Court backs decision to bar Christian foster couple

[hymie]

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

LINK

They do if they are members of that minority, and are suffering as a result, which is what we are talking about.

Oh, and read the rest of the thread, you will find the statistics for children in residential care homes. For the age group concerned, it is hugely rare to be in a home.

Grandhighpoohba Sat 05-Mar-11 08:59:04
They do if they are members of that minority, and are suffering as a result, which is what we are talking about.

5 - 8 yr olds ...WTF !!
I don't think I've ever heard anything so ridiculous in my life

StewieGriffinsMom No, the rights of the children to the chance of a stable family upbringing are more important than the sense of self righteousness and effrontery of those determined to ensure that their own 'cause celebre' takes priority over the kids welfare.

Excellent post Picturehouse, bravo!

legover - that doesn't really deserve a proper response, does it?
However, in the interests of attempting to educate someone who is trying their hardest to keep abreast of a discussion that they clearly know very little about... Please try and understand, that this couple are part of said institution. Young children simply don't get placed in residential care homes apart from in very extreme circumstances. The "21st century equivalent" that you talk of is foster care. It isn't always perfect, but the notion of small children sitting in massive dormitories, never seeing the light of day is a fairy tale.

legover there are no institutions.
There are some small (4-6 bed) group homes for teenagers.

Children with very complex needs i.e. 2:1 care are often in residential care but even with these high needs children the move is towards foster care.

There are some secure places for children with particular needs but they are not for young children.

So whatever your beliefs re this couple, your assumptions about children in care are wrong.

There is also a lot of research that shows Looked After Children fare much,much better if enabled to stay in touch with family and friends. This includes family and friends foster care, rather than placing them with strangers (however lovely those strangers are).
Children on the whole love their families, they just want them to be different. They are rarely greatful (of course they are in hindsight) for being removed from inadequate homes.

In the case of this couple they were applying to be respite carers so they wouldnt be providing a stable upbringing and they certainly wouldnt be saving any children from an insitution.

This isnt being right on or PC. This is based on research and experience. There are many posters on this thread who have personal experience of the system. Yet those that dont insist that children are being left 'in care' if this couple are not approved.

The children would be firmly 'in care' if they were with this couple anyway. They are not plucked from an orphanage and given to a lovely family. They move from one fc to another or from their family to a fc.

Although I dont suppose anything I have written to make any impression. Anyone who thinks the ruling it appropriate is a bigot and a Christian hater at least and a peadphile apologist at worst.

"the kids don't give a flying fig about 'minority' rights ffs." How the bollocksing hell do you know that?

I'm pretty sure 'they' may well care, especially those who either are gay, or whose parents, friends, siblings, other relatives etc. might be. How could you possibly say what "the kids" care about?

My gosh Loopy girl you got more stamina than me! You still here then?

Just a quick peek MrsDV, got a bust weekend away from MN and wondered if there were still some of them (homophobe apologists) about.

busy

Young children simply don't get placed in residential care homes apart from in very extreme circumstances

I'm afraid they do, as your so called extreme circumstances are all too common. I work in that sphere and I'm afraid you are wrong. You try and use emotive language like notion of small children sitting in massive dormitories, never seeing the light of day is a fairy tale to try and make a point seem fact based when it is not. Many many children have problems that make them hard to place (disability, HIV, ethnicity etc), and more often than not it is couples like the Johns that take these on and they are a godsend to hard working struggling social workers desperate to try and give these kids an opportunity. This case is the tip of the iceberg and the end result will be homes filling up with kids that just can't be placed.

Never has the phrase "Be careful what you wish for" been more appropriate. Its the real world out there, that requires real solutions, not idealogical nirvana hogwash.

You've done your bit, have a nice weekend

Oh come on then legover, tell us what you do for a living.

Where?

Before I go, let me tell you why I am so personally invested in this issue.

I was placed in care - familial from the age of 8-11, then a string of different (imperfect, yet in retrospect better than my family could offer) external placements.

My sister and brother were both placed in separate families once we were moved from familial (and very poor) care.

My sister was younger than me by 4 years. She was placed with a very religious family, who seemed perfectly nice and suited to look after a small, shy and vulnerable child.

My aunt, who is a lesbian, was the only person in my family suitable to maintain proper levels of contact. We stayed with her, her partner and my cousin when we had family contact, and were able to maintain some semblance of family togetherness when she enabled it. Unfortunately she was unable to foster us all.

