I see this frequently on here. Been in care = 'damaged' child. On on thread I read today, = 'disturbed' child.
This often comes from a well-meaning place, in the hope of mitigating poor behaviours in LAC, but still comes across in an (at best) pseudo benevolent way, and always seems patronising.
My childhood was spent in care. Yes, it was pretty awful, and there are elements of my childhood that have affected me, and yes, there are bad memories, but I am neither damaged nor disturbed. Nor was I as a child. I was vulnerable, and often quite sad, but never 'disturbed', with all its horribly negative connotations, or 'damaged', with its connotation of irreparability.
In actual fact, from my nice middle class, professional, normal life, people often struggle to even believe I was in care. They expect this image of a 'disturbed' youth. In reality, most care leavers that I know personally show no signs of being either disturbed or damaged. There may be lasting trauma, but painting all LAC as 'damaged' can be harmful in itself. Within the wider psyche, this sort of terminology removes children in care from the realms of normal society. Our 'otherness' becomes more deeply engrained, and normal expectations no longer apply.
AIBU to ask everyone to think about their use of emotive language and consider how it might affect the outcomes of the young people they are making assumptions about?
Please or to access all these features
Please
or
to access all these features
AIBU?
to ask you to please stop calling LAC 'damaged'
37 replies
NOTDamaged · 12/06/2015 15:34
OP posts:
Don’t want to miss threads like this?
Weekly
Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!
Log in to update your newsletter preferences.
You've subscribed!
Please create an account
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.