Court backs decision to bar Christian foster couple

[hymie]

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

LINK

Holby? YABU. Surely there's something better on?

Not as a baby, too young for fish tricks. Was meek and mild though, not much crying (="good baby")

No, he was a bit rubbish with fish when a baby. It was when he growed that he really got the hang.

But he was very good at lying in the manger not crying (except at Pentecostalists) agreed.

rightpissedoff - I work with LOADS of teens in foster homes. Well, about 15 a week, anyway. In my small capacity which is not looked-after children specific.

AND know loads of 8 year olds who might well have cause to bring up issues of homosexuality - whether because they have gay parents, relatives, and at least one who DOES know that he identifies with the idea of being in love with / marrying a man. So I don't know why you are so sure it is a non-issue with 8 yos.

I am just relieved Hully has arrived.

(where the bloody hell have you been?)

I had no idea that the baby Jeus' love was in need. Who knew rampant Pentecostian homophobia could spark such outrage?

:)

Theres me thinking you were omnipresent

Quoted from commissioningsupport.org (can't work out how to link a pdf) but feel free to google. It's Research Report DCSF-RW023 from the department of children, schools and families.

"The profile of children in residential care:
? Approximately 6,600 children are in residential care in England (around 11 percent of all
looked after children), most of whom are over 13 years old;"

The children who would be potentially fostered by this couple are hugely unlikely to end up in residential care, so that argument is a red herring.

Fostering is a job. This couple can believe what they want, but they have admitted that they are unwilling to undertake a fundamental aspect of the job - to offer acceptance and understanding to a troubled child. Would you expect a job at McDonalds if you refused to serve meat?

BTW, comparing someone's sexuality, which causes no harm to anyone, and is nowadays firmly established as not a choice, to criminal behaviour may be why some people here feel quite offended.

I take ages posting a serious message and Hully and SGM go and lower the tone while I'm busy typing! Typical

i agree Hymie. They are probably really good foster parents and now some vunerable kids will lose out. oh well never mind.

But on the other hand they might be really horrible foster parents who shut the children in the shed if they're badly behaved. Who can tell?

the sw can tell

if they;re approved apart form this, then they aren't really horrible are they

they're entirely suitable and decent otherwise

Disagree - I know people who've been with absolutely horrible foster carers. Passing the test is all they've got to try and make sure you're going to treat children in your care vaguely decently.

Are we really suggesting that "sort of good enough" is a reasonable standard for foster carers, that as long as they are not actively physically abusive, and mean well, they should get the job?

These people have openly admitted that they would tell vulnerable children that they, or their family members, are not acceptable if the subject arose.

If you were incapacitated for a month, and someone else had to look after your children, how would you react if those people told your children that they or you were sinful? And furthermore, they did so whilst your child was feeling insecure and upset and frightened due to being away from you.

Children from difficult backgrounds often blame themselves for the horrible things they have been through. It is a foster carer's job to help them realise that this is not true, not to cause further feelings of guilt in the child!

Gawd, people are really not getting what fostering is about, are they?

Can I offer a reasonable analogy? I am a lesbian feminist, and pretty left wing too. If I was a foster carer, and provided respite care for a child from a very traditional family, who firmly believed that women shouldn't work outside the home, that gays shouldn't marry, that immigration is a force of evil, then it would be completely inappropriate for me to attempt to dissuade that child from all the beliefs they had been raised with. Because my job would not be to further destabilise the child, or undermine their loyalty to the parents they may well be returning to, or make them feel there is something 'wrong' with them.

THAT is the issue here, not anti-Christianity. It is about foster carers who are prioritising their personal beliefs over the needs of children in their care. They are perfectly entitled to their beliefs, but if they can't or won't understand why it is inappropriate to 'hate the sin but love the sinner' over something as fundamental as sexuality when caring for vulnerable children, then they are simply not suitable foster carers.

Excellent post hester.

What Hester said.

Very well put Hester!

Why, thank you ladies

I'm sorry but having a family that doesn't beat the shit out of them or being stuck in a care home is way more important then the PC bragades bullshit.

I am sick to death about hearing about mix race kids being stuck in care homes their entire childhood because a family with EXACTLY the same ethnic match can't be found without them adding another load of shit rules that mean kids don't get to live in proper homes.

The old saying nobody is perfect spring to mind.

Again, many assumptions about the alternative there Ryoko.

Foster carers should all be excellent, not just good enough. It shouldn't be a choice between homophobia or beating (and it usually isn't).

Regarding ethnic matching, what does that have to do with respite care? Are you getting confused with adoption?

I am sick to death about hearing about mix race kids being stuck in care homes their entire childhood because a family with EXACTLY the same ethnic match can't be found without them adding another load of shit rules that mean kids don't get to live in proper homes.

That particular piece of PC daftness is being done away with, so you won't have to hear it much more.

But the case with foster carers who would be willing to tell a child who realised they might be gay that there was something intrinsically wrong with what s/he was is entirely different.