MIL reaction to our proposal to begin fostering children. AIBU to find this upsetting?

[Happypomegranate]

We FaceTimed our in-laws on Xmas day and mentioned our intention to apply to become foster carers. This is something we have both wanted to do for years, but have been previously unable due to work commitments and living in a small flat. We’ve been very fortunate and we now live in a big house and we are financially secure enough that I don’t have to work. I still do a little bit of part time care work but can give this up to focus on fostering. MIL initially said she thought our DD was too young which is a fair point to make. We have a toddler and will not be having anymore biological children. I said we would discuss with the LA but we could wait until DD was in school if necessary but that we just wanted to get the ball rolling as we know how long these things can take. But it later became apparent that she was very against the idea of us fostering at any point in the future and I don’t believe my DD’s age has anything to do with it. She used language such as ‘it will be someone you don’t know’, ‘there could be problems’, and ‘troubled children’. We have done our research and we are aware that the children may have additional needs, mental health and/or behavioural problems, but every child in need of a foster placement is different and I feel it’s not right to stereotype. As for children that may come with challenges, I feel it would be our job as the foster parents to try and work through the challenges with the children. I don’t understand why she doesn’t want us to support vulnerable children, it’s just bizarre to me. It hurts because I had an extremely abusive childhood, struggled with mental health in my early adulthood and I’ve worked really hard to get to a place where I am happy, stable and resilient. I feel I could have a lot to give as a foster carer. My DH is lovely and a great dad, and I believe he’d be a fantastic foster carer but he had a drastically different upbringing from me. Think well to-do, independent school, etc. We are an unlikely but very happy pair. I thought she would be supportive but she’s actively against it and I’m not sure why it bothers me so much because it’s ultimately my and my husbands decision to apply, not hers. AIBU to be upset?

But they did misrepresent themselves. Because when they represented themselves honestly they were denied access to children. So they represented themselves in a different way, lying about their intentions and motivations, so they could access the children and satisfy their religious ideals. You can dress it up however you want but they knew their true reasons were unacceptable so lied about them.

@Reindeersnooker what makes you think I've "no personal experience"?

Dress it up how you want, but lying to get access to children is a red flag in safeguarding. The end.

I would be deeply concerned with a practicing Christian fostering. Because I'd like to know what their views are on homosexuality. How would they treat a gay child? In Australia an extremist Christian family was recently not approved as foster carers due to their beliefs that being gay is a sin. They were not considered a safe family to gay children with trauma.

The most hateful, miserly and nasty people I find on the whole are Christians. I'd say at least 90% of them are hateful, racist and nasty. Just look at Trump and the likes of those who support him, for example. The people that have come through for me and my mother in times of need were almost all atheists. In fact, atheists or agnostics are on the whole the most nicest, charitable 'give you the shirt off their back' type of people.

99% I'd say you'd be a more decent person and a lot more nicer if you were atheist or agnostic.

And other people who fostered had no faith.

So what makes your faith better than the foster carer with no faith? Why is your calling higher than theirs? It seems the atheists who go into fostering do so for genuine altruistic reasons, where as you did so you could proselytise to and brainwash vulnerable children. You seem to have a manipulative motive. You're not altruistic in my view.

Im not sure what you mean, I'm in my 50's and I'm not sure I've experienced trauma. I've experienced upsets and disappointment but nothing that could be described aa trauma.

Well I think you are amazing. It was more than 2 years from first contact to my friend getting her first placement anyway. She had 2 short term placements then took her current child as an emergency (police station pick up), worked so well he is now placed until 18. She has no biological children so different dynamics but I've met other foster parents through her and some had their own little ones at primary school, and they always had foster children younger (2+ years) than their own.

Talking to your local authority foster team isn't committing anything anyway.

As an alternative if you don't have capacity to full time care, there's the special visitor scheme, my brother is one, he takes a young lad out monthly for a treat and chats in between on the phone, this summer he is taking him on university open days! The lad is in a children's home

The way ops cheerleaders talk sounds like she's getting a lockdown puppy. They seem to have the same shallow and lack of critics thinking as people who put a bow on a puppy at Christmas and it ends up back in the shelter six months later.
Frightening there are adults out there with such poor grasp of responsibility.

