Where's Father Flannagan When You Need Him?

© Dale Franks, 1995

Let me be the first member of the working press to admit it: I like having Newt Gingrich around.  You never know when he’s going to say something that will be worth at least ten column inches in the paper, or a few minutes of good broadcasting.  Every time I hear him speak, I get the tiniest impression that at any moment, he’s going to start thundering, “The Freemasons!  The Freemasons are destroying America!”  He’s got that edgy, unpredictable style the press loves.

So, I have to admit I cackled with glee when Mr. Gingrich announced that he thought putting some kids of drug-addicted parents in orphanages might be a good idea.  Being a radio anchorman, I knew I would get at least one good seven-minute interview out of it and, sure enough, I did.

But there is a funny thing about many of the things that Mr. Gingrich says.  When you ignore his tactlessness and confrontational style, when you get past your initial gut reaction, when you begin to give what he says and its context some serious thought, a lot of what he says makes sense.

Let’s think about orphanages for a minute.

First of all, forget the Oliver Twist images and the Dickensian tales of cruelty and neglect.  There are many orphanages operating today in the United States.  In the vast majority of the orphanages, the children are well taken care of and receive a good education.  There are isolated incidences of abuse, but orphanages are so strictly regulated that those incidents are few and far between.  The image of the Oliver Twist-style orphanage in 1995 is so ludicrous as to be insulting.

But Mr. Gingrich’s opponents act as if operating a decent, caring orphanage is a physical impossibility.  Why?  Where does it say that anyone who runs an orphanage will automatically be a sadist, pedophile, or worse?  I have to admit, I find it difficult to believe that in a nation full of decent people, who give more to charity than any other nation in the world, the only people who will run orphanages are those who want to treat children like animals.

But let’s say that we do run across some orphanages that are run in that manner.  The solution to that problem is a rigorous routine of inspection.  For those facilities that treat children badly, we should subject the administrators and staff to exceptionally strenuous criminal penalties.

The important question when talking about such a system of orphanages is this: can we honestly say that these children we are talking about are better off where they are now?  Let’s remember what we are talking about here.  We are talking about children whose parents are drug addicts, living in abject poverty, who are incapable of caring for their children, no matter how much they might love them.  These children have practically no adult supervision or protection.  Their mothers—or very infrequently, their fathers—can’t provide them with role models, don’t encourage them to stay in school and study, and many times don’t know where their children are.  These children have literally nothing.  Their parents can’t even take care of themselves, much less two or three children.

These children many times live in tenements full of crack dealers and prostitutes.  Murder, robbery, and rape are common.  Their parents seem to have enough money to buy drugs, but not quite enough to properly clothe, feed, and supervise their children.

The civil libertarians say that taking these children away from their parents will violate the parent’s right to have a family.  What about the child’s right to live in a safe, clean, drug-free environment?  Have we gone so far in this country that a jobless drug addict’s right to have a family is more important than an innocent child’s right to be well-fed and educated?  Are our values really that skewed?  Can there really be people out there who think that life on the streets with a crack-addicted parent is better for a child than a decently run orphanage?

And by the way, nobody is talking about tearing these children away from the caring breast of a mother and never letting them see each other again.  The parents can see these children as often as they wish to.  You don’t have to split the family apart permanently, and in most cases shouldn’t do so.  All we are talking about here is giving these children a place to live outside the slums where they will be well fed, well clothed, and well educated.  If the parents clean themselves up and demonstrate the ability to care for the children, they can have custody back.

Think about it.  Don’t you think that even the most crack-addled teenaged mother knows her child would be better off in a well-run orphanage than on the mean streets of the inner city?  If these parents really love their children—and I assume for the most part that they do—wouldn’t they want to know their children are well taken care of if they can’t do it themselves?

Sure, building these orphanages and regulating them, ensuring a high quality of care for these children will not come cheap.  But I don’t believe there are too many people who would begrudge tax money or extra donations that go to orphanages that give children a secure environment away from the streets.

Father Flannigan of Boy’s Town fame said, “There is no such thing as a bad boy,” and then proceeded to prove it.  But unfortunately, there are bad parents.  There are people who simply cannot, for whatever reason, meet the responsibilities inherent in raising children.  All too often, those bad parents create children who grow up with no education, no opportunity, no future, and no hope.  And those children grow up to continue that cycle.

There is nothing wrong with having children and being poor.  No one will take children away from parents simply because their parents’ income is below the poverty line.  This is not about being poor.  Poor people can, and mainly do, raise their children just fine.  But for parents who abuse or neglect their children, or who are incapable of raising them or caring for them, there should be some recourse that allows us to give these children a chance for a better life.

Father Flannigan, where are you?  We need you.

Top