Your views on fostering

[maypole1]

Ladies please take a moment to read t his and please email with your views.

We all know how frustrating fostering can be and the seeming needs of the parents mostly outweighing the needs of the child this is your chance to have your say.

The Department is currently working to develop a charter for foster care. The foster carer, local authority and fostering service all play a vital part in helping children and young people have a happy and safe childhood with the opportunity to achieve their full potential.

We want the charter to unite foster carers, local authorities and fostering services around a shared understanding. We hope that the charter will help keep existing foster carers and attract new ones.

The aim is that local authorities, foster carers and fostering services will 'sign up' to the spirit of the charter and build on it locally

by talking about where things are working well and not so well
by sharing experiences and good practice.
Please tell us what matters to you and what you feel should be in the charter. We welcome your views on the draft charter until the end of January 2011. Please send comments on the charter to Rachel Taylor.

A copy of the draft charter and a letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children and Families Tim Loughton MP about the charter are available to download from this page.

Contact details

Rachel Taylor
Email: [email protected]

I will try and reply to Rachel Taylor when have more time. The thing that struck me though was that there was no mention of natural parents. The Children Act does require that SSD work in partnership with natural parents and indeed all service users. I know this is a tricky topic but it seems to me that you cannot ommit this fromm the charter.

I do agree somewhat but the fact it birth parents are often worked with a little to much often to the determent of the child. When what in fact is needed is the parent what's what.
How can you have a parent barring a child going on holiday forcing the sw to then place the child in respite or in some cases can cause a placement breakdown with the carers not feeling they can ever go away.

Forcing a child to attend a contact the parent is not going to turn up to, then allowing the parents to Restart contact at their behest.

Having a guardian who will have only met a child once or twice represent a child when the parents gets to have their own say (In my Los case once for a hour he's only just be allocated and the final hearing is next month). ;(

I personally feel the system is stacked in the parents favour the Childs needs are often secondary to the parents wants.

Were are the Childs interests in this

I also feel that the Children Act is more about the Parents rights than the Children.

The thing I care about most passionately is the length of time it takes Social Services and the Court to determine whether a child should go back to his/her parents. Parents are given way too much time to prove (or usually disprove) their parenting skills.

More often than not the decision is NO. Yet the child has languished in foster care for far too long and by the time the decision is made the child is seen to be too old to be adopted. Therefore the child faces his/her minority years "In Care".

Maypole1 - Sorry, but can someone explain how I can see a copy of the draft so far from "this page"? I have only been able to email Rachel about my concerns, not read what has been proposed already. Not sure where the link is?

LeonieDelt - that sounds slightly worrying actually.

I had hoped the charter might bring some positive changes to children's services. Things can't get much worse!

Wow, not sure what planet you are on, but I've got parents who have NEVER caused harm to their kids, and the kids verify this.

The Guardian's have NEVER had meetings with parents before 8-12 months of the process, saying they won't meet with parents as they 'only take information from the Local Authority'

Most of these parents are nuclear families, no ex's, no kids to other partners, no drugs, no alcohol, good jobs, just strangely they all seem to be on visa's.

In fact in these cases the only allegations made by the social workers are literally:

'The previous care given to your child'

and

'the future emotional harm to come to the child'

and when challenged as to what this means, but the Judge, the reply is usually 'we don't have any information yet' - and that's 5-8 months into foster care.

Shouldn't they HAVE information of the alleged care issues given to the child in the past BEFORE removing the child? Or at least have some evidence that the child WILL in fact be harmed in the future?

I know there are parents who are terrible, and shouldn't have children. But that's such a minority.

If a child is going to come to future emotional harm in a nuclear family where the parents have been together for 10, 15 or more years, then why are children not removed from divorcing parents who abuse each other, make allegations of child abuse, and use the child to punish the other parent?

When a foster carer is paid £1200 a week to look after 3 children, and a Head of Department in a London High School is paid £600 a week to look after 800 children for 7 hours a day 5 days a week, one has to wonder where the balance is and who's making the money.

When a foster carers tells a child they can't buy orange juice because they can't afford it, but can buy a £150 toaster, a gym membership (and make the 12 year old child watch the 51 year old foster carers exercise for 2 hours a day, 5 days a week) surely one has to wonder what the priorities towards the child are.

Specially when the child is asking why they are in care and just want to go HOME.

You seem to have more knowledge and experience than me, I'd certainly love to speak with you so I can become as well informed and knowledgeable to support children and their future families properly.

Yes I fear lealmumis having a rant maybe she has had her own children removed.

