I have been asking some pretty tough questions of myself today about this whole issue of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
Let’s assume he is right and that you can’t move up to the next level unless the first one is met. So, we bring kids into our homes and the first one is pretty easy to provide for them -- air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, etc. We give them that and even though they may have not had that in the past, after a while they get that they have food, drink, shelter, clothing, etc.
We think that the safety needs issue is pretty simply too. Protection, security, order, law, limits, stability. Our homes are safe. So we check that off our list and expect the kids to move on to belongingness and love.
But what if they can’t feel safe? What if their past trauma never lets them feel that safety that certainly existed in our homes before they moved in. What if they feel safe enough from us, but because of their mental health needs, they never feel safe from themselves? What if they do not know themselves when they will lose it next, how to stop themselves from losing it, or how far they will go if they do?
So we assume, as adoptive parents, that our kids are now safe, but in reality, they do not feel safe from themselves. And eventually, they are not safe, and neither are we. And then our homes become places where everyone is stuck at the lower levels of Maslow’s pyramid.
And that leads to the explanation as to why both John and Mike can hold it together in institutions where there are lots of big guys who they know can jump on them and restrain them or anyone else for that matter if things get out of control. They finally feel safe from themselves.
The sad thing, then, comes for the kids who then have nobody to love and nowhere to belong when they are finally ready for the love and belongingness stage. Fortunately, our boys still have parents who love them, even though they can’t live with us.
It is no wonder that most kids from the system who are institutionalized never have their esteem needs met, much less reach self-actualization.
But what do we do? We want to move kids out of institutions into families, which I do NOT, as you know from following my blog, disagree with. But if those kids do move out and immediately are not safe or immediately their family’s safety is a concern, they need to return to a place where they are safe.
For a long time I have thought that we need to recruit families for kids in institutions. Families who will commit to the kids for life, maybe even adopt them, but know that those kids might not be able to live with them on a full time basis. Holidays, school breaks, maybe even weekends, and they can hold it together, but probably not all the time. But wouldn’t that give the children what they need to move up the pyramid? They have their basic needs met -- food, shelter clothing AND safety from themselves, but they also have a family where they can belong and where they are loved. Otherwise aren’t they going to get stuck at the second tier until they age out and are on their own and then maybe not have even those basic needs met?
But if Maslow is right, I wonder how many adoptive families, because of lack of support by their counties and mental health professionals, are keeping a child who is not safe in their home and getting the entire family stuck at the safety level of the pyramid. We have been taught to believe that commitment means not saying that the child cannot live at home. Sometimes we are not even given that choice -- we must either disrupt the adoption or go through a CHIPs case.
Some kids come into adoptive families homes and within a few months they realize that they are safe, and they completely turn around and head up the pyramid. I’ve seen it happen many, many times.
But others, no matter how long they live in a home, never do feel safe from themselves. And then nobody else is safe either.
I’m not sure what my conclusion to this is and I’m still tossing it around in my head. I’d welcome constructive feedback...
Let’s assume he is right and that you can’t move up to the next level unless the first one is met. So, we bring kids into our homes and the first one is pretty easy to provide for them -- air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, etc. We give them that and even though they may have not had that in the past, after a while they get that they have food, drink, shelter, clothing, etc.
We think that the safety needs issue is pretty simply too. Protection, security, order, law, limits, stability. Our homes are safe. So we check that off our list and expect the kids to move on to belongingness and love.
But what if they can’t feel safe? What if their past trauma never lets them feel that safety that certainly existed in our homes before they moved in. What if they feel safe enough from us, but because of their mental health needs, they never feel safe from themselves? What if they do not know themselves when they will lose it next, how to stop themselves from losing it, or how far they will go if they do?
So we assume, as adoptive parents, that our kids are now safe, but in reality, they do not feel safe from themselves. And eventually, they are not safe, and neither are we. And then our homes become places where everyone is stuck at the lower levels of Maslow’s pyramid.
And that leads to the explanation as to why both John and Mike can hold it together in institutions where there are lots of big guys who they know can jump on them and restrain them or anyone else for that matter if things get out of control. They finally feel safe from themselves.
The sad thing, then, comes for the kids who then have nobody to love and nowhere to belong when they are finally ready for the love and belongingness stage. Fortunately, our boys still have parents who love them, even though they can’t live with us.
It is no wonder that most kids from the system who are institutionalized never have their esteem needs met, much less reach self-actualization.
But what do we do? We want to move kids out of institutions into families, which I do NOT, as you know from following my blog, disagree with. But if those kids do move out and immediately are not safe or immediately their family’s safety is a concern, they need to return to a place where they are safe.
For a long time I have thought that we need to recruit families for kids in institutions. Families who will commit to the kids for life, maybe even adopt them, but know that those kids might not be able to live with them on a full time basis. Holidays, school breaks, maybe even weekends, and they can hold it together, but probably not all the time. But wouldn’t that give the children what they need to move up the pyramid? They have their basic needs met -- food, shelter clothing AND safety from themselves, but they also have a family where they can belong and where they are loved. Otherwise aren’t they going to get stuck at the second tier until they age out and are on their own and then maybe not have even those basic needs met?
But if Maslow is right, I wonder how many adoptive families, because of lack of support by their counties and mental health professionals, are keeping a child who is not safe in their home and getting the entire family stuck at the safety level of the pyramid. We have been taught to believe that commitment means not saying that the child cannot live at home. Sometimes we are not even given that choice -- we must either disrupt the adoption or go through a CHIPs case.
Some kids come into adoptive families homes and within a few months they realize that they are safe, and they completely turn around and head up the pyramid. I’ve seen it happen many, many times.
But others, no matter how long they live in a home, never do feel safe from themselves. And then nobody else is safe either.
I’m not sure what my conclusion to this is and I’m still tossing it around in my head. I’d welcome constructive feedback...
3 comments:
I think that most counties view commitment as a binary condition. Either you are committed to the child (and therefore he lives at home) or you are not (and he lives elsewhere); unfortunately no shades of grey are allowed.
When our second foster daughter was removed after 11 days so that she could receive intensive theraputic treatment, we told her caseworker that we'd very much like to stay in contact. If her behavior improved to the point where she would be safe with us, we'd like to have her back. We told our foster daughter the same thing, and she seemed receptive to the idea.
Sadly, we've not been allowed to stay in contact. Although we know where she is (and she's attempted to contact us several times) we've been told that contact with her would be detrimental to her treatment plan. At least for now, we are out of the picture. Whether that will change in the future remains to be seen.
I think "the system" really needs to understand that not all adoptions are going to have endings where the children live happily ever after with their forever families. Some kids are just too hurt and too damaged to recover from their early experiences, so the best anyone can do for them is stand by them even though they aren't safe living at home.
Counties need to recognize that there needs to be other options besides disrupting an adoption and terminating parental rights when a child is too dangerous to remain at home. I'm not sure what that solution would look like, but it seems something better needs to be offered. Everyone involved (children and parents) lose when an adoption has to be disrupted.
In 12 years with CPS, I would have to say that I don't advocate moving children from an institutional setting into an adoptive setting. I just haven't personally seen that be successful, although I'm sure there are cases where it's been successful. I have just never seen it.
I don't know that there is enough space to talk about all my thoughts on how youth in foster care are treated, but clearly the system is not working. There is so much that needs to be fixed, I wouldn't know where to start if I had the power TO fix it.
good post - certainly having one kid stuck at that "safety" level sure messes up the rest of the family. BTDT, too - not sure she'll ever be able to come home.
Post a Comment