I REFER to the South China Morning Post's report on March 15 about the mother who allowed her child to be cared for by a child torturer.
I am concerned about the attitude of the Social Welfare Department which has shown a lack of basic understanding of the rights of children.
What caught my attention was that the child will probably be returned to its mother upon her release from prison. The reasoning being that adoptions are only arranged after establishing that the mother is no longer fit to take care of the child.
Most amazingly, the spokesman said, 'every parent has a right to take care of their kids. Even if parents are convicted of child abuse, we still have to give them a chance.' My question is why and what about the child's rights? The spokesman states that children are only put up for adoption in 'very very rare circumstances' and only when the mother was deemed to be mentally unfit.
Could the Director of Social Welfare please explain what constitutes a rare case and what does it mean to be deemed mentally unfit? Is the Department saying that the mother who continues to allow her child to be cared for by a person who she knew had abused her child, but did nothing to protect that child, is deemed to be a fit parent? What gives the Social Welfare Department such a cavalier attitude to child abuse? And what of this particular child's welfare and rights now, and in the future, when his mother is released from prison? No one can say what degree of physical or psychological damage has been done and whether the child will recover.
So the child's rights in this case are overlooked in favour of the mother's. The department spokesman's statement that even if parents are convicted of child abuse they still give them a chance flies in the face of logic and reason.
