residential children's home to open in our street

[steppemum]

Got home last night and there is a letter through our door from a neighbour.
Apparently there is a planning application in to change the use of a house to a residential childrens' home. The letter was asking for people to put in ojections to the planning application.

I walked past the house today.
We are a quiet road, dead end, the house in question is large with big garden and another house built at the end of the garden (they built it and sold it off) It is close to neighbours but detached. Has its own large drive for parking. The application is for both the main house and the house in the garden to together become a childrens home.

I can't see what the problem is! I am tempted to put in a comment to the planners to say this is a nice quiet, safe road for a kids home.
I am glad that there will be more facilities as our council has a great deal of trouble finding enough foster homes.
We are detached but very close to neighbours, and we never hear a thing.

Am I being naive?
Is there any reason why this house might cause problems?
Honestly I just think this is NIMBY ism. But is that me being naive?

I’ve never said residential units are “lovely”, I was answering the argument that looked after and accommodated children should be housed in large units away from residential areas, that residential areas aren’t suitable because the kids will be bored.

I fully agree that it’s wrong that companies profit from children (or indeed adults) needing care. It’s being tackled by the Scottish Government, I can’t comment on the rest of the UK. I’ve never said the situation is working as well as it can be, I’ve said the principle of small units in local communities is a good one - I’m not sure where you’ve got the rest of your rant from, but it wasn’t what I said.

In response to grooming gangs, again I was replying to the idea that police and care staff are doing nothing - which I know from long experience isn’t the case. They can’t stop these people driving up and down the street as the law currently stands, which was that particular posters primary concern, but that doesn’t mean nothing is happening. I’d be interested in what you think can happen, within the law, where there is a high level of concern but no concrete evidence.

Not sure about volunteer work and those working in these homes are paid. Your Local authority website may list the children’s homes they run or a quick google search can often find the agencies running those as well. You could also contact social services.

I don't know what you think I'm missing.

My post said not everyone thinks that way and that I don't agree with the wording on some posts.

Exactly what you're also saying.

I've lived in all sorts, so I've pretty much seen it all.

Can't expect everyone on a forum to agree or see things the same way.

There are bad people, good people, people who don't like kids at all even relations and sometimes their own kids.

There are also lots of people who give their lives to kids, foster, adopt, donate etc.

Yes, there is a house like this very near to my DGC's primary school. Residents with very obvious mental health impairments scream, moan, whistle and shout comments at passersby from the windows. It's just one house on a small recently built housing development, I don't know if it is private, LA or HA but am guessing that the planning permission could well have been dependent on this house being built. Heaven help the neighbours.

This is just one example of a policy which acts to the serious detriment of around 80 percent of the population. And acts to the benefit of only around 0.1 percent of the population probably. So from numbers alone there should be a will to vote in a party who would sort out this mess - shouldn't there? In a democracy - 80 percent vs even 20 percent?

The problem is that we don't have a party available which could sort out this mess, and even if a really strong competent humane person came forward to lead, they would not be permitted to lead as things stand - the political pressures from outside to keep things as they are are immense and the mechanisms of government act against thorough competent governance.

That could change, though, lets stay positive. And in the meantime, focus on the 80 percent to make sure everyone is aware of what is happening with tax payer money, alternatives, what constitutes competent governance which benefits most people.

You are saying that there would be a cost involved in turning around these contracts- actually, it could be done really quickly with the right legal challenges and competent negotiation, and competent plans put in the place for the future. If only leaders were able to lead.

Everyone can say “oh think of the children” but the reality is nobody wants antisocial behaviour. Otherwise there wouldn’t be such a disparity in house prices in diff areas if everyone was happy to live in a place riddled with crime and antisocial behaviour.

I agree with most of the negative things that have been said on this thread; the home is very unlikely to be full of cute little children who have been tragically orphaned, they will be fostered or adopted almost immediately. You will certainly have difficult children who will cause trouble and may well be involved in criminal activities. I also agree with those who ask where these homes should be built? The children have to be housed and the homes have to be provided. Most of us are realistic enough to know that they would not want such a home to be next door to us.
Early intervention with problem families would probably help, but that would require far more foster homes and there is always a shortage of them, even when private fostering agencies are involved. My daughter fosters teenagers and often meets other foster "carers" who are probably not what one would hope they would be. The children are often already disadvantaged by their birth families and early life, poor fostering makes it more unlikely they can live a normal, happy productive life. For example many foster carers don't bother to go to school parent evenings and the children leave school with poor qualifications and little or no idea of what they want to do in life. They may also have poor life skills and not be able look after themselves properly.
We need to set up a properly funded foster care service. At the moment payments are based on allowances and these are not generous enough. Many carers don't pass on some of the allowances to the children to help them build up the savings that they will need when they leave care, as is intended.
I'm not saying that poor foster carers should be paid large amounts for doing a bad job, but that the system should try to find competent people who will be good carers and pay them enough.

