OK, folks, this is a long one, but I've got the soapbox out, and I'm fixing to use it...

Everyone knows that in the past month, sad and disturbing revelations related to the disappearance of a young child from Fitchburg, have focused public attention on the state's role and responsibility to protect children. Investigations from several sources continue to look at this incident as well as the broader implications for the child protective system. 

We know that thousands of children are abused and neglected every year in the Commonwealth, and it is virtually impossible to identify every child at risk, to remove every child from danger, or to prevent every tragedy...even when the system is working perfectly. Yet we have to expect that everything that is within our power to do, will be done. This is the only responsible standard for a civilized society.

One reaction that many people seem to have to the headlines is to assume that the Fitchburg child, and in fact every child at risk should be removed from their homes. Certainly, no sensible person would deny that removal is sometimes warranted. Some parents are simply incapable of protecting their own children from others, or even themselves at different times and for a host of reasons.

However, there is another lesson here that we hope is not missed. This is that not every child or even the majority of them need to be removed, even those at risk, if we remember one thing. The best way to ensure safety is through engaging families, not avoiding them. If an at risk child remains at home, and no one visits, no services are provided, and the family is left to fend for itself, the risk rises dramatically, as seems evident from the recent headlines. Support and stabilization, mentoring, parent training, and counseling help with mental health and substance issues are all available. Unfortunately, they are not always offered. With these and other services we know that many children can be kept safe, and families kept together. Likewise, even when a child has to be removed, reunification services, quality supervised visitation and other services can help assure that the child returns to a safer home.

The point here is that we know removing every child is neither logistically possible nor effective practice. But neither is not paying attention to them or their families. Engaging families, whether the child has been removed or not is the answer.

So how do we know when a child is safe at home? A good place to start is by thinking about an observation made by a well-known child welfare expert, when asked if it was really possible to engage and help abusive and neglectful families. His response went something like, "You can work with some families, and not with others, that's true. But the problem is that until you make a real effort to work with them, they all look like the kind of family that you can't work with"  

The responsibility falls on us to pay attention, not just when the headlines are on everyone's mind, and make a pledge to both protecting children and strengthening families.