Taking Responsibility

It is better to take responsibility than to have responsibility. This is to say, it's better to act for the best interests of others than it is to simply have the authority to do it. Having the authority to work with children in particular should be of little consequence to the person who dedicates himself to doing it. Having the authority that comes along with being a social worker, a teacher, a parent, or any person elected or hired into a credential based system should be considered secondary to how the person chooses to utilize their authority. Far too often, the kids and mainstream society in general are at the mercy of people who have the authority or the credentials and choose not to take responsibility for their clients, citizens, or offspring, or exercise their authority for beneficial purposes.

Social workers who last in the field are those who are capable of trading in their empathy for human life for the ability to routinely do the job and bring in the results at any cost. They have to become desensitized to the harm in order to function as they are required. Their duties to the state overwhelm their gut feeling as an individual, and they can become just as cold in their private life as the bureaucratic body they are the fists and fingers of in their public dealings. They have responsibilities to perform but can not be held responsible, and for that reason alone, agents of the state in particular fail to properly serve their clients and constituents.

As an independent volunteer, a independent agent, a CL has no public-appointed responsibility over children, but are (and should) be held completely responsible for their mistakes (because mistakes do happen in life). It is for that reason alone that the CL is more trustworthy. When a stranger kidnaps a child, the stranger is brought to justice. When the state kidnaps a child for spurious or ill-formed reasons, the state is beyond reproach even if they loose their case against the family. If a private entity were to behave as the state, they would no doubt loose customers, but the state behaving as the state, is in no danger of loosing citizens. That's the difference between having responsibility and taking it. When you take responsibility, you have to put your neck on the line. CLs do it out of love. When you have responsibility, it's a showy accolade--it will help you win an election.

Those who have to be accountable--the teachers, parents, independent agents, CLs, and private entities in general--are in better standing to adequately serve those they care about. Those who don't have to be accountable, those who will reap federal funding regardless, those who pretend to be the moral arbiters and intrude on family life in attempt to realign responsibility within it, naturally invite criticism from the masses it has imposed on as to its own failings and inadequacies. One can not stand on a hill and ridicule one standing in a valley that he is too low and not expect the low man to accuse him of being too high. There are no moral arbiters except those who are blameless--there are none blameless, true, but there are those who take responsibility for what they can be blamed with, and those who don't. The CPS takes no blame, and therefore, is no moral arbiter for family life and ought to be distrusted.

No agency that is granted authority over human life, such as the Child Protective Services in this case, has an interest in properly serving its constituency in order to maintain its longevity. They just have to appear to be doing such.