprisonment
be, engaged in levying war against the United States, or in adhering
to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, nor
aid, abet, procure or advise the same, except in cases arising in the
land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of
war or public danger. And any person as aforesaid so arresting, or
imprisoning, or holding, as aforesaid, as in this and the second
section of this act mentioned, or aiding, abetting, or procuring, or
advising the same, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and, upon
conviction thereof in any court of competent jurisdiction, shall be
imprisoned for a term of not less than one nor more than five years,
shall pay a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5000, and
shall be forever incapable of holding any office or public trust under
the Government of the United States.
Mr. Hale moved to strike out the word “white” wherever it occurs;
which was agreed to.
The amendment of Mr. Saulsbury, as amended, was then
disagreed to—yeas 9, nays 27, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, Hendricks,
McDougall, Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury—9.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Clark, Collamer, Conness, Doolittle,
Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harris, Howard, Howe, Lane of
Indiana, Lane, of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Ramsey,
Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle,
Wilkinson, Willey, Wilson—27.
Mr. Conness moved to table the bill; which was disagreed to—yeas
9, (Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Conness, Davis, Hendricks, Nesmith,
Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury,) nays 31.
It was not again acted upon.
1864, June 13—The House passed this bill, introduced by Mr.
Spalding, of Ohio, and reported from the Committee on the
Judiciary by Mr. Morris, of New York, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., that sections three and four of an act entitled
“An act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from
the service of their masters,” passed February 12, 1793, and an Act
entitled “An act to amend, and supplementary to, the act entitled ‘An
act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from their
masters,’ passed February 12, 1793,” passed September 18, 1850, be,
and the same are hereby, repealed.
Yeas 86, nays 60, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Arnold, Ashley, John D.
Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Blair, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd,
Brandegee, Broomall, Ambrose W. Clarke, Freeman Clark, Cobb,
Cole, Creswell, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Daavis, Dawes,
Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Fenton, Frank,
Garfield, Gooch, Griswold, Higby, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W.
Hubbard, John K. Hubbard, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian,
Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, O. Kellogg, Littlejohn, Loan, Longyear,
Marvin, McClurg, McIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill,
Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Norton, Charles O’Neill,
Orth, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John H.
Rice, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Sloan, Spalding, Starr, Stevens,
Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Webster, Whaley,
Williams, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge—86.
Nays—Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Ancona,
Augustus C. Baldwin, Bliss, Brooks, James S. Brown, Chanler,
Coffroth, Cox, Cravens, Dawson, Denison, Eden, Edgerton,
Eldridge, English, Finck, Ganson, Grider, Harding, Harrington,
Charles M. Harris, Herrick, Holman, Hutchins, Kalbfleisch, Kernan,
King, Knapp, Law, Lazear, Le Blond, Mallory, Marcy, McDowell,
McKinney, Wm. H. Miller, James R. Morris, Morrison, Odell,
Pendleton, Pruyn, Radford, Robinson, Jas. S. Rollins, Ross,
Smithers, John B. Steele, Wm. G. Steele, Stiles, Strouse, Stuart,
Sweat, Wadsworth, Ward, Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Joseph W.
White, Fernando Wood—60.
June 22—This bill was taken up in the Senate, when Mr.
Saulsbury moved this substitute:
That no person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or
regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but
shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or
labor may be due; and Congress shall pass all necessary and proper
laws for the rendition of all such persons who shall so, as aforesaid,
escape.
Which was rejected—yeas 9, nays 29, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, McDougall,
Powell, Richardson, Riddle, Saulsbury—9.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Dixon,
Foot, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Hicks, Howard, Howe, Johnson,
Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy,
Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade,
Willey—29.
Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, moved an amendment to substitute a
clause repealing the act of 1850; which was rejected—yeas 17, nays
22, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, Harris, Hicks,
Johnson, Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Powell, Richardson, Riddle,
Saulsbury, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey—17.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Dixon,
Fessenden, Foot, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Lane of
Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner,
Wade, Wilson—22.
The bill then passed—yeas 27, nays 12, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Dixon,
Fessenden, Foot, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Hicks, Howard,
Howe, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy,
Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilson—27.
Nays—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, Johnson,
McDougall, Powell, Richardson, Riddle, Saulsbury, Van Winkle,
Willey—12.
Abraham Lincoln, President, approved it, June 28, 1864.
Seward as Secretary of State.
INTERNAL TAXES.
The system of internal revenue taxes imposed during the war did
not evenly divide parties until near its close, when Democrats were
generally arrayed against these taxes. They cannot, from the record,
be correctly classed as political issues, yet their adoption and the
feelings since engendered by them, makes a brief summary of the
record essential.
First Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.
The bill to provide increased revenue from imports, &c., passed the
House August 2, 1861—yeas 89, nays 39.
Same day, it passed the Senate—yeas 34, nays 8, (Messrs.
Breckinridge, Bright, Johnson, of Missouri, Kennedy, Latham, Polk,
Powell, Saulsbury.)[24]
Second Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.