Calling all Foster Carers!

[NanaNina]

I don't know how many of you have heard Cameron talking about children being "warehoused" or "languishing in care" instead of being adopted. I was thinking how insulting this was to foster carers, and so I was really pleased on Boxing day to read a letter by a friend of mine who works for Fostering Network.

Here is the letter that was published in the Guardian on boxing day.

"On behalf of all those amazing foster carers who look after babies and young children tirelesssly and with skill, committment, love and pasion, can I point out that fostering is not "warehousing" children, but in fact provides some of society's most vulnerable children with warm caring homes, often for many years. These days foster carers are carefully selected, protected and trained to carry out this important job, often for very little financial remuneration - they, and the children that they care for deserve support, not disrespect."

I can only endorse every word she has written.

[BusterTheDonk]

..

how I hate the phrase 'languishing in care'... it really makes "us" sound so second rate..

So thank you for posting this (and just being here)...

Did anyone see the programme on BBC the other week 'The truth about adoption'... grrrrr don't get me started!!!!

[michglas]

I don't think "languishing in care" means that kids are suffering second-rate care, I think what it means is that it's stuck in limbo - they can't return home for whatever reason, and they aren't being put forward for adoption so they don't have a sense of permanence if you see what I mean.

[maypole1]

To be honest as a carer I don't feel offended one bit after 2 and a half years and still no desision made about my foster child I totally agree



If a family has has ss involved for years before a child is removed or the family has each child born before removed do we really need to take another 2 more years to reach a desision




Parent assments are a bloody joke
A so called expert rocks up giving the parent plenty of warning or their arrival only meeting the child onece a week for 12 weeks for a couple of hours each time IN A CONTACT centre were staff are on hand and everything is provided and that is what the court basis the parents ability to parent on






Not. The 134 times the police were called for domestic violence, not the hospital report saying the brusis were non accidental and not the school who has been reporting the state of the child or not the sw who witnessed the state of the home and the parents complete lack of understanding about what a child needs


Children spend far to long in care
Foster carers do amazing work the two can exsist with one impacting on the other

[maypole1]

We are not permant solutions for these children and you must a knowldge that constant moving and uncertainly dose damge children if you dont regonise that as carers it may be part of the problem

[michglas]

which is why decisions need to be made quickly for these children, and not leave them not knowing where their future lies.

I was taken into care at 9 and taken to foster-parents for what was supposed to be 6-weeks. It was made clear it was short-term until I either went home or they found me a long-term foster care. 2.5 years later they found me more permanent foster-carers but after a few visits and a weeks stay, they couldn't take me, so back to the short-term foster home for another 2.5 years until I went home.

[SantasNutellaFairy]

Languishing in care doesn't mean the care given is substandard. It means that the system is substandard in meeting the children's long term needs.

[michglas]

Precisely Santa, and I think most people would agree with this.

[NanaNina]

Oh that's a shame - I thought more of you would be pleased. Santa - you say that the system is substandard in meeting the children's long term needs. The problem is that for many of these older children, and sibling groups, there are just not enough families out there, who want to become permanent foster carers for these children. That's sad but true. The national BAAF publication "Be my Parent" and "Adoption UK" are full of children who are waiting for adoptors or permanent foster carers. It is a national problem.

Mostly adoptors want as young a child as possible and will sometimes consider a child of 3 or 4, rather than the baby or young child that they hoped for. Once a child reaches 5 his/her chances of adoption diminish by the day. As I've already said, for older children, sibling groups, children with disabilities, the sad fact is that there may never be a way that these children are going to have the stability and permanence that every child needs.

This isn't the fault of the system (assume you mean social services) and Cameron doesn't understand this. He intends to change the system to make it easier to adopt, but this is a worry as he knows nothing about recruiting and assessing adoptors, but is talking about "children in the looked after system must be adopted in 12 months" - what if there are no prospective carers coming forward who are suitable to adopt - is he going to drag them in off the streets and tell them they must adopt!

As for changing the system, it may well be too drawn out and take too long and I think there may well be a speedier route (don't know what it is) which would be fine, if it still safeguarded the child awaiting adoption.

