Can a Foster Carer object to a match?

[selly24]

Following on from a previous thread. .

I read that a match had fallen through because FC objected. That shocked me. Thought it was the decision of the panel/ SW and that Birth parents could have an input to some extent.... But FCs? I wonder what made them object or if they found out something at tgd introduction stage which had been hidden from SWs?....

I was wondering that too when I read the previous thread

I am in the middle of matching and met LO's foster carer last week, and before the meeting I asked my social worker what happens if she doesn't like me/objects - and I was told it is up to the social worker(s) and panel to make the decision and not to worry at all about that! (I think she was happy though fortunately)

I've just read your other thread - really sad situation. Usually, when prospective adopters are linked to a child (so, before anything formal like matching panel, and usually before they have met the child or the foster family) the child's SW would discuss it with the foster family and record their views. This would be part of the comprehensive pack that goes to the matching panel. Sometimes, the foster family also attend matching panel but not often in my LA. If they alerted the SW to a significant issue that had somehow been missed (I.e. The child had physical or emotional needs such that two parents would be needed to cope, and the potential link was to a single person ... Or the potential link lived too close to the birth family, etc) then that might prevent the link progressing at all. It would be highly unusual, but possible.

I know my LO's foster family expressed concern about the link to me, but their worries were because they truly cared for LO, and they wanted to be absolutely sure LO would have the best possible chance. LO's SW and the foster family's SW supported them in a tricky situation and openly worked through their worries. LO's SW supported the link and we had a unanimous yes from matching panel in the end.

I'm a foster carer and I certainly am not that powerful. I can voice concerns I have, but ultimately it is the social workers decision. All SW's are different, some have very little respect for FC's opinion, some more so. But the FC should only ever be talking in the child's best interest or as their advocate.
Sadly, and it does really sadden me, some FC's are better than others.

Thought I would add this our first adoption was nearly ruined by FC's to put it mildly they were obstructive, unhelpful and nasty, they did not want us to have our son. They told SW we were unsuitable as we were not Christians and I was going to work 2 nights a week. Fortunately we had an excellent SW and his BP's were behind us. But it nearly broke me. They have never forgiven us

Our best was our placement of our youngest son who was in residential care the staff were nearly as excited as us.

I think fcs, like birth parents, can have a say on matching, and it is up to the social workers whether they pay attention to that or not. We lost out on one match because the bm objected to us already having a child in the family, and it seemed to me slightly odd that she got given that power, when no other power was allowed to her. And when we were matched with dd, we had to be interviewed by the fc who basically interviewed us with some slightly odd questions (like: "Why do you want to adopt a mixed race child? When we are a white/black Caribbean couple and fc family was all white).

Our fc certainly cut up rough through matching and placement - and we were not the first adoptive couple she can unleashed hell on. The social workers assured us that her views were irrelevant, but they certainly failed to manage the situation and dd suffered.

Having written a much longer post I am now wondering whether part of the problem might be that not all SWs and local authorities are good at listening to FCs and treating them as fellow professionals.

If they did, it might allow FCs an appropriate forum to discuss the childs needs pre matching, and a chance to work through concerns in a supported way as a pp describes. Then maybe we would see less of the unhelpful type of interventions?