Reply: Whose Children? A Response to Professor Guggenheim

Abstract

Martin Guggenheim's book review of Nobody's Children affirms his faith in family preservation and, not surprisingly, condemns my book, which he describes as an unprecedented and extremely radical critique of child welfare practice. 1 Unfortunately, Guggenheim's hostility to my basic message apparently blinded him to what the book actually says in spelling out that message. The result is a review that grossly mischaracterizes and distorts my positions. This response addresses only what I see as some of the most significantly misleading aspects of Guggenheim's review, to clarify in brief the positions I actually take in Nobody's Children. I do not try to correct all or even most of his misstatements, nor do I engage in a debate on the merits. Instead, I encourage readers interested in the issues to read the book for themselves and then to decide what they think. POVERTY, FAMILY SUPPORT, AND FAMILY PRESERVATION Professor Guggenheim merges and thereby fundamentally confuses what I have to say about three different kinds of programs that might usefully address problems of child maltreatment: general social reform programs directed at poverty and at social injustice, early-intervention family support programs, and late-stage family preservation programs. Like Guggenheim, I believe that poverty and social injustice are the root causes of most child maltreatment, and that fundamental social and economic reform would be the most effective approach to child maltreatment prevention. Like Guggenheim, I also believe that earlystage intervention programs designed to support at-risk parents and to help them avoid the problems that spawn child maltreatment are important. Unlike Guggenheim, however, I am critical of many aspects of the late-stage family preservation programs that work to keep chil