@angela1952

I'm a foster carer for teens. I think I'm a good carer, I do my best for this child.
Sadly he can't stay here, primarily because neither he nor I have the right support. He desperately needs assessments, medication and therapy and a school place that meets his needs.
Without those things there is only so much I can do, and the bigger he gets the more aggressive he gets. As much as I care, as much as I would like him to stay, it's just not sustainable, unfortunately he is likely to end up in residential care

Just remember ‘children’ applies up to age 16 or 18? So expect teenagers roaming around.

"Just remember ‘children’ applies up to age 16 or 18? So expect teenagers roaming around."

My disabled 18 year old lives alone with carers in a supported living house but it was technically classed as a children's home until he turned 18. He is very vulnerable and doesn't go out without two staff with him so no roaming around going on here.

Yep, it won't be Annie dancing around singing The Sun will come out.

And so? Do teenagers living with their parents not roam around too? Do they sing hit songs from musicals?

Not. All. Children. Born. To. Arseholes. Are. Arseholes.

Yes I know - but statistically they’re more likely to be and therefore those children are far more likely to be problematic neighbours. Yes it’s sad but it’s also true.

I think it is more to do with how the teens are being parented, obviously not by their natural parents but by the carers acting as parents looking after them. The children will want stability but not know how to ask for it or how to cope with it initially. They will want guidance and instruction and connection with the adults and other children around them. It is staff who are gifted at communication with children, aware of developmental needs and some basic psych information, gifted at giving out love and understanding but also being able to require discipline and good behaviour who are able to turn teens' lives around.

Also most of their parents will not have been arseholes. Some will have been, but most will have had intergenerational trauma and will have done the best they can. Probably most will not have wanted the children to be removed. Pretty much all the kids will want to have managed contact with their parents.

Where you see the really antisocial behaviour you will find staff who are not up the job. Which is going to be in most of the designer developer homes because they pay minimum wage, do not require experience and only really care about their profits, which are reported to be huge.

@itsjusttheradio with the best will in the world it’s very unlikely a children’s home will provide an environment that really mimics a (functional/loving/stable) family home. I’ve read a few books by care leavers and something they all mention is never having a hug after leaving foster care - there’s a lot of insinuation that they’re cared for but not loved. It’s no wonder they act out.

Even with foster families the underlying connotation is that it’s a temporary arrangement rather than a family.

I know not all their parents will be arseholes either. It’s much more complicated than that.

This is a clear failure both of the carers to behave appropriately and do the job they are paid for, and of management to ensure the home is/was properly run

I do wonder if it there should be some sort of 'exclusion' power around children's homes so people with criminal records and no business in the area can be banned from it if they are repeatedly hanging around

Hi, I have messaged you with details for a brilliant private provider of small homes in Sussex. Lots of training and opportunities to advance.

What a load of rubbish! A suburban residential estate is EXACTLY the kind of place these youngsters need to be growing up in. Following your logic everyone with kids should avoid living in the suburbs because our children will be bored to death 🙄.

The best location is one close to their family, their school, their friends wherever that may be. Somewhere familiar to them.

Sometimes it isn't.

Iv'e worked with children whose parents are in prison because of the abuse they inflicted. Children so badly abused and traumatised that the very best place for them is some distance from their family!

I have also worked with young people whose behavior is so disturbed because of early childhood abuse that the very worst thing for them is to remain anywhere near family, contacts, mainstream schools etc,.

Sometimes everything that is familiar to them will in no way help them.

Of those children who I have worked with who had contact with their birth family (very few), they were the children who showed no signs that they would recover, seemed to live in the most emotional limbo, and all of them would act out after seeing their family, either self-harm or trying to smash up staff, the home and the other children. It was also extremely unsettling for the other YP if one child had visits/contact. Very often the child who was due contact would be targeted by the other YP.

Of course there are kids who really need to be protected from contact with their family, who can’t have ongoing contact and who need a fresh start. The vast majority of children in foster care/local authority care are however returned to their parents at some point. The percentage of children permanently removed is pretty low and include those who go on to be adopted.

Given reunification is usually the plan for most children, removing them from everything familiar to them isn’t particularly helpful.

Your first paragraph would apply to a tiny number of cases. I am not sure where you have worked or when, but your final paragraph is not at all correct. Firstly, most children need to have contact maintained in the vast majority of cases, but it needs to be properly managed, and if there were to be attacks by other children, this also needs to be managed properly. There is quite a bit of research about maintaining contact incidentally, and it is growing (thank goodness).

they were the children who showed no signs that they would recover, seemed to live in the most emotional limbo

words fail

Very often the child who was due contact would be targeted by the other YP.

And why do you think this might be?

It sounds as though none of the children in your homes had their needs met, and that none of the staff had a clue what they were doing. It reminds me of the homes from the 1970s and 80s - is this right?