to think that being paid to foster is wrong

[nancydrewrockinaroundxmastree]

This is actually not a thread about a thread but rather about a poster I saw in the Post Office today which basically said "you could get paid up to £350 per week to foster". I was and then (as I do) wondered what the MN consensus would be.

Obviously it doesn't seem right that people should not have their expenses reimbursed and it would be terribly sad if good carers didn't foster for want of being able to afford to but surely offering that sort of money makes the transaction a financial rather than a nurturing one. It diesn't sit well with me.

So AIBU to think that paying people to foster rather than to cover their expenses attracts the wrong sort of people?

By 'cover their expenses' you are also covering the expense caused, frequently, by not being able to work because your foster child is deeply disturbed by something and isn't safe in standard childcare.

YANBU, I always think that as well. Of course people should have out of pocket expenses reimbursed, but the issue of money shouldn't even be discussed until after they've been vetted and approved imo.

In an ideal world maybe, but...

Also in a lot of cases there is an expectation that at least one of the foster parents will be a sahp I think.

Yeah if you're giving up your job to do this full time surely you should be paid something?

In any other profession working with children, we recognise that paying better attracts better people, better standards etc. And the job of a foster carer is so much more important than that of a nursery nurse or primary school teacher.

It's difficult to become a foster carer, and it's a very stressful job. There are a lot easier ways to earn £350!

yes YABU. Whilst I'm sure there are people doing it for money, there would be few foster carers who could afford to do it without having an alternative source of income and most foster childrne need a great deal of input.

I hold my hand up to foster carers. I could not do it. Devote every waking/sleeping hour to someone else's children? Worth their weight in gold.

So I think YABU.

And to all foster carers out there = thank you and god bless.

colditz surely if a child required full-time home care then it wouldn't be placed with someone who works outside the home so they wouldn't actually be giving up any income they previously had?

Should foster care just be a hobby for the rich maybe?

Well, I wouldn't think I could be a foster parent, full stop, under any financial incentive, so £350 wouldn't be very tempting for me. It's a hell of a job, very demanding, you never know what issues you will get next, I just couldn't do it. So, money isn't likely to be that much of a motivator.

I'm not sure that anyone gets rich being a foster parent either, the loveliest foster parents I know take older children and adults with special needs and take them on holiday, out in their specially adapted car and so on, but never seem to have any money. They are also incredibly caring to their neighbours and Church for free. They foster because they are good people, I don't think the money they receive is unwarranted.

I do know of someone who does do it for the money, is a totally shit individual and the FDC hate her. She dumps on her family.

Don't know her details or her personally or I would report her myself.

Hoping her family will. The DC she has are deeply disturbed by previous events, having this dreadful woman can't help them get over it.

That's it. We need foster carers from all sections of society, not just those who can afford to do it unpaid. £350pw really doesn't sound much for what fostering involves...

At least one parent is preferred to be a SAHP because of the prospect of lots of meetings, healthcare issues etc. I am including school and education issues here as well.

I looked into fostering a while back with my local authority who just paid your expences, which current foster carers told us was good but there was always more outgoings than incomings. They also discussed fostering agencies that pay high fees and explained this was as the children the agencies were placing couldn't be found a place by LA foster carers so were usually living out of their known community/area, may come with more severe behavioural issues/ traumatic pasts, etc.

I didn't foster for different reasons but if I did in the future I would go with local authority rather than an agency I think.

YABU - it's 24/7.

YABsoU.

Fostering is a job and requires skills and being on duty 24 hours a day. Nursing and care work are paid jobs - do you suggest they all do it for nothing?

Perhaps the advertisement was badly put if it emphasised the money above the care, but really, would you take on damaged children 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for expenses only?

Booyhohoho - but to become a foster carer, at least one parent would have to give up work. If they aren't paid enough to cover their living expenses then we won't have any new (desperately needed!) foster carers.

No amount of money would be able to convince me to be a Foster Parent. It is hard work often with children with extreme behavioural problems.

plus if you foster for a LA, not all of them pay any money if there are no children with the carer.

My DH and I don't have any dc ourselves yet, but believe we could make a difference and have been discussing fostering. The sticking point is finances. Could we afford to do it well at the moment? No.

I think you are very wrong.

Wrong sort of people? They are checked out. You don't just start on Monday after filling out an application form. It's a long process. And even when agreed you are accepted to be a foster parent you might not get a child for months. They try to fit to the most suitable to help to child.

So it's not reliable income. It's adhoc. It's also 24 hrs. It can involve cancelling plans like holidays. So it's a crap rate of pay in reality.

Fostering is often a short stop- gap for a child in need. The child is most likely to have some trauma and things that happen in homes that foster cause utter mayhem. It takes a strong family to be able to foster cos' you see things that you think only exist in nightmares. In fact they should double it and send all foster patents on a fortnightly dream holiday once a year for a well deserved break.

YABVU

Fostering is a full time job, why shouldn't you get paid to do it?

Teachers get paid. Social workers get paid. Doesn't mean they ae just in it for the money

ah right. do foster parents not qualify for the same sort of tax credits and benefits as parents who bring up their own or adopted dcs? i presumed a foster carer would eb entitled to teh same. amybe not.

No-one would foster for expenses, only a very few people could afford to do it. There's a shortage of foster carers anyway, to expect people to put the investment of time, emotions and stress for expenses is just not realistic.