In the 50s and 60s prospective adoptors were "assessed" (and I use the term loosely) by health visitors very often or adoption officers. I have read some of those old files and could barely believe that the assessment would be about 1 or 2 A4 sheets, and the emphasis was on whether the home was clean and tidy (and the garden) and usually a comment like "Mr and Mrs Smith have a clean and tidy home, well kept garden, take annual holidays in Wales and would teach a child right from wrong" - hey presto! With a reference from the local vicar (they had to be church goers) and that was it. It was then a case of "come and choose your baby" as most mothers in those days were forced to give up their children for adoption.

Glad you agree BtheD that "languishing in care" makes it sound like children are getting sub standard care from foster carers.

Will be interesting to see what other foster carers think.

[maypole1]

Usually I Agee with everything you say Nina but the reason why their are so many older children waiting is because the courts don't make decisions early enough and sw are reluctant to remove children early on,
Instead wanting to wait and see my fc came in to care when a baby fc is now nearly 7 I bet my home at 3 months fc could have found a family

And even with the the older ones who are removed later on thongs like unsupervised overnight contacts don't help prepare for family life when every weekend they are mixing with risky adults and have little boundaries

And on the note of siblings it's A problem of the systems making they will remove say 2 of the five children a parent might have which leads in my view to the parent thinking the children are the issue. And not their parenting skills they then go on to have yet more only to be removed at some point down the road


If I was given a £1 every time i heard in a LACK review if I am such a bad parent why have I still got the others. I would be very rich

[maypole1]

In my view Camron dose understand we can't have people turned away for adoption because they have a dog Or they are mixed but not the right kind of mix we just can't afford to be that picky as if we are awash with adopters and long term carers.

I think the public would be shocked to learn that some la actually bribe pay parents to come for contact when their are adopters who wait years for a child
While we waste years of a child's life just getting their. Parent to the contact centre

At the moment the system favours the parents their wants and needs and not the child

Why should a parent who is deemed unfit still get to dictate terms whilst a child's In foster care or stall proceedings on adoption just because they want to.



Like I said many families have had years of ss intervention before do we really need 2/3 more years to see how it's going to pan out

I just don't understand why anyone would want to leave these children in abusive homes for years and years we know the stats of children born to drug addicted parents ect

And your right Nina no one wants to adopt a 12 year old whose been removed then placed back in the family home many times my view is why then do ww let the children get their teens before their removed for good







Sorry for my late night rant

[mumtosome]

I do think the system is severely lacking. However there are many many foster carers who do a fantastic job. Sadley there are also some who leave a lot to be desired and I feel most for the children who end up in their homes, after being removed from awful homes already.

We are cureently waiting to hear about a prospective placement, which for us should be our one and only as long-term/permanent foster carers.

Isn't it possible to change the system? Surely if a child has lived with FC for 2.5 years, then to move that child simplky because said FC is a short-term carer is cruel and imo abusive. Surely there could be a system where by, where possible children who have to remain looked after, stay with the same carers. That more attention is paid to proper matching, support is given to help placements to work and moves only happen when things break down. Surely this would help with attachment, sense of identity and a feeling of belonging for the children involved??

[EtInTerraPax]

They don't do that in my authority mumtosome- I know 'short term' placements that are now 7 years old!

[mumtosome]

That's great to hear EITP. :)

[NanaNina]

mumtosome - you are absolutely right, and of course it's possible for a child with st fcs for 2.5 years to remain with them. These are in fact known to be the best kind of placements with far fewer breakdowns because the fc already knows and loves the child and know that they want him/her to be a permanent part of the family.

What needs to happen is the status of the short term carers has to be changed, and that can be by the sw writing an addendum to the Form F that was done for short term, and making you permanent foster carers. However that is not really the best route to permanency because the child will always be in the Looked After system. The only advantage is that the permanent carers would receive a fostering allowance, which is mandatory.

The other routes to permanency are by way of you making an application for a Residence Order with the LAs agreement. LAslike this because it means that the child is "off the books" so to speak and sws sometimes don't explain that the holders of the RO actually share Parental Responsibility with the natural parents and can cause all sorts of problems. Also the bps can go back to court at anytime to request the child is returne to them.

