A controversial issue today is whether or not children who are at risk of abuse stay with their families. Many people have a different opinion on this issue. Some people think it would be better for children to stay with their families intact. There are others who feel that it is not in the best interest of children to remain in an environment that could harm them. Regarding this question, I have mixed feelings. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay On this topic, I think in some situations it would be better for children to take them out of the house. For example, if they have parents who use drugs and refuse to seek help, it is in the children's best interests if they are removed from that environment. Letting children stay in a place where they could suffer even more harm would be a crime. As Mary-Lou Weisman says, safety is the key issue. I think she's absolutely right, you should always put the safety of your children before anything else. Children should also be removed from homes where they are being abused. If they stay in homes where they are constantly subjected to violence or witness violence, they may later in life become abusers themselves. In these situations, I believe that staying in such families can put children in danger, both physically and mentally. Mentally, the child's self-esteem may decline, and once this happens, schoolwork and other activities they participate in may suffer. Physically, the child might be afraid. On the other hand, I think children should stay with their family if their family is willing to ask for help. I don't think anyone else can replace your intact family. Most of the time, when children are removed from their families, they are placed in foster care. I don't think placing children in foster care is a better solution. First of all, foster care is a strange environment that children must adapt to. Secondly, sometimes when children cannot adapt, they have to move from one place to another, which I think is not very good for them. When moving from one place to another, the child may feel like they have no place to belong. Finally, I think there is no substitute for a parent-child relationship. Sometimes the bonds we share with our parents cannot be replaced by anyone. I agree with Lisa Kolb when she says that family preservation programs are better than removing children from the home. As she showed with her client Kim, sometimes it's hard to stay committed to the program, but when you think about what you're going to lose, you do your best to stay committed. Additionally, without the help of the Family Preservation Program, Kim would have lost her child. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized document now from our expert writers. Get a Personalized Essay Lisa Kolb says Family Preservation Services is designed to protect children who are at immediate risk of out-of-home placement, by providing immediate, comprehensive 24-hour in-home services to these children and to their families. Mary-Lou Weisman believes, however, that family preservation services are not always the best solution for children. As we can see, I think these two authors are right depending on the situation. However, a..