Couple not allowed to foster because they won't stop smacking their own child

[scorpio1]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7337034.stm

I know smacking has been done here 1000000 times, but i wonder how they would discipline the fostered child - would they learn new techniques?

"Where carers have a very strong personal belief that differs from the foster carer agreement, it is potentially unfair to expect them to operate to a set of guidelines which conflicts with this."
Fair enough.

at BBC's use of term "natural child".

Quite right too. If you haven't found alternative techniques for a 9yo then you're a bit erm lacking in imagination imo. You can be a parent governor all you like, but I think the decision is right.

and i wondered, if the child is being fostered then do they not already have background issues and IMO smacking or being around smacking may upset them further?

good

I don't think that's a problem, tbh, and I say that as fairly middling about this topic. If smacking is ever ok, it's certainly not ok to smack other people's kids, so that's an end of it, really.

Absolutely right. What does it say about their understanding of other kinds of physical abuse which a lot of foster children have suffered in the past.IMO smacking any child is wrong, especially other people's children who are being placed in your care as a 'safer' alternative to their birth family.

I hope their appeal fails.

Yes Social Services made right decision imo.
Wonder how The Daily Mail will report this.-pc gone mad etc.

And it bloody well winds me up that evangelical Christians are always in the news making these sorts of legal cases, like smacking is central plank of the faith or something.

Seems fair enough.

The SS have to be certain they won't smack the foster child and will abide by the terms of the agreement. If they can't be sure, then they can't foster.

If they truely wished to foster that much they would stop hiting their own child.

No one has ANY right to smack another person's child, REGARDLESS of what they believe to be OK for their own. End of story. Social Services made the right decision and the fact that this couple have appealed the decision shows how utterly ignorant they are.

I wonder if they are devotees of the Ezzo school of child-rearing
I think Social Services have done the right thing
I guess Eunice Spry also could not see any problem with the way she "looked after" children in her care.

Well I probably have to admit to a conflict of interest as I know the couple, and would have to say that I wouldn't hesitate in having them as guardians of my dcs.

As ever it is always interesting to read news reporting when you know more of the background. As I understand it there is absolutely no question of them ever smacking a foster child, and of course they agree to it. They don't smack their daughter either, but they don't feel that they have to agree to never do so in order to be acceptable foster parents. Their own statement is very clear that they have used a range of discipline tools, but they don't feel that they shoould have to give up options in how they treat their own child.

I'm sorry that they are ending up as a test case on the issue, but I think that they are going into it with their eyes open.

justa, a fee-paying Christian school that some friends send their children too was in the news a couple of years ago challenging the law that prevented them from smacking their pupils. Our friends were terribly, terribly excited about, and even approached the whole thing like it was 'spiritual warfare'.

I was just like "Do you know how this paints the faith if the right to smack other people's children is considered spiritual warfare?"

grr.

They really think this is a hill to die on, though? The hypothetical recourse to smack their own child?

But Ladymuck, the law is clear on this now. They don't have the right to demand to smack their child or anyone else's. Yes, I know there are rules abotu not leaving a mark etc etc but even so.

A test case is needed on this whole smacking thing think.

MN are asking for opinions on this
Look here

My parents smacked me as a child and are foster carers and have never smacked any of their foster children! I smack my children when occasion deserves, dont understand the hysteria really.

It is more about how it has been done though SueBaroo. Both their social worker and her line manager approved the couple. This issue came up at the last minute at panel and they were suddenly overturned, even to the social workers surprise. Either there needs to be guidance that any person who has ever smacked should not apply to be fosterers, or their case should be reheard. Their view is that Somerset Council is out of line with many other councils.

WWW - they are in England, so physical chastisement is still legal.

I really don't see how it would helpful to 'retain' the option of the last-minute smack, but only for your birth child, in a situation that surely would require great sensitivity and even-handedness.

If you can only use the tool for one of your children, what use is it? Except to engender an unhealthy sense of resentment in the child that could be smacked, perhaps? I just think that's bizarre.

LadyMuck, well, I defintiely agree that the situation as you describe could have been dealt with more constructively. The shenanigans of councils and panels needs to be consistent and sensible.

But on the basic point, I still don't think it's an unreasonable request to be consistent with displine methods (in fact, I think it's vital.)

LadyMuck, but they say in that BBC report "it seems that we have been excluded on the basis that we physically chastise our birth child".
Is that incorrect reporting?