to ask you to please stop calling LAC 'damaged'

[NOTDamaged]

I see this frequently on here. Been in care = 'damaged' child. On on thread I read today, = 'disturbed' child.

This often comes from a well-meaning place, in the hope of mitigating poor behaviours in LAC, but still comes across in an (at best) pseudo benevolent way, and always seems patronising.

My childhood was spent in care. Yes, it was pretty awful, and there are elements of my childhood that have affected me, and yes, there are bad memories, but I am neither damaged nor disturbed. Nor was I as a child. I was vulnerable, and often quite sad, but never 'disturbed', with all its horribly negative connotations, or 'damaged', with its connotation of irreparability.

In actual fact, from my nice middle class, professional, normal life, people often struggle to even believe I was in care. They expect this image of a 'disturbed' youth. In reality, most care leavers that I know personally show no signs of being either disturbed or damaged. There may be lasting trauma, but painting all LAC as 'damaged' can be harmful in itself. Within the wider psyche, this sort of terminology removes children in care from the realms of normal society. Our 'otherness' becomes more deeply engrained, and normal expectations no longer apply.

AIBU to ask everyone to think about their use of emotive language and consider how it might affect the outcomes of the young people they are making assumptions about?

My son is ex lac (adopted) and there is nothing damaged or broken about him. Apart from having speech delay which could be any other child lac or not he's as weird as any other child his age but he's also loving and pushes the boundaries just the same.
There's nothing odd or out of place. He's the same as everyone else his age.

We're all affected by our early life.

Love yes we are all affected by our early lives.

But LAC tend to, almost by definition, all have some major negatives to overcome.

There is a reason why the government pays pupil premium to schools for LAC and ex-LAC kids, their backgrounds mean they tend to underachieved compared with their peers.

yanbu\my child was counted as a LAC
even though they lived with us

agree with you op.

My dp grew up in care. In fact it is fair to say that any "damage" to him was as a result of the circumstances that brought him to the care system. He is VI as a result of his pre-care life. But he is now a well balanced, person who you wouldn't attribute a "damaged" label to or know that he'd been in care until he makes that point known. And the reality is that people react in a negative way, from "well, people in care are more likely to sexually abuse others" (not true,) to "well if you went off the rails it would be totally understandable, in fact it's a miracle you're normal" to him being constantly told that he does x and y because he was a "care child," (we're talking about things like eating a packet of crisps before a sandwich here)

People are individuals. Yes sometimes people have awful, incomprehensible childhoods, and I find it very difficult to think about the one my dp had before he was taken into care without it making me want to cry, and physically want to hurt someone.... but we run the risk of making these facts a self fulfilling prophicy if people are labelled as potential damaged goods before they even have a chance to become the individuals they were meant to become.

So anyway, IANBU, right?

I really don't like to think that people assume that all LAC/ care leavers are faulty goods or emotionally/mentally deficient. Those are the images that 'damaged' and 'disturbed' bring to mind for me.
Absolutely agree. As a LAC, I am none of those things, but I did have a very difficult and chaotic childhood. However, I am a professional, successful, happily married, and I do find that when people know my background, they are suprised and sometimes hurtful with theie comments.

YANBU and I'm happy to see a shift in terminology.

There's a similar move away from referring to 'vulnerable' adults, as it's quite paternalistic, being replaced by 'adults at risk' after consultation with such adults.

YANBU. I volunteer with LAC and am sick of people having reactions like: "wow really, but some children are so damaged..."

I'm an abuse survivor and I think it's awful to describe someone as if they are a broken plate.

Children in foster care are upset and vulnerable. They do have significant needs, eg attachment issues, but the word 'damaged' gives a disingenuous impression.

The reason I don't like the terms "damaged" and "disturbed" is that they suggest that there's something faulty in the child, when in fact the child is more than likely having a totally normal reaction to terrible circumstances, a reaction any other person in the world would have.

EXACTLY.