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?

I have a friend who is a senior manager, a lovely, lovely human being and brilliant with people, especially children. She told me she's considering packing her job in and taking up fostering. She's serious about it, and I couldn't think of anyone who would be a better foster parent.

If paying this kind of money makes it possible for people of her caliber to consider it, I'm all for it.

ClassyDiva if you have spent the past 18 months, every single night, holding the hand of a child who is terrified of being in the dark because he has been subjected to the most harrowing and vile experiences performed by adults who should have been protecting him then you will at leat have some understanding of what fostering actually entails.

If you are so petty as to complain about the "allowance" your child receives from the state then I suggest you open your eyes to the misfortune of others and read a thread before you comment.

You may also begin to look for a job to support your own children enabling the state to provide for children who are really in need of support.

I have a friend who is a foster carer, she takes in the really littles ones the newborns and the like who have had cigarette burns, their tiny fingers bitten, broken arms, been starved and much much worse. She takes in these poor broken unloved little babies and pours herself into them, she carries them in slings, sleeps with them and generally tries to undo the horror of their early few days/weeks/months, then when they are deemed sufficiently recovered and a loving family is found, she hands them over^.

She doesn't deserve £350 a week, she deserves at least that per minute. Pull your fucking head in OP and have a look at the realities surrounding foster care.

I charge more than £350 per day to move pieces of paper around.

How many hurt children are you currently fostering for this princely sum?

@ classydiva ()Since when was CB and TAX creds your only income? Its not.

And fostering is far harder than having your own kids. And more expensive. And saves the state an absolute fortune that they would have to spend on residential care.

In other words> get a fecking grip and take your foot out of your mout.

I don't know what the answer is to this issue. I would like to see fostering either treated as a formal job with the same rigorous supervision and formalities as you would expect in any childcare related career, and with the same possibilities to become more highly qualified and take on more challenging roles, or financial assessments carried out to ensure that no foster carer becomes reliant upon the fostering income to support themselves, and therefore under pressure to keep doing it when they may not be suited to the role.

I think, on balance, I would prefer it to be formalised into a job. Those who do it, and do it well, deserve to be able to say "I am a foster carer" and have that information received with the same level of respect and understanding as those who say "I am a nurse" or "I am a teacher". I think it is the fuzzy area between "job" and "calling" that creates the difficulties where money is concerned.

When I did my stint in family law, my supervisor specialised in acting for the children in disputed care cases and I met many wonderful foster carers. One lady sticks in my mind. We acted for a large sibling set (I won't say how many as it was an unusual case and I don't want them to be identifiable even though it was a long time ago) whose parents had abandoned them many times. The eldest girl went to the same foster carer on many occasions and at the time of the care proceedings this lady was investigating the possibility of adopting her. At that time, there was no support whatsoever for a foster child who was adopted. She had children of her own and had already adopted another foster child. They couldn't afford to lose the very minimal allowance that they received, and they woud no longer be able to foster once they had another child with them permanently. The poor lady was caught in the middle of an almighty row, being pulled one way and another. The LA didn't want to lose her as a foster carer but on the other hand they wanted her to keep the little girl. The court got involved, saying that it was ridiculous that no funding was available to allow the girl to have a secure home. It turned into a big row over money and the lady was terribly, terribly upset as she thought that she was being presented as being in it for the money alone. When the case finished, she told us that they had decided to adopt the little girl even though they were going to struggle financially and she would be going back to work, ironically at the time when she was probably needed in the home the most, in order to be able ot afford it.

Again, I don't know what the answer is, but I always felt that this lady was very badly treated in that case. There appeared to be no gratitude for what she was doing, and she was made to feel as though she was begging for money. If foster caring had been treated as a more formal job then she might have been better treated by everyone else involved as she would have been seen as another professional with equal input into the situation, rather than almost being lumped in with the children and everyone else arguing over their heads.

This was the best part of 10 years ago so I hope things are better for carers in this situation these days.

They are not kungfupannda at least not in the case of my friend, she is in a similar situation with wanting to adopt and being torn as to whether to do that or keep fostering.

It is heartbreaking.