The best way in my view is by way of you aplying for a Special Guardianship Order (relatively new legislation 2006) and this is just one step away from adoption. You do not share PR with the bps - the only thing you can't do is change the child's surname, take him out of the country for more than 3 months and apply for an adoption order, without the consent of the bps. Additionally the LA sws have to carry out an assessment of need that the carers may have, including a financial assessment. Judges won't hear the application unless this assessment is completed. It does mean another comprehensive assessment. The issues to be covered are actually laid down by the govt, and is more work for the sws. Additionally the bps cannot return to court to ask for the children back at their will. They have to obtain "leave of the court" which means that the Judge has to be convinced that there have been significant changes in the lives of the bps before he will allow the matter to be heard. However, the length of time that the child has been with you will be a major factor for consideration.

I might be on the wrong track here OP - you say you are waiting to hear about a one and only permanent placement, and am not sure if this is the child you already have or another one.

Whichever way it is, I would strongly advise that you do not apply for a Residence Order (sws like this because they don't have to do much extra work, and there is no assessent of needs including financial assessment, and most importantly you share PR with the birth parents.

There is nothing wrong with permanent fostering and it does ensure that you receive a fostering allowance but the child will always be Looked After. Some sws use this as a way of pressing you into a RO because it is much cheaper for them.

SGO or adoption is the best route to permanancy in my view and the best way of securing a child's future.

[NanaNina]

Maypole I agree with you that the system has many flaws. However sws cannot remove a child from its family unless they can evidence in court that at the time of removal the child was suffering from significant harm or likely to suffer considerable harm. The likely bit is to cover cases where eg parents have had 2,3 whatever children already removed and there has been no change in their lifestyle (maybe drink/drugs) and so the baby can be removed at birth, rather than having to go back to bps and sws wait for baby to be neglected/abused. There are many other reasons but that is just one of them.

Are you saying Maypole that you have had a "short term" placement for more or les 7 years? If so this is shocking and a decision should have been made a long time ago, because as you say a young child has far more chance of being adopted. What is the care plan for this child, IF there is one?

You mention only some children being removed from parents and others left with them. I can honestly say I have never heard of this. Either parenting is good enough or it isn't. Makes no sense to leave some of them at home, unless of course they are over 18.

I am a little puzzled by your comment at what you have heard in LAC reviews about these situations, because you would only be present at the LAC review of your own children in placement, unless you are on the fostering panel as a foster care member - is that the case?

You have mentioned before about the birth parent's needs coming before anything else, and I can see why you think that. However (and I've probably said this before) is that come the final hearing, when the bps are legally represented, then their lawyer will try to pick on any single thing where the LA have not "gone by the book" i.e. followed the legislation. The issue about contact is one that bps lawyers love to pounce on, because the legislation states that contact must be promoted until the final hearing where the child's future is decided. If the bps said they couldn't afford the bus fare, their lawyer would go for the sw and ask why was finance not made available, and would strart to weaken the LAs case. This is the reason Maypole, not because the sws are bribing them to go to contact. It's so that all the eyes are dotted and Ts are crossed.

It isn't a case of bps dictating what they want. Lawyers (and they will get legal aid in most cases) will make them aware of their rights and I can't argue with that. As far as "stalling procedures on adoption" is concerned, the only right the bp has is to oppose the LAs application for a Placement Order at the final hearing. This Order "frees a child for adoption"

I know things get very dragged out for months and even years and I do think things should be speeded up but of course each case is different and some are more complex than others.

I agree with you that many children are most probably left in abusive situations when they should be removed. I think this is changing though becasue since the publicity surrounding Peter Connelly, the applications for Care Orders nationally has risen by 50% which means that social workers are giving up on supporting the family (which again is a legal duty) and removing children and getting the matter before the Courts.

I know it looks easy from the outside, but honestly it is a very complex business and rights of parents have to be balanced against the need to protect children, and the first duty of the sw is to do everything they can to keep the family together, and yes this goes on far too long in some cases.

[maypole1]

My own foster child's mother has gone on to have 3 more children is since and and had one before and has kept every one of them their has been no mention of them being removed so I myself am puzzled how she wasn't capable of looking after the oldest but kept the baby and then went on to have 3 more which didn't seem to raise any eyebrows.

This happens often it's usually a reason for the child in foster care not to go back but not a reason for the other children to be removed.


I don't agree about parents not dictating what they want I know foster carers who have been made to take the children to church every Sunday even mid night mass at harvest and chrstimas, when the parents were at best Christians in name only and never went to church a day in their life but suddley can't abide their child not attending church, I have no issue with parents being able to oppose orders but surely if the patents have had intervention for years made no changes and the removed was a long time coming the hearings should be pretty much a formality and should not drag on.

