It appears there is unanimity between the authors of this report on one aspect, quote:
"We need more research," she says (Taussig).
Doyle says: "foster care remains a needed safety net for some kids but he agrees that it merits further study."
Am I getting too cynical in my old age when I suggest most reports into social development seem
to conclude that more needs to be done, thus furnishing those responsible with continuing employment?
Certainly Taussig's earlier report saying, quote: "kids reunited with families after a brief stay in foster care were more likely to abuse drugs, get arrested, drop out of school and have lower grades than those who stayed in foster care", must have lead to this one, and who would bet against it having recommended more research was needed?
Then we have this crucial parting shot from Taussig, quote: "Taussig says case workers shouldn't assume that keeping kids with relatives is better."
You might as well say you should never assume anything in this world!
However, from this latest report the fact appears to be that when the state tries to take children into care to serve their best interests, it turns out they or their agents either do not know what these best interests might be or are intrinsically unable to provide what the child needs in the way a natural parent can.
Stranger still for this die hard anti "best interests of the child criterion (where there is no question of abuse)" campaigner to understand or accept, is parents found guilty of abusing their children may remain in contact with them, whilst so many decent parents following divorce find themselves excluded purely on the basis of a hostile ex., or due to that root cause.
Very best regards,
Graham