Glenda Simms
There is a kind of contradiction in the theories and practices of agents and agencies that are either paid by the state or inspired by a higher calling to be advocates for children.
This contradiction lies in the inability of these 'angels of love for children' to understand that children's needs, rights and desires cannot be fundamentally unconnected from the needs, rights and desires of their mothers.
Rasbert Turner, a Gleaner writer, carried a tale of this psychic disconnect in the October 23 edition of The Gleaner.
In the front-page article, Turner detailed the trauma of a poor mother whose children were removed from her by agents of the state.
According to the news report, the public relations officer of the Child Development Agency stated that "The children were living virtually at the mercy of nature" with tarpaulin and plastic covering, "a practice which the Child Development Agency found unacceptable for children."
This story is worthy of an analysis beyond the superficial. For instance, it is rather interesting to note that the mother of the 'rescued' children was left in the tarpaulin environment to weep, mourn and walk around like a zombie, wondering when her children would be returned to her. Perhaps this woman asked her God why she was so badly treated by the state sector. She was not responsible for the situation in which she found herself. The forces of nature rendered her and her children homeless. She tried the best that she could.
Temporary living
Like other unfortunate poor people in many centres of Jamaica, she had to use the tarpaulins and plastic distributed by the Red Cross and other charitable organisations to construct a temporary living situation for herself and the children that she has mothered and lovingly cared for in the best way that she could.
Readers of The Gleaner would have noted that the four children appeared alert and showed no signs of malnourishment, nor were they dressed in rags.
In fact, this female-headed family appeared to be close to each other and to the woman who birthed and brought them to this stage.
The questions that need to be answered by the government agency that has the mandate to protect children are: where was the Child Development Agency staff when hundreds of poor people lost their roofs and walls during the hurricane and subsequent flooding? Do they know that Karen Elliot is only one of many mothers who still have their children covered by tarpaulin because the state has not assisted in any way to replace their dwellings or their roofs?
There are many citizens like myself who know these persons and see their plight on a daily basis. Up in the hill districts of the Santa Cruz Mountains, there are single mothers nestled like 'sitting hens' with their brood under plastic and tarpaulins.
These women and children are totally dependent on the goodwill of neighbours and the other poor people who inhabit these places. Once, they too were home or hut owners. After Hurricane Dean they became dwellers under tarpaulins.
Should the Child Development Agency venture out to these parts to take away these children from their mothers, they would certainly face the wrath of St. Elizabeth mountain bangarang. Why? Because, in spite of their lifelong experience with rural poverty, these country folk know how to love and nurture their children in some of the most difficult circumstances. They also know how to reach out to each other in times of need. Their favourite saying is that 'a wey monkey have 'im give' im friend'.
Attachment
In a real sense, such members of our citizenry do not have university degrees. They understand instinctively the concept of attachment, which has been expounded on by every developmental psychologist that has a notion of how human beings develop and relate.
According to these scholars, "Attachment is the enduring affectional tie that binds one person to another." Furthermore, it is recognised that "secure attachment is characterised by positive feelings towards someone and security that comes with such feelings."
On the other hand, psycholo-gists point out that insecure attachment is one in which "children show indifference or ambivalence toward attachment figures."
In line with these emotional ties that poor people's children are quite capable of developing and expressing, all state actors ought to be taught that "the mothers of securely attached children are more likely to be affectionate caregivers." Furthermore, psychologists propose that children specifically develop attachment to their mothers from about four months of age. This attachment becomes more intense as the child grows older.
Unfit parent
The point is that a hurricane cannot erode the attachment that poor children have to their mothers. Such mothers did not create the storms that blew down their dwellings. Therefore, no state agency should find solutions for the traumatised children outside of a solution that includes the constant presence of their mother. Such a decision should only be made when there is documented evidence that in a particular situation the mother has been an unfit parent.
Fortunately for Karen Elliot and her children, Jamaica has compassionate, humane organisations such as Food For the Poor. In a follow-up article by Rasbert Turner, we have learnt that mother and children will be reunited in a habitable environment.
We recognise that government agencies alone cannot meet all the social, economic and spiritual needs of the Jamaican citizenry. They need the collaboration of the non-governmental sector; however, we expect those who are being paid from the public purse to make decisions based on critical skills and high levels of intelligence.
The Children's Advocate is deafeningly silent on this reported case. She needs to let the public know if, in her opinion, the Child Development Agency made the best decision for this poor woman and her children.
Glenda P. Simms is a gender expert and consultant.