This is not a site swbashing this is a thread for foster carers , sw and people who have adopted

Please move your rantings to another thread

legalmums
are you a foster carer? i certainly do not get paid 1200 a week! i get less than a hundred a fortnight!!!

i have never ever refused any of my looked after children anything. in many cases i am th eone fighting for them as nobody else seems to be interested in getting them anything.

i think you will find that abused children in care are not the minority.
abuse covers a massive spectrum not just physical and sexual.

please do enlighten us on where your knowledge base comes from.
maybe you would like to read through the entire fostering forum on mumsnet and see how dedicated these carers are and how much they love their little ones they look after, maybe you would then get a sense of why we foster.
personally i foster becaus ei love children and would rather they lived with people like me and our other carers than be placed in childrens homes or in the case of babies, left in hospital for months on end getting no love whatsoever.

im sorry to be disrespectful to you but i feel you have no idea what you are talking about and as such i think until you do know what you are talking about you keep your hands away from the keyboard.

i also think you owe people an apology for your (in my opinion) nasty comments regarding foster carers.
we are good people who fight tooth and nail for these children. i myself am currently fighting tooth and nail for my lo to be returned to her mum as is her social worker.

you have made me so very very angry with your comments. what right do you have to judge all foster carers as the same as your mind imagines them to be?

legalmums.

£1200 a week???

Refusing a child orange juice???

Gym membership????

Would that be ALL foster carers??

As far as your "knowledge" around child protection procedures and figures - you couldn't be more wrong!

Obviously not a foster carer then?

legalmums you are a bonker

Unfortunately, I have experience (as a fostered child) of exactly the kind of thing legalmums is talking about. She may have an axe to grind, and is massively generalising, but sadly not all foster carers are "good people who fight tooth and nail for these children". Just in the same way that not all SWs are helpful, and not all birth parents are abusive.

It is all too easy to generalize. But since I started fostering over 3 years ago I have met many carers, not one does it for the money although some do rely on the income, (I personally think it is an important job and don't understand why people should do it for nothing, especially as this would preclude many good carers who couldn't afford to give up a job to becaome a foster carer) all do a fantastic job for the children they care for and love them to pieces. Every carer makes their LO feel part of their family.

There will be poor foster carers just as there are bad doctors and failing teachers etc. but children's services does bring foster carers back to panel annually so there is ample opportunity for SW's and LO's to have them de-registered.

£1200 for 3 children can only be pay from an IFA so I woudl be amazed if the LA were not checking about how their money is being spent on an ongoing basis. The child would also have a LA SW to look after their interests.

Fostering.

I completely agree with what you have said. Just one point I would like to make. IFA foster carers usually have the "Difficult to place" children/young people. You would be hard pressed to find an IFA carer who has 3 childrn in placement. Usually one child is placed because they are traumatized by their life experiences to date and need a great deal of love, attention and security on a one to one basis.

In order for the FC to concentrate solely on the huge needs of the child, the child is placed as an only placement - unless there is a sibling group, who have a strong bond, which LA do not feel the need to seperate.

Usually IFA's offer their own therapists and councellors as part of the package pertaining to the child's individual needs. This is why it costs LA so much to place children with IFA's. It is not the FC that benefits from the sums of money paid from LA's to IFA's.

If the child does not need a huge level of proffessional support LA's would not place them within IFA placements, as it would not be cost effective.

That's true, generally. But in areas where there are not enough LA carers the IFA's get some quite straight forward cases.

It is tricky to compare fees paid as it seems to vary enormously but if IFA's are paid more to look after "difficult to palce" children then it might make sense to pay LA carers more to look after them?

I just wish that LA's offered a package to each and every child to include therapists and counsellors from day 1 not a year down the line.

Hi fostering - think we have "spoken" on other threads and I agree with much of what you say. Thing is if the LA do have an IFA carer with 3 children they may well be paid £1200 a week (or possibly more) when you say LAs will be checking on how their money is spent on an ongoing basis - they are - in the sense that they are always looking to move children in IFA placements back to inhouse carers asap because of the cost. Not good for the children, but where costs are concerned, that is the first priority and has to be really because of the massive under funding of LAs by government and more viscous cuts on the way.

Fishtank - you say that usually 1 placement only is made with an IFA carer because that child has been traumatised by his life experiences to date, and needs a great deal of love, care and attention on a one-to-one basis. However this is true of all fostered children to a greater of lesser
extent. IFA carers are not superior in their care of traumatised children to LA foster carers. As all you carers know, it does depend on the particular carer. Like the rest of humanity, some are excellent, some good enough, some would maybe best doing something else, but in my long experience the last category is very much inthe minority.

Fostering - your argument about LAs being paid more to look after "difficult to place" children then it would make sense to pay LA carers more to look after them, has some validity. However it is hard to define a "dificult to place" child as what is a problem to one family isn't a problem to another. It is true that when the IFAs first emerged it did tend to be the older children, maybe teenage, rebellious or with behaviour problems who could not be placed in inhouse plcts and plcts had to be purchased from the IFAs. Of course as demand outsrips supply more and more and with more carers fostering for IFAs it means that any child may have to be fostered with IFA carers if there is absolutely no other carer available.