My sister's foster parents were not happy about her spending time with a lesbian couple. They first tried to make things difficult in terms of arrangements, then tried to forbid contact. When we asked SS to intervene, they made up a lot of strange and nasty allegations about my aunt, me and my brother. We then didn't see my sister for years.

Only when she was 12 and had been with this family for a long time, did we discover that she had been physically and seriously emotionally abused by this family. There was no-one from inside the family in a position to see what was going on, and she was such a shy and nervous child that social services didn't cotton on until she eventually wrote them a letter telling them everything.

This may be a very simplistic view, but if the family had not barred contact (due to my aunt's homosexuality), we would have had a lot more insight into my sister's care, and therefore may have been able to prevent the abuse.

Please tell me your thoughts on that legover.

@hymie and RunAwayWife - surely the issue is whether foster parents have the right to indoctrinate children placed in their care, or if society has the right to expect them to provide a balanced, tolerant environment.
Clearly the couple in this case would have extreme difficulty if a child in their care were to come out to them as gay, or perhaps even if they wanted to bring gay friends home. That's not meeting my standards of tolerance, I'm glad it seems society agrees.

Incidentally, while I am in favour of the right of gay couples to adopt, it would be equally wrong of them to bring up their foster children to distrust and fear Christians.

Jesus wept...I despair. Loopy is well named, unless of course I've missed the rallys and demonstrations of 5 - 8 yr olds marching down Whitehall demanding equal rights for this, that and t'other.

OK, you win. Gay 5-8 yr olds should not be placed into the care of couples that are unable to provide an environment where the kids can express themselves properly and with support and guidance. Just to make sure this doesn't happen no 5-8yr old kids will be placed in these peoples care ever just in case they are gay but haven't come out yet.

Nice comeback legover rich in facts and incredibly sensitive given loopy's post

Please God you are not a foster carer.

Loopy, while your experience is obviously terrible it would seem to be the fault of a bad system and poorly trained social workers that allowed that situation to develop. And therein lies the rub.

Valuable resources are being squandered in pursuit of potentially damaging PC heaven rather than proper training and accountability.

thefirstMrsDeVere, the fact you asked for Gods assistance means you may not be suitable as a foster carer.

Sorry to disappoint you and spoil your clever joke. I am a Christian and I am also a foster carer.

@Legoverlil - you're correct in asserting that 5-8 year olds are unlikely to have either a highly developed political or social consciousness OR a clear sexual identity.

However, the daily experiences that WILL shape both, in the following years are just as important at this age. A child that is brought up for years in a family environment inimical to homosexuality might still be gay, but if they are, they're almost guaranteed to be unhappy, guilt ridden and tortured about it. The state cannot sanction this.

Dukeleto OK so it boils down to: The state can't risk a child that realises as it grows older that they are gay being unhappy, guilt ridden and tortured. The only response we have is to remove that risk in its entirety by removing those foster carers from the system.

So you don't think a child in its 'normal' birth family wouldn't go through the same angst ?

You don't think that as the child reaches adulthood it can rationalise ?

So far better to leave them in care because of course there is no stigma in care, no unhappiness, guilt or trauma in thinking that nobody wanted them.

The question is what is in the best interests of the child. Period.

Legoverlil:

I think the rules will be tweaked once the numbers of religious foster carers fall - The 'rules' have changed on black and Asian children being adopted by White couples - the rules were adapted simple because not enough black couples were available. Black and Asian children spent - on average, 3X longer in care because 'suitable' parents could not be found.

I think we should just wait and see what happens.

Carmin, thats my whole point. As you rightly say this route has already been taken and the end result was not in the majority of childrens interests so why on earth go down it again ?

There is already in place procedures to follow for children that may be more vulnerable for whatever reason. For instance in the unlikely event that an 8yr old was openly gay then of course you wouldn't place them with the Johns. However, that requires someone ensuring that doesn't happen, ergo somebody taking responsibility. The failing is in the system not ensuring properly trained staff deal with these cases.
Resources need to be used to help the children.

If I was being cynical I'd think this has a lot to do with the compensation culture. Someone, somewhere, probably sued their council for not placing them with a Russian mother and Swahili Father - thus denying them their cultural heritage. -