This is such a fantastic idea and I wish it was more facilitated. Lots of people can’t or won’t foster but would be happy to do this. Good for your brother!

Can you say the end after the age of ten?

They certainly didn't lie. I'm sure that everything they said was true.

But yes, let's not bother any further.

This is so true. My DSis and I were sexually abused by our F, who was a devout Christian in his beliefs. Members of our conservative evangelical church (including the pastor) knew about it and pushed it under the carpet.

This still happens in some conservative evangelical churches. A good friend was pressured by the church pastor into not reporting her husband’s sexual abuse of her DD (his stepdaughter) to the police, as it would ‘bring shame to the church’.

I still have a strong Christian faith, but it really shook me up to find that there are still evangelical churches who cover up sexual abuse. Especially as a mum to 2 adopted DDs (13 and 10 now).

No, it's the same thing described in different terms. Christians can have the desire to help people like anyone else but they're more likely to attribute this aspiration to something that God has given them because they're taught all good things come from God. They could also, separate to that, accurately describe it as a feeling of wanting to help and it would be true. Any Christian going for a job interview in a role that involves helping others will feel the same - they are different facets of the same thing but it's best to put it in the way your listener will identify with.

If they knew Christians weren't allowed or were not fully intending to be caring foster parents, or were pretending they had no faith, they'd be misrepresenting themselves. But they have no skeletons for social workers to find so none were found and they went on to greatly help children with full SS backing (which wouldn't have been the case if they weren't as advertised; it would have come to light). Their successful fostering history is the proof of the pudding. I'm sure that, when specifically asked about their religion, they were upfront in describing themselves as committed Christians.

They would not have to spell it out for anyone to know that a committed Christian would have a spiritual dimension to their decision to open their home to vulnerable children. I would expect that of anyone from a faith background. I would also expect SS to check that the values taught in any home were appropriate.

@CornflakeKerry that is such a twattish thing to say and ironically makes you sound awful.

They were actively denied when they explained their true motivations and opinions. They then decided to change what they’d said so they could access children, despite not actually having changed their motivations or opinions.

It is not ‘the same thing described in different terms.’ You can twist it round any way you want but it’s untrue - they were denied access to children when they told the truth so changed what they said so they could access children more easily.

What a nasty thing to say to someone you don’t even know. You should be ashamed.

Does it really matter? End of the day vulnerable children were placed in, what I can only assume, was an adequate foster placement. I couldn’t give a hoot about their motivation providing children are looked after with care and compassion.

You’ve got absolutely no idea why the poster’s children were adopted.

Not necessarily. She could have opted for the adoption herself or it could have been a mutual decision. We have absolutely no clue and it’s not really any of our business anyway.

Hopefully to put this ongoing part of the⁹ debate to bed:

1. When we were turned down to begin with, the reasons were not entirely clear. My interpretation is that being overt about our faith-based motivation was a factor, but there may have been other reasons too, such as the age of our children and my wife's health. Ss said we could apply again later, which I suppose means that the faith issue was not decisive.

1. When we applied again, about a year later I think, we had the same assessing social worker so she was familiar with all the circumstances, including our motivation. We were less overt about faith in the 'why do you want to foster' question because we felt that the emphasis first time around was possibly unhelpful. But we continued to be open about church, our beliefs etc throughout the process and it was not an obstacle. Certainly no lying or deception involved, as the same social worker conducted both assessments and she would have noticed if we had changed tack significantly. As with my job as a teacher (especially in RS), you commit to giving a balanced view on topics like homosexuality, even where your own views may be more specific. Of course, the children were a year older and my wife's health had improved too, so those things may have made more of a difference.

1. We never wanted 'access to children' (that makes our purposes sound nefarious). We had a compassion for children who needed to be looked after. We had been blessed with material circumstances (spare bedrooms, wife was same mostly, good local support network, own dc settled) and felt able share our blessings with children who could benefit. My wife also mentored and trained new carers for the LA, so we had quite a broad kind of involvement. As many here have said, it is a testing job and we sometimes wished we had chosen a different path, especially when we fostered older children and more than one child at once. But it was also very positive. We have a family visiting this afternoon who adopted a child we fostered and it's great to see them develop, and rewarding to think that we played a role in that process. Next week, we have a child back for respite and it's good to support the new carers, remembering how much we needed a break when fostering full time.

Hope this helps.