You are right to wish that LAs were in a position to offer a package of care to each child to include therapists, and cousellors etc. Sadly there is not the financial resources available BUT of course the money has to be made available when they are forced to buy an IFA plct.........crazy but that's the way it is.

Oh yes I think maybe Legalmums posts should not be taken on board. They are very disjointed and it is difficult to understand where she is coming from - and yes Leonie I think we all know how you feel about social services though of course you have a right to your viewpoint.

NanaNina

Most LA carers already have other LAC children in placement and so if a child needs one to one attention on a long term basis it is not practical to place them where they will be vying for attention.

I in no way consider IFA carers "superior" to LA carers. It is simply that the matching criteria is better with IFA's.

I was a LA carer for 20 years and know well that if a carer has a spare bed then that is where the next placement will go - regardless whether it is a good match. The final straw for me was when LA placed a 12 year old boy with me and my then 4 year old daughter.

The boy sexually abused my daughter. Guess what? LA were aware of the boys sexualised behaviour - this is why he was moved from his previous carer - but chose not to tell me as they were well aware I would have refused the placement and they would have had to look elsewhere to place him.

The details I refuse to post on a public forum.

Since being with IFA I have received 3 placements - the current one aged 5 who is a long term placement as he managed to break down 13 LA foster placements! I have been provided with a lot more of the child's history than with any placements from LA.

For the first time in 23 years of fostering I received a copy of the Care Plan. The beauty of IFA for me is that the foster carer is well supported. More importantly the welfare of my own daughter is considered paramount.

I know your view on IFA's and of course you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that if LA foster carers were supported, instead of scapegoated, then LA may have more chance of retaining their carers.

As far as foster carers allowances I say this - I earn £1400 a month from fostering and that includes the allowance for child. I will only take one placement as he has major attachment issues - unsurprisingly! - and would not cope with any other children placed.

My sister - LA carer - has in placement 2 babies and a 3 year old. She gets £180 per week carer fees for each of the children plus £120 allowance per week for each of the children. Work it out!

The 4 year old was placed when she was 18 months with poor attachment and development delay. In their wisdom the LA then placed 2 babies. The 3 year old is really struggling for attention and my sis had raised this as a concern with LA many times. Have they moved her to a more suitable placement? No. They have left her to struggle, despite concerns from nursery and health Visitor.

My sis is also considering moving to IFA, as soon as the two babies have moved. Both were relinquished for adoption at birth, yet at 18 months and 14 months they are still not in the Court arena. Pure madness!

Oops typing too fast. 4 year old should read 3 year old before someone jumps

Not being funny fishtankneedscleaning but the first rule of fostering is NOT TO HAVE ANY CHILD OLDER THAN YOUR OWN CHILDREN

I am sorry to hear your daughter was hurt by a foster child.

But any good la and supervising sw would of given you that advice to be honest I am surprised they didn't bring it up at panel

In our la the first thing they talk to you about is age group no one in my la has a foster child that is older than their own bio child unless they live with outside the home for some reason

It' points out in our guilde lines a bio child must be at least two years older than the foster child.

Not being funny again you say in THEIR wisdom as a carer you CAN refuse ANY child if you have good reason if you feel you cannot cope with say more than to I feel it's your burden to raise this with sw BEFORE you accept the placement.

We have been asked to have a baby but are currently looking after a wheelchair bound child and cannot manage a baby as well as lo and our own dd have given the reasons to our sw they have been accepted

WE AS CARERS ALSO HAVE TO TAKE SOME RESPONCEABILITY FOR OUR PLACEMENTS

Know I will be shot down for saying that but thats how feel

but surely your sister would have requested to be approved for 3 children to have 3 placed with her.

if you accept more than one child and you are only approved for one child then you are in breach of your approval status and get in serious trouble as can the LA.
the only other way to take more children is on a variation and they are only ever short term up to 2 months.
this was a major part of national inspections recently and all LA's were warned of the consequences.
she must have agreed to take the extra two babies!
i agree with you about them not being adopted yet. the ss really drag their feet when it comes to adoptions although that is down to the childs social worker and not your sisters FPT.

Maypole

What was it about the placement I needed to discuss before accepting the placement? I had already stipulated the type of placement I would not consider - sexually abused children being one becaue of the risk to own child.

I had no problem with accepting the placement. My age range was 0-12. The child that was abused was in fact a LAC whom I was in the process of adopting so there was nothing untoward about accepting the placement - and if LA were upfront about the knowledge they had about the boy there would have been no way I would have accepted him -Even though LA were happy to put a LAC child at risk.

What responsibility is it you wanted me to take? I have not stated that I could not cope with two LA placements. I have never had only one placement when fostering with LA. I usually took siblings.

I don't know where you are coming from TBH.