Housing fostered children differently

[stopandstandup123]

Not a foster carer but interested so please be gentle if I am not going in the right direction with this.

With local authorities being strapped for cash, why can we not use large central empty properties in each town to house children in foster care from around secondary school age onwards. I am not talking about the horrific care homes of old with their stigmas, harsh regimes and abuse hidden away in remote places. I hope we have moved on from that towards kindness, support and life skills building in a nurturing environment where children are listened to and part of the planning of the service to them. There may be children still at risk of harm not able to come into a foster home due to shortages of carers and this could be a workable alternative. It would keep children close to their communities.

If the right skilled adults - social worker, support worker, care worker - were put in place (24 hour round the clock), a larger property may be a great place to build those independence skills and life long peer support networks. (Similar to Halls of Residence in Uni's but with more support/staff as the children would be younger). We have a massive shortage of foster carers and many due to leave in the next few years due to retirement.

Just a thought.

We are extremely liberal so it wasn't to do with views on homosexuality. We were honest that our children would be educated independently if necessary. We didn't go so far as applying because we were put off upon inquiry.

I think your children being privately educated while foster children are state educated is the issue, rather than your skin tone, marital status or religious beliefs.

But if we'd adopted a long term foster child, they'd have had the same.

We fostered a number of children who went onto live in children's homes. Some are too dangerous to other people and themselves to live in a family setting. An example - We had a child who kept herself awake all night,literally all night - and would roam the house whilst we slept. Over the period of a week she set fires, broke the door down of another foster child who was sleeping, purposely flooded the bathroom so it was six inches deep in water - all at night. She needed 24 hour supervision to keep herself and the other members of the household safe. The children's home she went to was appropriate for her as they had staff at night.

Many of the children's homes in our area are closing as they are hugely expensive to run. I know of an agency that recruits foster carers for sole placements - one child only will be placed with a family. No children younger than the foster child placed, or no birth children at all in some cases. The children placed need specialist care and the carers have extra support and training to look after them.

Adoption and fostering a quite different things. It still would be unlikely to be appropriate to have foster children in state schools and birth children in private schools in the same household - the small chance that you might one day in the future adopt a foster child wouldn't change that.

But anyway, the point is that that part of your lifestyle is what made you unsuitable, not your skin, marriage or religion.

Adoption and fostering a quite different things. It still would be unlikely to be appropriate to have foster children in state schools and birth children in private schools in the same household - the small chance that you might one day in the future adopt a foster child wouldn't change that.

But anyway, the point is that that part of your lifestyle is what made you unsuitable, not your skin, marriage or religion.

*I am obviously very sorry for your experiences however your response is (meant kindly) silly.

Your pm of accusing me being homophobic kinda rules this out

To clarify:

The above poster sent me a PM which said she was hiding the thread but was sorry for saying that I said 'deserved' rather than 'suited.'

I replied saying that I felt an apology for homophobia might be better placed.

I stand by what I said to you MT and am happy to say it on here as your above post implies I deliberately PMd you when this was not the case.

You listed a long list of things that might lead to a child not being 'deserving' (your words) of a family - you included 'gay' in this.

That is grossly offensive. It implies there is something wrong with being gay. It implies that being gay is undesirable, wrong, should be fixed, altered.

There is a word for that and that word is homophobia.

I think it's rather sad that people were so off with us. It's discrimination of another form. What about a child from a wealthy background whose mother was mentally ill or addicted. Mustn't that child go to a comfortably off living family for a while?

It's not worth it for local authorities to spend money assessing and training foster carers who would only be able to meet the needs of one very specific type of child who is unlikely to come into care. That's not discrimination.

I am happy to admit I PM'd you first to apologise but there is no way I will admit to being homophobic! ffs, you have chosen the word 'gay' and got your back up, What about the other words I used?

violent
alcohol
asd
friendless
homeless
eating disorder
drugs
sexually abused
criminal

You have nothing to say about those?

You are barking up the wrong tree accusing me of being homophobic, I am openly bisexual and my son is gay!

OK MT I will try to explain

Violent - not a good thing. 'A history of violence' would not be seen as a positive trait.
Alcohol - again, a young person abusing alcohol would be the sign of a troubled individual.
ASD - is classified as a disorder (hence the 'D' in ASD although I know some dispute this.
Friendless - that's sad, a young person without friends.
Homeless - that's very sad, and indicative of many issues.
Eating disorder - is a mental health issue
Drugs - as with alcohol, a very troubled individual
Sexually abused - very sad and very wrong.
Criminal - that's worrying.
Gay - ??

In other words, everything else you listed is either indicative of extreme social and/or mental health issues and then 'gay' was tacked onto the end.

If I found out my child was abusing alcohol or drugs I'd be very upset and worried. If my child had ASD they would need external support. A child who was friendless would elicit much sadness. A child of mine who had a criminal record or history of violence would have me very concerned indeed, as I would be if they had an eating disorder or had been sexually abused.

I'm just lost as to how that list came about. 'Here are the terrible things that you might come across from children in foster care: they might have been sexually abused, or have a history of violence, or an eating disorder and - gasp - they might even be GAY!'

I had no idea we had many children's homes left so sorry for not knowing Notagiraffe. I thought they had mostly been closed after the awful treatment of children in care homes during the 70's. I don't know of any children's homes in our area but that may just be my ignorance.

