in thinking I am NOT a drain on society?

[OtherPeoplesChildren]

I've been left feeling very low after some comments from my neighbour, the most hurtful one implying that I am a 'drain on society'. I would be interested to know if her take on my situation is a common one.
I am a single foster carer for children with emotional and behavioural problems, which I love. I gave up a good career to do this and now claim income support and housing benefit because the children I foster need me at home. I also have a DS who gets the 'perks' of having a parent on IS - free school meals etc. But obviously, he also has to share his parent with some pretty challenging other children. I save the state thousands of pounds a year as these children would be in residential care if they weren't fostered. My neighbour, who no doubt reads the Daily Mail, seems to think I spend all day watching Jeremy Kyle and eating biscuits. I suspect it has recently dawned on her that I claim benefits and she is annoyed by that. Clearly she doesn't know the reality of what I do (little sleep, no end of meetings, often on the receiving end of children's outbursts etc) and I think is probably just a bit jealous of the fact I don't go "out to work" and am home for my DS in school holidays etc.
So how do you see it, am I a drain on society? AIBU to think I give back more than I put in? Or is my neighbour BU? What would you think if I was your neighbour?

Forgive me but is this for real?

As I posted earlier, you can claim IS when fostering, because of the 2/3rds expenses discounting, but no fee ?

The figures troisgarcon posted are in the higher end [but ovbiously reflect that those children have SNs] but they sound right based on my experience of it.

Fostering is a job whatever anyone wants to say about people 'doing it for the money' doesnt anyone do a job for the money?! you certainly dont do it for nothing do you?

Doctors get paid a lot but they can work long hours and hold lots of responsibility-as do foster carers.

Fostering is 24/7 and hard work. the pay should reflect this and IME it does

Im confused by the OP TBH.

This is all very strange.

I can only speak from my cousin's experience but when she wanted to adopt my DN after my Sister died, she ended up Fostering her instead (due to the absent Dad forbidding it)

Her and her Husband are very wealthy and she told the authorities that she neither needed nor wanted any money.

They virtually forced it upon her and told her that if she didn't want to spend it, to put it away in an account for my DN (which she did)

I really can't understand why you're not being paid to Foster children OP....especially kids with problems.

It just doesn't make sense for them to place them in a home with a very low income

Amberleaf - some local authorities do not pay a fee for the carers time.

There is a woman on the fostering board who gets paid £30 per week for a baby which just covers the nappies and formula and nothing else. It's completely ridiculous!

In my authority I get paid £600 per month for my 'fee' plus the allowance which is spent on the child. For various reasons I spend all of it, including the fee on the children in my care.

But that's because I can (and it's not my job - I think of my work as my job) - foster carings what I do outside work to me.

Has the OP said wha the weekly allowance she gets per child is yet?

Everyone always knows someone in the business - I can think of one, no two, instances where acquaintances have set them selves up as private foster homes (operating out of standard semis) and as such have money running through Limited Company accounts - it's all written off for tax purposes of course. Now I think of it, three, one has an actual foster home, employs staff - and she's a social worker, quite a high ranking one in an inner London borough.

There is a parent of a child at work (now this is complicated so bear with me), she has some children of her own, her sister died so she is fostering nephews and neices. Excpet the father of both families is the same man and she lives with him, all above board, so how the hell she gets foster allwances for her nice/nephews when their own father is on premises is beyong me.

Conversely, a boy at sons football club live with grandparents, both parents are dead. The grandparents get nothing except child allowance. Granddad is vociferous in his letter writing about it (he has all 3 grand children).

So work that out. Because it's a bloody mystery to me.

I also used to think all foster carers got a fee until I hung out on the foster carers board and met someone who doesn't.

I was completely shocked that it differed from authority to authority.

New poster.

First post benefits related.

Considering poverty is so highly linked to families who end up having their kids fostered out, I really can't believe any Local Authority would place a Foster child into poverty.

It just doesn't make sense.

Wages part of the fees in my area ( can't c& p)
Level 1- 29.40 1st child 18.19 subsequent
L2- 58.80 &31.64( includes children with disabilities)
L2-117 & 44

YANBU you are doing a job many of us couldn't do and helping improve the lives of disadvantaged children well done you!

Maybe that's an average altinkum?

It's £80 per week for under 1's in my local authority plus a reduced 'fee' of 104 per week. So that's £184 for looking after a baby 24/7 per week.

If I was your neighbour the first thing I would thing is ' Well done you because I really wouldn't fancy it'

I would wonder if you were fostering the same kids long term.
I would wonder if you knew that there a respite places and do you access them ( Obviously varies from council to council and if the children are disabled, challenging behaviours etc)

I would imagine that you are knackered and stressed and worry if you are coping (again depending on the kids you have)

If you were fostering very long term I would hope that you are aware that birth parents can come along and deny you the right to attend any funeral or other significant event even though the birth parent may not have been involved with the child for 10 + years and can suddenly crawl out of the woodwork.

I would wonder why you are not getting an allowance. You may love kids and want to do something for them but kids still cost money and they aren't yours.

Two people that I know of got made redundant from the department that ran along side mine and they now foster and get paid.
They are also on their toes all the time, don't get much sleep and worry alot.

I would also think rather you than me because I wouldn't want to do it.

