A controversial and popular issue today is whether or not children at risk of abuse remain with their families. Many people think differently about this issue. Some people believe that it would be better for children to remain with their families intact. There are others who believe that it is not in children's best interests to remain in an environment that could cause them harm. When it comes to this issue I have mixed feelings. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Regarding this topic, I believe that in some situations it would be better for kids if they were taken out of the house. For example, if they have parents who use drugs and who refuse to seek any kind of help, it is in the children's best interest if they are taken out of that environment. Letting the kids stay in a place where they could suffer further harm would be a crime. As Mary-Lou Weisman states, the key issue is safety. I think you are absolutely right, you should always put your children's safety above all else. Children should also be removed from homes where they are being abused. If they stay in homes where they are constantly abused or witness someone abuse them, later in life they may become abusers themselves. In those situations I believe that staying in such families can endanger the children both physically and mentally. Mentally the child's self-esteem may lower and once this happens, schoolwork and other activities they take part in may suffer. Physically the child may become frightened. On the other hand, I think children should stay with their families if they agree to seek some sort of help. I feel like no one else can replace your intact family. In most cases, when children are removed from their families they are placed in foster care. I don't think placing children in foster care is the best solution. First of all, foster care is a strange environment that kids would have to adapt to. Secondly, sometimes when children can't adapt, they move from one place to another, which I think is not very good for them. Going from one place to another, the child may feel like he or she doesn't have a place where he or she belongs. Lastly, I believe there is no substitute for the parent-child relationship. Sometimes no one can replace the bonds you share with your parents. I agree with Lisa Kolb when she says that family preservation programs are better than taking children out of the home. As he demonstrated with his client Kim, sometimes it's hard to stay committed to the program, but when you think about what you'll miss, do your best to stay committed. Furthermore, if it were not with the help of the family preservation program, Kim would have lost her son. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Lisa Kolb says Family Preservation Services are designed to protect children who are at immediate risk of being placed out of home by providing immediate, comprehensive, 24-hour in-home services to these children and their families. However, Mary-Lou Weisman believes that family protective services are not always the best solution for children. As you can see, I think both of these authors are right depending on the situation. However, one thing I know for sure is that every child deserves to have love and happiness.