What I do know is that I worked briefly for a Housing Association who had an HMO (12 bed) devoted to vulnerable young homeless people. A lot were placed with us by SW's whilst in the care system. They had to be 16yrs to stay with us but I wondered why we could not do this for younger children who need safe housing. I have never seen Tracy Beaker so not sure what to make of that (sorry).

It was just an idea as I keep reading about the crisis in foster care.

It might also help with respite.

We had a family at school where the single parent mum fostered, her daughter was at private school & the other children were in state schools. However she was from an unusual back ground, one in which they'd have shortages of willing people so that might have been to her advantage. And it was 11-7 years ago, things have changed.

Children who go into children homes often end up bring over criminalised. Misameanors would be dealt with by parents are often referred to the police.

Some children are far too damaged to be fostered. It doesn't mean they don't deserve a loving home, but they don't deserve to be set up to fail. Children homes are a stop gap solution where no foster carer is available.

Some children with asd might suit a specialist boarding school rather than a children's home.

BeaufortBelle I thinks it was your understanding of fostering and the likely traumas children have experienced that meant you felt discouraged from continuing. That's pretty clear from your posts.
Children coming into the foster care system have very troubled backgrounds and they need very specific support from the families. They often come with nothing but the clothes they are wearing, have no idea how to self feed even at older ages, steal and covet food, go into fight/flight/freeze responses over triggers you can't comprehend. A child I've come across went into a frozen state for several days when offered a treat that happened to be the same one that their grandfather would give them as a reward to perform sex acts with siblings. Another was covered in lice and eczema, another had never seen or used a toothbrush and couldn't hold it anyway, another had been abandoned in a public place and couldn't cope with any adults turning away as the last sight of mum had been her sprinting away and leaving the toddler alone, another couldn'stuck a bottle due to drug abuse in utero. The therapy and support these children need is a huge commitment and very intense - whether they might end up in the hugely alien environment of an independent school is bottom of the list of attributes a foster carer can offer.

I that some like BeaufortBelle could learn how to support a foster child, but maybe it's not the right time in her life. Maybe when her children are grown up or she is retired she would be in a better position to be a foster carer. Or if she is a SAHM she could care for a pre school child.

I doubt that any of us can understand the trauma that a foster child goes through.

Sadly some people become foster carers merely for the money. At least someone wealthy is not moviated by cash.

Why is it sad? Doing something for money doesn't mean you can't do a good job. I think offering more money for fostering is the way to go.

There are many, many easier ways to earn money than fostering. Why do you think people would choose to earn less than minimum wage caring for often extremely difficult children and submit to intrusion into their lives by social services when they could earn more doing a 9-5 job?

But we have no idea if Beaufort would have been approved or not. They had young DCs (not yet school age, it is implied, as they "would" go to private school) which can mean it's hard to find LAC that fit in age wise, but basically they decided the LA was prejudiced against them based on no evidence and it was THEM not the LA who decided to stop the application.
It sounds more to me as though fostering wasn't what they thought it was.
I'm not sure it would be a problem for birth and fostered children to go to different schools, especially if by the time this is relevant we are talking birth children finishing secondary and LAC continuing at their previous primary.

I agree Littlenelle, better pay for foster carers and better support would be a step in the right direction.

I'm not sure sending birth children to private school would be a barrier to fostering - it shows a positive attitude towards education. In our LA we have carers who are married, single, living together, of all sexualities and cultures, and from all different financial circumstances. It's about being accepting, fair and open minded.

Our LA has 3 children's homes. 2 X 5 bedded which usually house teenagers who can't be placed in families for all sorts of reasons, and one 2 bedded which is more like a family home for children who will be in care long term and can't be fostered.

Foster carers are not paid much money per child and they could never live comfortably on the money provided in the south east. Most people who are moviated by money can find easier ways of earning such a pittance if they are reasonably intelligent. Foster carers I have met have either had an alternative income stream like a pension or a job. Money has not been their prime moviation to become a foster carer. They have become foster carers for altruistic reasons.

An ex foster carer I know who was moviated by money was very resentful when her foster child had an expensive school trip to New York paid for. She was stupid enough to slag off her foster child on Facebook. Thankfully county have realised that she is not fit to foster a hamster yet alone a child! She is on benefits as she is too thick to get employment.

Given the terrible shortage of foster carers, maybe there is something to be said for paying them more. There is nothing wrong with being moviated by money provided you do a good job. Finding high quality foster carers whose prime moviation is money is hard. You need to pay them enough to make it worthwhile to give up a reasonable job.

As a foster Carer I can't believe anyone would do this for money. There are much easier ways of earning £2 an hour.

I have gained so much insight into something I clearly know very little about so thank you to all who responded to my very gentle enquiry.

I see that it is not so much the "housing" we need as much as more foster carers with exceptional skills to take children into their homes. I was very lucky to have spent some time in the HMO which had stable staff who were more like role models and not like "staff" to the kids there. I was the oldest on the team of 6 support workers and was more like "nan" to the youngsters. Without exception all were lovely kids just trying to get by and make friends (which was sometimes difficult for them). I had no expertise other than wanting the best for them like I would my own children and grandchildren.

£2 per hour? Hopefully, with the minimum living wage announced today (£7.20 per hour) things will get better soon.