And we should work to the child's time NOT the parents 1 year for. 2 year old is half if life
If you have had the 5 years ss have been involved before child was removed and the whole year after to sort yourself out then in my view tuff thats 6 years a child's been waiting for their parent to get it together how much longer should they be made to wait



And I really don't see how it would weakn the la case if they didn bribe parents to come to contact surely it would show what their priorities really are the same parent who would spend £100 a week on drugs dosent have the £5 bus fair to get to the contact centre surely that cat alone it would tell you all you need to know and cement the la case even more




In my la foster carers, supervising sw, child's social worker and parents and independent reviewing officer all attend the lack review so I hear all sorts sadly

[slipperandpjsmum]

I think the system is very flawed. The bottom line is more sw are needed as alot of the delay has to do with them not progressing things quickly enough as they just don't have the time. (50 children on some inner city sw caseloads).

maypole1 I agree with you that situations often become about the needs of the parents and not the children.

[mrsftarzee]

The system is complex and I do feel that fostering is not given the recognition that it deserves, most of us look after children because we genuinely care and want to do right by them in alll possible ways (yes, there are those who despite the shortage of foster carers shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a vulnerable child).

I think that the system is heavily weighted not in the favour of parent or child but in terms of the cheapest option . LAs are being subjected to huge budgetary restraints and this seems to be, what is guiding the decisions rather than whether a child should be in foster care or not. We all know that good permament foster care can be as beneficial as an adoptive placement. Whether we like it or not, the government agenda is also about the huge cost (financial) of keeping children in foster care as opposed to having them adopted.

Yes, I am being cynical, experience has made me this way, I've seen too many decisions which on the surface appear incomprehensible, but when you look deeper as the saying goes- "follow the money".

[NanaNina]

I am in complete agreement with you mrsftarzee - finance was always a problem and has of course got worse since I retired 7 years ago. However with Cameron's slashing of budgets as you say the lack of finance is guiding decisisons, rather than considering the best interests of the child.

Even before I retired, long term foster carers were being asked in LAC reviews if they would be prepared to apply for a Residence Order. The IRO used to raise this issue without telling the child's sw or fostering sw and we made complaints about this, as it was totally unfair to be putting carers on the spot like this in a review, but the instruction had come down the line from senior managers that this had to be done, and as you rightly say - it was all about saving money. I wouldn't have cared quite so much if they had been honest and said it was finance driven, but there was so much hypocrisy about this would be inthe "child's best interests" blah blah blah.

I agree with you also about the govt's agenda - in fact I believe this govt will not be satisfied until they have privatised all public services. They are selling off the NHS, cutting benefits, making people with serious illnesses look for jobs that aren't there........oh I'd better stop or I could go on all night!

I was with an ex colleague the other day and he was telling me that half of the children in the shire county in which I worked are in IFAs and this is costing LAs shed loads of money, but anything independent suited the govt of any hue, and makes no sense because of the exorbitant cost of IFA placements.

Another thing that was and is still happening, is that if a vacancy becomes available with a LA foster carer, a child from an IFA placement must be moved into it, regardless of whether the child is settled or whatever.

I actually feel quite anxious about what this govt is going to do next and I don't think we have seen anything yet......public services are having to pay for the greed of the bankers and it is totaly unjust. Sorry I am getting political again, so I'll stop.

[maypole1]

What I don't understand NANNA is often the choices they make are not cheaper



For instance adoptions can often break down after la refusing to pay for counciling now surly it's cheaper for the year or therapy than to have a child on your books unil they are 18 I would of thought.



Also sometimes the amount of intervention a family needs to keep the child with in the family home it's sometimes cheaper with better outcomes to keep the child in long term care

So sometimes they do things for the worst that's more expesive.




I do agree that the government want to privatise some parts of fostering and adoption but in some parts of London nana the thing is run so badly I can't say I totally opposed to someone else taking over and seeing if they couldn't do a better job



I am quite found of social enterprises our gyms and pools were being run into the ground by the incompant council then was took over by social enterprise
We now have summer camps in every sports centre in our la one of the old pools were given a make over and the side finally re opened
They also managed to incoparate library's so they will so stay open due to the incensed foot fall
And they approved the schools and staffed the centres and pools with those who are doing sport secince and physical education type courses so they get experince and pay

The council sometimes dose not. Have the imagination thats needed and in fostering and adoption we could really uses some

Sometimes when I am sitting in two hour meetings about what were going to talk about at the main meeting I think their must be a better way.

