Foster care very different from immigration

The Michael Reagan article "Why no tears for U.S. kids who suffer?" on the Opinion page of the Daily Herald July 10 missed an important difference between children in foster care and those separated from parents at our border. The latter children should not have been separated from a parent. All indicators are that these parents were taking good care of their children.

In contrast, children in foster care are separated from their parents because of neglect or abuse. Their very lives are in danger. I agree with the writer that the foster care program is broken. To make it better, a good start would be to ensure that each case manager has a workable caseload. Presently, case workers are overwhelmed with too many cases and cannot keep adequate track of each child assigned to them.

Also, foster parents need training and support from professionals. In an episode of crisis, they need access to immediate guidance to resolve the situation. Traumatized children can be a challenge. If such help were available, I suspect more good people would volunteer as foster parents.

Whenever possible, the biological parents of these foster children should be given the help and guidance they need, with the goal being to reunite them with their children.

Apparently, we have funds to house children who should not be separated from their parents at our border but not enough funding to adequately help those children in our country who must be separated due to danger in their living conditions.

We would all sleep better and shed fewer tears if U.S. children needing intervention had a soft place to fall and received comforting care.

This is a very different challenge from unnecessary separation of families at our border. We should be deeply concerned about both situations which mistreat children.

Mich Barbezat

Elgin