There are so many reasons why foster carers should be paid well.

First, it is a hell of a lot cheaper than residential care. That costs thousands per week.

Second, most foster carers have one parent who doesn't work. The sheer amount of meetings, court appearances one has to attend, plus fasciliatating contact, often precludes any opportunity for regular employment.

Third, I do know some foster carers who do it for the money. They are no worse for that. Sometimes children need to be looked after in a professional environment rather than being quasi parented. Particularly if they will be returning home, or are almost of age to leave care.

I provide respite care and although I don't do it for the money, I wouldn't think it bad if someone did. Would you become a carer in a care home for love? Or a nurse?

I think we would get far more foster carers if we stopped looking at it as the work of angels and instead considered it a profession.

IMO it's because it's "women's work" that it's not respected, and people question whether it should even be paid. (Which it should, of course).

OP I am assuming you do not actually know any foster carers, or have a true idea of exactly what they do.

My dd1 (CP, hydrocephalus, uncontrolled epilepsy, ADHD, behavioural issues, full time nappy wearer etc) goes once a month for a 'short break' (ie respite care) with the most fantastic foster family.

They get paid to do this. But not enough. They clearly do not do this work for the money, and in all honesty they help to keep our family sane.

They also foster other children, full time on short term stays. These children sometimes arrive with hardly any notice, sometimes in the middle of the night.

I am astounded that anyone would think foster carers should not be paid.

YABU
Fostering allowances might be up to £350 a week but only £40-60 of that is fee element (wage) the rest is for the use of the room, food, utilities, petrol, activity money, bus fares, clothing, pocket money, holiday allowances, birthday and christmas allowances. Foster carers do not get child benefit or tax credits, the allowance is it. I don't know a single foster carer who got rich from fostering, those who try to squeeze in as many as possible for the cash are spotted asap and this is not allowed. Even if a carer has a spare room and the LA is desperate they will not place more DCs than a carer can cope with. The advert was completely misleading and is likely to attract people who think it's easy money! As if.

The OP is getting a va hard time and she doesn't deserve it. She worded the OP really badly but I get what she means. That foster carers shouldn't do it for the moeny, or that agencies shouldn't try to attract carers with promises of lots of money. Not that carers should do it for free...?

The ad you saw was misleading and dishonest. No carer gets £350 in their pocket to keep!

Loopyloops I'm sure I've said this to you before - but no carer in my area would get away with treating children the way you were treated. Just wouldn't happen, I promise you.

Friends of ours foster, and have done for years.

They've just adopted the SIXTH of their foster children (to add to their own five), in a gung-ho spirit of 'Can't lose 'em, will feed 'em somehow' -- so now they have 11 kids and no allowance (house full to the brim), where a couple of years back they had up to six foster allowances at a time.

They are quite wonderful and quite, quite mad, and I am often sorely tempted to send my own daft offspring over there to see what they can do with them.

Ok feel like I am banging my head against a brick wall here but one last time:

I do not think foster parents shouldn't be paid. I am concerned that some people become foster carers principally for financial gain and I am very about an advert which simply points out the financial worth of the role and nothing else.

Zeno I have acknowledged that many foster carers do a wonderful job. I cannot acknowledge that all bad carers are weeded out by the system. A number of posters have indicated, through their direct experience, that this sadly doesn't always happen. I am certainly not going to disagree with them. Are you?

Wannabenigella perhaps what the money is for is part of the issue- part is payment for the "service" provided and part is for the materialistic items provided. As some posters have illustrated if you are a good carer you spend above and beyond on the material needs of the child. If you are a bad carer you consider that money as your own and it benefits you rather than the child. My admittedly limited experience suggests that there is very little supervisation/management to prevent this happening and once approved carers are left to get on with things. Which must be the best approach where the carer is competent, caring and trustworthy but the worst approach if they are not.

What are the thoughts on kungfuPanndas suggestions about formalising the role and treating it as a valid profession with adequate training support and suppervision? I like the idea but I guess whilst it would improve (remove) the worst carers it would impinge on the natural family environment that the best carers are able to provide...

