Court backs decision to bar Christian foster couple

[hymie]

Should Christians be stopped from fostering because of their faith/belief?

LINK

They wouldn't be told that though. Personally, I think they'd be better off talking to their social worker about it because how many parents would know how to talk about it with their own children, let alone a foster child.

Rightpissedoff

My point about residential care is that it will be very unlikely that the next option after this respite family is a childrens' home. ("that the welfare of the child may be more at risk if said child remains in residential care.")

You seem to think that a) childrens' homes are all bad, and b) it is a toss-up between this family caring for them and a childrens' home. You are really over simplifying things.
You should look at the case of Denmark (and other Scandinavian countries), who use residential care homes a lot more than we do in place of fostering children. They have a much higher rate of care leavers going into full-time Higher education, and a lower rate of social crimes attributable to young people who have been in the care system.

Also, although it is very unlikely that a 5-8 year old might need a great deal of guidance regarding their own sexuality, the likelihood of it being required with regard to others they know, or on a more general basis, is quite high.
Could you please answer my hypothetical question earlier regarding the child whose father is gay?

Ilovemyhens:

In case you missed my earlier post:

"Did you hear the couple interviewed on the Today programme this morning? The wife was asked what she would say to a foster child placed with her who identified as gay or who said they thought they might be gay. After much bluster, the best she could come up with was "we'd work through it with them - we would still show them that we loved them" and when pressed, made it abundantly clear that "working through" would involve telling the child that homosexuality was a sin/wrong. "

So that isn't accepting at all. I know that not all Christians believe that. I have got friends who are committed Christians. But that's what this couple believe. They're not being discriminated against because they are Christian at all, they're being told they are not suitable to have a job caring for children who might be gay. Massive difference.

I was in a childrens home and it was great We were well cared for.

My foster parents were evil and abusive on the other hand, even though they were deemed perfectly suitable by social services. They ticked all the right boxes and made all the right noises, but behind closed doors and all that.

Well perhaps they'd be better off not fostering teens then, but how many younger children are actually aware of their sexuality anyway? I certainly wasn't and I can't see it in either of my kids or anybody elses come to think of it.

But what about their parents' sexuality, or that of siblings, or peers?

rpo - do you want me to provide chapter and verse on how growing up with parents who thought homosexuality was a sin can affect a gay child? Because I can do the googling and I promise you the evidence is there. But feel free to make me provide you with something to make you realise that you're wrong.

I'm just saying: if you come up with anecdotes about jolly homosexual five year olds, they can be matched and overtaken by anecdotes of horror and abuse from residential homes. I'm not sure why your anecdotes are allowed and mine aren't.

Particularly this vague, hypothetical possibility of them needing guidance about the sexuality of other people. Being told that these two people looking after you don't like the fact that Uncle Arthur has a boyfriend is NOT worse than the emotional deprivation and abuse that can happen in a children's home. These are BOTH hypothetical possibilities, none is guaranteed to happen, the levels of risk are utterly indeterminable. So we either discuss this anecdotally and hypothetically, or we don't.

Since a great many worse things have happened in children's homes than we could ever want to imagine, then if a couple seem warm-hearted and generous despite this flaw, and more importantly, to fit the bill in EVERY RESPECT despite this flaw, and since only ten per cent of people are gay, and since only a tiny per cent of those people are conscious of their sexuality aged 5-8, I'd take such a couple over a children's home any day. Anything else is actually starting to look irrational to me.

I don't really think I should look at care homes outside the UK when the children with these foster parents won't be placed there.

About a sixth of looked after children are in residential care. So, a one in six chance. It's not exactly vanishingly rare, is it?

Do you want me to provide you with tales of horror from children's homes? Because I can do the googling and I promise you the evidence is there. But feel free to make me provide you with something to make you realise that you're wrong.

Well for many christians, No, they do not accept homosexuality because they take the Bible to be the word from God and there are many passages which are very clear on it. So unless you do not take the Bible word for word and pick and chose the bits you like, It is not something that christians can accept.
What would happen then if other religions were involved? Islam and Judaism are among many who do not accept homosexuality as a way of life.

They are not preaching hate - they are standing up for what they believe in. Fair play to them.

I am just telling it how it is for many christians and other religious groups. Just because you don't agree with something does not mean you are a homophobe!

Ilovemyhens. I believe you.

WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS A CHOICE BETWEEN THIS COUPLE AND A CHILDRENS HOME?

I bet lots of people on here don't agree with taking drugs and smoking but that doesnt mean you you hate all smokers and people who take drugs does it?
....and just because you felt it was indecent of you to not allow a smoker to smoke in your house would you suddenly let them come into your kitchen and smoke,dope to their hearts content?

How can the provide stability? They were respite carers.

Where are all these residential homes for children under 14 then? I know the Daily Mail thinks they exist but I didnt think anyone with any sense did.

As for Christians thinking being gay is a sin - I must have missed that memo. I am and I dont. Does that mean I have to hand my badge back?

This couple are NOT suitable to be foster carers because they do not accept diversity in all its forms. They have applied to be respite foster carers not adopters so love is not the big issue here anyway. Their job (it IS a job) is to support children and provide them with a safe and nurturing environment. They have to prepare the children to return home or move on to another placement. It is NOT their job to impose their religious views on children that pass through their home.

Religious people of all denominations can and do foster but only if they are prepared to be open minded and accept the children as they are. A foster carers role is not to mould a child into the form they think is perfect i.e. straight.

I do not see what the problem is here? Why does anyone think this couple are suitable foster carers?

I think you and I would disagree about what constitutes decent then swc.

And I think we're probably going round in circles now. I don't think they're fit to foster, you think they are. What a shame you work in this area though.

smallwhitecat the word is decent. Being Christians doesnt automatically qualify this couple as suitable and decent. They have admitted to an outright refusal to accept a child in their care sexuality. How does that make them a decent alternative to a different set of carers?

What is it about this couple that makes them so different from the other placements the children you ahve worked with have been lugged about from?
Why would a child be less likely to be moved on from them?

I dont understand your argument.

There are hundreds of people who think they would make brilliant foster carers. Just because they think they would doesnt make it true does it?

What bloody children's homes? Where? Why do people continue to belive that there are thousands of little children sitting on their metal, army blanket covered beds, clutching a one eyed teddy bear.

if this is the only reason they are not fit to foster then they've fulfilled every other requirement of decency and suitabilty

so the argument is that a suitable and decent couple should not be allowed to foster because of this, and children may be denied a place in a suitable and decent home because of this

you might disagree on the yay or the nay, but make no mistake, this is the argument

"embracing diversity in all its forms"

failure to do this -- over a residential home?

really?

Lol I notice someone brought in the Daily Mail - isn't this like the Nazi thing now? Bit of a desperate barrel scrape there.

because of official figures mrsdevere which say that 14 pc of looked after children are in residential cre

there are 60,000 looked after children

14 per cent is 8,400

the last time i looked that was "thousands"

I don't know if they still have metal beds, or teddy bears, or sexual and emotional abuse, or instability, or gruel, or whatever else

but I do know there are thousands of them and now, so do you