[bottersnike]

Hello NanaNina,
Just to add that I agree with you that the term "languishing in care" is pejorative and inflammatory. It does not help with the recruitment of more, professional, passionate foster carers if they think they are not going to be respected for what they do!
Hurray for the Fostering Network!

[bonnieslilsister]

I loved your friends post in the guardian nananina. What a lovely thing to write. Have been reading this thread with interest and agree with everything you are all saying. Very pertinent for me at the moment having two fc both going for adoption. I am appalled at the length of time it all takes.
I am so busy these days, moved house just before Xmas hooray! But so tired
Happy new year to you all xx

[NanaNina]

Maypole - you raise the issue of LAs refusing to pay for counselling for adoptive parents when the placement is in trouble. All LAs are different and the one I worked in, we had a brilliant clinical psychologist (employed by the LA) who would help families where breakdown seemed imminent. The trouble is that a lot of placements break down because of attachment difficulties with the children placed, and these of course are related to their pre-placement experiences. I think there are significant numbers of foster carers and adoptors who under estimate the way insecure attachmented children are going to affect their lives.

I think all LAs should run special modues on attachment disorders prior to approval, as at present it is I think just mentioned in the general preparing to foster cases. Where the child's insecure attachments is firmly fixed it will be played out with fcs/ adoptors and creates great stress inthe family. These families need specialist help, like the kind that is offered by Family Futures - and both the parents and the child are treated. This costs huge amounts of money and LAs have a budget and cannot justify spending huge amounts for one family, against the needs of other families. The answer of course is more funding for fostering & adoption but instead this govt is slashing budgets of all public services. Incidentally did you see "A Home for Maisie" last autumn I think, who were helped enormously by Family Futures, and the child was able to be adopted by the struggling parents.

I can well imagine the system in inner cities is struggling horrendously, but as slippers says this is because of the shortage of social workers. This is a national problem and some LAs are trying to run a service with 30 - 40% vacancy rates, and this just isn't possible. Also there are significant numbers off sick with stress related illnesses. Agency staff have to be used to cover vacancies and they come in new to some very complex cases. I have seen an agency worker (1 year qualified) be given 5 huge files on one family to read and decide on what needs to happen. Impossible!

I think this begs the question why is there a shortage of social workers in child protection. I think it is self evident that sws do not want to work in this area because of the stress involved, the huge caseloads, and knowing that they are at risk of being severely criticised (or suspended) IF a child comes to harm, with a family on her caseload. The media portray social workers as hopeless incompetent creatures, and there is always the thing about "we can't do right for doing wrong"

There are of course social workers who are woefully inadequate and those who are highly competent and others falling somewhere in between, but this is just a reflection of society in general in terms of occupations.

I am still confused Maypole about your involvement in LAC reviews. Are you saying that any foster carer can attend a review, even if the review is about a child with whom they have no involvement? I really cannot see how this can happen, as it breaks all the rules of confidentiality.

As for "letting someone else have a go" at child protection - words fail me.
The service could well be taken over by a private company, but where are they going to get their social workers from; they don't crawl out of the woodwork. They would have to employ the staff already working for the LA. They will almost certainly change their contracts and just how will the system work any better. Anyway we shall soon see what happens as the NHS is being sold off to international companies.

[NanaNina]

Thanks Bottersnike - so glad to know that someone is pleased with the post from my friend who works for Fostering Networks.

Hi Bls - nice to hear from you again and you are right, the delays are horrendous for the children who are moving on. Think I have covered some of the issues related to delays in my post to Maypole.

Happy new year to you, and try to get some more rest (if that's possible for a foster carer!) Love NN x

[maypole1]

No I have only been to lac reviews involving children I have cared for.


And why I say let somone elese have a go I mean existing angnceys their are some ifa that are doing fantastic work why not see if they can run a councils fostering better
Some counicils are failing so badly I just don't thing it could be made any worse



I have to say about the attachment you are right I think not wanting to offended may adopters don't realise the level if destress the children have faced or are going trough



Very wise words nanna on this one those we shall agree to disagree