The whom they are connected, has both positive

The kids having a
relationship with their folks are critical and imperative. Parenthood focuses on the
crucial building blocks which are essential for mankind to flourish. They act
as the justification for the rights and obligations of parental guardians. In
the parent-child relationship, there are a few interests in play, including
mental prosperity and support of an intimate relationship. However, the absence
of such care routinely has antagonistic effect on the progression and life prospects of a youngster.

Recently, Anytown’s
Department of Job and Family Services implemented a new policy focus on any family
unit that has at least one reported offense of domestic violence, drug abuse or
alcohol related crimes committed by parental guardian, will bring about the
expulsion of the youngster from the home. The child will be put being taken
care of by the state, or child care administrations, until the point
when documentation can be shown that the
offender has undergone any or all of the following programs, and
has thus been “offense free” for a period of no less than six months. The
programs they would have had to attend are alcohol and drug treatment, family
therapy, mental health treatment, anger management, life skills classes, and
child parenting classes (Siegel, 2015, p. 122).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

In order to address ethical
or moral issues that could arise from implementing this new policy, we would have to look at the effects of parental
separation on the child. The expulsion of a child from their caregiver to whom
they are connected, has both positive and negative viewpoints. From the child
services point of view, removing a child from their parents or caregivers has a
few advantages, the strongest advantage is the well-being of the kid. A
separation would, allow guidelines to be established to monitor the parental conduct, and the youngster may get the message that society will ensure him or her,
regardless of whether the parent won’t. A partition of parent and child would
briefly liberate the guardians from the weight of raising kids, enabling them to concentrate on the essential improvements
that’s required for the youngster to return home. Isolating a parent and child
can likewise have significantly negative impacts. Notwithstanding research has
shown that expelling youngsters from their homes interferes with their growth.
The more horrible the separation, there is greater probability the
child would have significant
developmental issues (“Effects of Separation on Young Children:
Implications for Family Court Decision Making”, 2018). Repeatedly removing the child from their parents interferes with the youngster’s
capacity and ability to have intimate relationships. Youngsters who have
experienced awful partitions their parents may likewise show low confidence, a
general doubt of others, immaturity and lacking social aptitude.  

The behavioral reactions of the kids who witness the
aggressive behavior at home, they may act out, be withdrawn, or anxious to please. The kids may show nervousness and have a
limited attention span, which may bring about poor school grades and participation.
They may likewise utilize violence to communicate with friends or parents
(“Effects of Domestic Violence on Children”, 2018). The long term
effects of living in an aggressive or violence household would lead to drug or
alcohol abuse, and adolescent delinquency. Their juvenile delinquency could
lead to more serious crimes as they transcend to adulthood. According
to research conducted by National Center for Post-traumatic stress disorder or
(PTSD) more than 33% of young ladies and young men cross the nation over ages
10 to 16 years are casualties of direct violence. Includes attempted
kidnapping, physical abuse, rape or sexual abuse. Considerably more children
have confronted community violence. That is, they have seen violence or they
know a victim of community violence. In one study, more than 75% of
children in a high-violence,
urban neighborhoods reported coming into contact with
community violence. Of
note, the majority of the parents said that their children had not been exposed
to violence in the community. However studies show they have (“Community
Violence: Effects on Children and Teens – PTSD: National Center for PTSD”,
2018).  I can see an incentive to want remove
children from hostile environments, whether it’s
in their parents’ home or the communities they live in. However, there are
adverse effects either way. I understand that
society has a
mission to protect its citizens, but sometime implementing certain policy presents more
issues than they solve. This policy unethical, it infringes on the
caregiver’s parental rights. It can be used to punish parents for a mistake they have made in the past. They may have been already
punished for it by law enforcement or child protective services. The only way
they would be exempt from it is if they have documentation showing that they
were punished and reformed.

Did the Department of
Job and Family Services misinterpret or misapply the social learning theory
when planning and implementing the policy?  
In order this question I first have to define social learning theory. Social
learning theory is a theory of learning and social conduct which recommends
that new behaviors can be procured by watching and mimicking others. It
expresses that learning is a psychological procedure that happens in a social
setting and can happen absolutely through perception. Notwithstanding the
perception of conduct, happens through the perception of prizes and disciplines.
 At the point when a specific conduct is rewarded
routinely, it will no doubt endure; while, if a specific conduct is continually
rebuffed, it will in all probability halt (Nugent, 2018). The Department of Jobs
and Children’s services confused the Social Learning Theory. This theory doesn’t
just simply cover bad behaviors learned at home. It covers things that are
found out through watching acquaintances, TV, video games, or any type of conduct
depicting violence behavior being is compensated. I think that Department of
Jobs and Children Service had just great expectations while executing this
strategy. However, they hadn’t measured the negatives against the couple of
positives, if they did then would have seen this policy isn’t ideal. There are
a few positives that can originate from this strategy, for example, removing children
that are living in really hazardous home conditions, however that isn’t what
the Social Learning Theory is worried about. 

In conclusion, the Department of Jobs and
Children Service had just great expectations while executing this strategy. However,
this policy unethical, it infringes
on the parental rights. It threatens the parent-child relationship which is essential for mankind to flourish.