I've been looking into fostering and was shocked at the huge differences between different Local authorities and then fostering agencies. If you are an agency carer you will get an allowance for the child and then a fee on top. This can be a generous amount but you are likely to only get children for short periods of time (so not get any income the rest of the time) and have the more challenging children.
All local authorities prefer to place children with their own foster carers rather than agencies because it is cheaper - some pretty much only give the carers the statutory allowance (all of which is supposed to go on the child, including setting up a savings account for them) and no fee for looking after them. Some LAs pay a fee but nothing like the agency fees. LAs are also very cagey about saying what, if any, fees they pay carers!

Agencies give better support and training to their carers and seem to treat them much better - but the agency charges the LA a lot more to place the child. All of this has to come from LA budgets so of course LAs feel they have to take the cheapest option. This means a child might go to an agency carer, be there months, settle in nicely, but then the LA moves them when a cheaper, LA carer has a free bed.

If the OP is with an LA which only gives the allowance for the child and does not pay a fee then she will not be "making" any money from the placement. I have heard of carers move from one LA to another nearby because their original LA treated them so badly - and of course people move into agency caring too. If you have to give up work to care for a child with difficulties you still need to pay the bills!

I've also heard of LAs trying to get carers to become a child's special guardian, which gives a child long term stability and the carer can then make decisions along with the birth parents (who might not lose parental responsibility) rather than a social worker. Sounds good, but the LA can then take the child OFF their books and no longer has to give even an allowance for the child! It's all about cost cutting these days .

Be as cynical as you like, Amber. I've been on Mumsnet for years, seeking and giving advice about all sorts. But as a foster carer I name change on a very regular basis. It would put my children's safety at risk if I didn't.
I don't get a fee. I receive expenses with very clear guidelines as to how these are to be spent, always on the children. None of it is for my DS or I, hence the IS. Which is fine with me, as we can afford the basics and usually that's all we need. As for fostered children being placed in poverty - its not like that. The expenses mean their needs and a lot of their wants are met. Their looked after status means they usually receive a laptop each from SS to help with school work. I am not allowed to dress fostered children in second hand clothes and have a set amount that I must spend on their clothing, whether they need new stuff or not. They go on every school trip imaginable because SS fund them. Same with holidays, sport and clubs. They absolutely deserve all of this after what they have been through but I think you'll agree it's hardly an impoverished lifestyle.
Upahill I'm very lucky to have appropriate help and support with the children, including help for my DS. My LA have been excellent and it is partly the reason I prefer to work for them than somewhere with large fee payments but no support.

Their looked after status means they usually receive a laptop each from SS to help with school work. I am not allowed to dress fostered children in second hand clothes and have a set amount that I must spend on their clothing, whether they need new stuff or not. They go on every school trip imaginable because SS fund them. Same with holidays, sport and clubs. They absolutely deserve all of this after what they have been through but I think you'll agree it's hardly an impoverished lifestyle.

And your child? does he live equitably well? as the perk you said was he got FSM.

That is going to look like a 'pop' at you - which it really isn't - but thats the first time I've ever known a FC to admit that there is a marked difference between fostered children and their own. And not in their own childs benefit.

Hardly a 'drain on society' (whether post is real or not, PoL waves to Amberleaf and...

'I save the state thousands of pounds a year as these children would be in residential care if they weren't fostered', make that HUNDREDS of thousands of pounds OP. Average cost for (non-special needs) Residential School is circa 5K a WEEK.

NOT enough Foster Carers imo, and Kinship Carers come off even worse financially...(child's age dependant, and in my L.A) but as a rough guide, looking after blood relative 11+ y/o comes in at £103.83 p/w, then L.A deducts C.B from that amount, so in real terms @£80 p/w (less if it's a younger child) depending on 1st/2nd child C.B allowances.

Stinking 'system', again

All LAs pay different allowances. With ours the carer gets money for the child depending on age. The allowance ranges from £130 per week for a baby to £190 for a teenager.
This money is solely for the childs upkeep. A proportion of it can be used for utility bills, rent, food ect as a home, food and warmth are essential to the childs well being.

Then there are skills fees depending on the skills of the carer. Carers on the highest skills level will be expected to be involved in training, mentoring, recruitment and other things as well as taking the most difficult to place children.
Our LA has three levels, level one carers do not receive any extra skills fees. So their only income is the childs allowance. In that case they would be able to claim benefits.
Level two carers receive £90 per week per child skills fees plus the childs allowance.
Level three carers receive £290 per week per child skills fees plus the childs allowance.
So a level three carer with three children (maximum allowed except in special circumstances) would be earning £870 of their own money on top of the childs allowance so no need for them to be claiming benefits.

Hope that helps those who are questioning the op understand she is quite within her rights to be claiming benefits.

You are a far bigger asset to society than your petty, small-minded, judgmental neighbour ever will be.

Well done you OP. A lady I know fosters babies for about a year at a time before they get placed with adoptive parents. I assumed she did it for the money as it's such hard work and thought she must get about £400/week as I'd looked into it once.
The truth is she gets the allowance for the child from the LA and that's it. She often has to struggle to claim back the money she's spent and can't use any of the last babies clothes on the new one. She gets no financial reward for it whatsoever for her or the rest of her family although they have to deal with the sleepless nights etc. She just gets a lot of pleasure from bringing the babies along and getting them to their milestones. I think she's incredibly selfless and I'm full of admiration for her and anybody who fosters.