(and terribly sorry bonnie that I have reduced myself to inane musings, obviously far better that no one ever changes their mind on issues so you can just read this as f*k you all - I'm not being unreasonable you're all a bunch of twts. )

I have seen those ads and I've never read them as 'look how lucrative fostering is' but as 'you will be able to keep your head above water financially if you foster'. I have considered fostering and I would only be able to do it if I got paid a decent wage as it would be our only source of income.

Am I right in thinking that the payment (ie. payment in excess of expenses) is only applicable for particular 'categories' of children (including those who are deemed to have particular difficulties), rather than being a blanket payment for all FC?

OP - YABVU - foster caring, particularly for children who do have particular difficulties, is an extremely difficult job. Basically sacrificing your home, family, all free time to give a child a home. As others have said, it would not be possible to work FT and foster. For a start there's the many social work meetings and birth parent meetings to be available for, etc etc. Also you have to have an extra bedroom available in your home and basically treat that child the same as your own. This would simply not be possible just with reimbursed expenses, it would be at a financial loss

But there are bad 'birth' parents as well - how do you 'weedle' them out? Not pay them CB or anything else . There are always bad people, very unfortunately, birth parents, foster parents, adoptive parents. But the majority clearly do it with the best intentions to give a child in need a loving home. Isn't that's what most important

My local council advertises fostering as between £350 and £450 a week per child. Also, paid holidays. You have to have a big house though as the FC must have a bedroom each (although your own children are allowed to bunk up).

I know someone who fosters three DC. This is win-win. £1200 a week or so (? tax free) is good money (even after clothing and feeding three kids with it) when someone might have few qualifications that would enable them to earn that kind of sum any other way and can earn this whilst being a SAHM for her own DC (without any childcare costs) BUT if it also saves the state money AND ensures these DC are loved and brought up in a stable environment, then it seems fine for everyone. I do not doubt it is very hard work (well paid hard work mind).

yabu, thers alot easier ways to earn 350quid a week rather than provide 24/7 care.

of course they should be paid, it must help to attract the best possible people

Where I used to live in London the council were desperate for foster carers. So we would get flyers through the door...

The problem was that while it was a very affluent suburb most people lived in either 2 bedroom flats or 3 bedroom houses and most of those families had 2 or 3 or even 4 children of their own. The rules around bedroom sharing made it pretty much impossible. I totally understand why the rules are there, but that was the reason.

We briefly looked at fostering instead of having DS2, but then I realised I was far to aggressive for that because the urge to beat the living shit out of abusive parents would be too much and I would end up in prison, so best for everyone that we didn't really.

I think it should be paid as a profession, love is not enough, and I suspect that in this as in most things in life 'you get what you pay for'.

To some degree - if you weren't going to pay foster carers at all (in excess of expenses), then in effect you'd be limiting those applying to people with saint-like qualities willing to basically give up their lives and homes, put up with all sorts (and really, I mean all sorts - having somebody trying to set fire to your house, sexual issues, stealing etc etc) just out of goodwill. And yes all of those things can happen with birth-children, but there's the blood bond there and it is very, very different

But anyone who does it "primarily for the money" probably won't get through the selection process. If they do they have the abilities to do the job, and if they are only in it for the money they won't last five minutes as it is note even close to being worth it.

So I don't see its an issue at all.

YABU - for the many reasons other posters have covered.

I very much doubt a child could be in care for anywhere near the cost of £350 per week/£50 per day & they would be much much better off in good foster care.

Why no OP, of course YANBU

Come to think of it, we should stop paying teachers and doctors too - surely they should be in it for the love

ffs

I think YABU.

I'd love to foster, but sadly my husband doesn't, and I know it would need the two of us to be 100%.

It is a full-time(+) job, and you cannot have another job as well - you have to be availble to the child 24/7.

YABU

Of people who've thought about fostering, one of the first questions you'd ask yourself is if the household sums add up.

This poster answers the question.

You have to ask themselves why they've put that on a poster. Do they want grasping people? Doubtful. Do they find that knowledge of this fact encourages people who were worried about the money side of things to come forward? Far more likely.