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?

First of all it's UPTO £350 per week. That is not a figure my MIL has ever seen in her many years of fostering.

Foster Carer is her job and she has done it for about 15 years now. It is much more than just 24 hour child minding. SOme of the children in care have had very deeply disturbing things happen to them and around them. Not all foster children are in school. MIL fosters babies.

A lot of the foster children she has had have had complex medical needs that meant she was back and to to hospital as well as contact with various relatives, visits from social workers and in some cases trips to therapy because of what has happened to them.

When I first started fostering my DS I added up his appointments.

He had 60 in three months.

That means that sometimes he had three in one day.

We were unpaid at the time and I had to take all my family leave for a month. I then managed to get them to pay for a CM for the two and half days I worked.

I still had to have meetings, let his b.mum in my house and her sister, take him to his many hosptial appts. Have social workers, OTs, and HVs come round all the time.

He is not seriously disabled. He was not ill. It is not unusual for a baby in care to have tons of appointments because the LA is trying to work out if they have a case to remove them on neglect grounds.

I had my life turned totally upside down. Most of it was due to the needs/wants of the birth mother rather than the baby.

She demanded that he be dressed in clothes only from certain shops (I was paying for his clothes). He was so underweight when he arrived but started gaining weight at an astounding rate. He therefore needed new clothes every few weeks.

I couldnt breast feed him and couldnt get milk tokens so I paid for his milk and nappies. Birth mother 'lost' something on every visit. She would be taken to appointments in a cab, me and baby would have to struggle on the tube.

So, how much would you expect to be 'paid' for providing that service. Would you expect your children to go without their dance lessons for e.g. because all your spare cash was going on meeting the needs of a demanding birth parent?

OP - there are sadly a few bad apples in the cart of foster parents. And like all bad apples they give foster carers a bad rep.

But I do not think that the bad apples are attracted by the money. I think other things get their interest - perhaps abuse of power etc ?

Payment needs to be provided. It's not a hobby. It's a career. A poorly paid, underpraised one. But it's one only a certain type of person can fulfill.