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?

and my spelling and grammar skills appear to have disappeared down a black hole today

Oh, I read this on the Daily Mail site online. They make much of the fact that the couple DO use a range of alternative techniques and the smacking is very much a last resort.
Course, being the DM, they also make much of the fact that it is a middle class family with a four bedroomed house the implication being it is criminal to deprive children of a home in such a respectable family - oh, and it goes on about how criminals and disabled people and gays are allowed to foster, as if there's something wrong with that

However, I don't get the impression these are scarey Ezzo types, but that they are well within the normal range of parenting.

If they feel they are capable of disciplining a foster child without needing to use smacking as a last resort and that they have the parenting skills to find other ways of managing a child's behaviour then why on earth would they choose to smack their birth child?!

taking into account what Lady Muck has said, I don't think that somebody who believes that smacking is ever a reasonable form of child care is suitable to be a foster parent.

Yes sometimes parents snap and smack their children and regret it. To think that smacking is a way to teach a child to behave well is quite another matter. Lady Muck obviously knows the couple well. The assessment panel can only go on what they see. I think they did the right thing.

Marina, they will have smacked her occasionally in the past, but she is now 9 years old (and also a lovely well-behaved girl). It is unlikely that there is any situation that would arise where they would need to use smacking: their daughter is intelligent enough that other snactions can be used to greater effect. IME parents who do view smacking has a purpose (and I would include myself) tend to find it more effective with younger children who need a more immediate consequence to their actions.

A parent who smacks can also be one who uses time-out, reward charts, positive reinforcement etc. The fact that some parents smack out of laziness or even worse temper does not mean that it can't be a discipline tool for others. Of course we have to try to protect children from poor parenting but a simple "smacking is bad" message doesn't address much that is wrong with poor parenting. Personally I wouldn't want a guardian who overly criticised their own children ever have care of mine.

Thanks LadyMuck
The BBC report is not very detailed, is it...
They look lovely, warm people in the photo. I just can't quite understand why they want to stand up for smacking in principle, tbh. Given that they are clearly loving parents who want to help looked-after children...

Well perhaps it is just the principle. Imagine if just at the last moment you were told "oh and btw you must agree never to watch 'Gone With The Wind'?
Never mind that you probably wouldn't want to anyway you might be a bit annoyed at someone adding on their own conditions/restrictions.

As for the smacking issue itself I think any parent in the habit of 'snapping and smacking their children' is in the wrong (though understandable sometimes), but one who lightly smacks a child in the right circumstances is ok

I don't see how this is a surprise, we were told on our foster parenting course right from the beginning that if we thought it was ok to hit children then we were not suitable.

Can't believe it got that far, what a waste of time.

They can't really be that keen on fostering if they wont agree to rule out smacking. It is so obviously necesssary to keep looked after children away from this kind of violence. Maybe their lack of commitment contributed to them being turned down?

Hang on Ladymuck, it is illegal, more or less, in the UK, here although there's still a stupid 'reasonable chastisement' clause.

You may view it as stupid WWW, but reasonable physical chastisement is perfectly lawful in England. Violent smacking is obviously against the law.

Lauriefairycake - that is interesting. As I've said before both their social worker and her line manager recommended the Bowens, so obviously this issue wasn't clearly set out for them. The Bowens certainly wouldn't have invested so much time if they were going to be automatically turned down. Can I ask which authority you did the course with?

Hertfordshire

I do view it as stupid. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. But I do agree with the quote from that piece

"NSPCC boss Mary Marsh said: "There is a risk parents may choose to hit children on parts of their body where injury is less visible, such as the head, which can cause serious harm.

"Defining acceptable ways to hit children should become a thing of the past. It should be just as wrong to hit a child as it is to hit an adult."

reasonable physical chastisement is still 'smacking'

C+P from other thread:

i think SS have made the right decision. a child who has been placed in care will have been extremely tramatised already - either by their past experiences or by the removal itself. a child is not going to be able to make the distinction between their foster sibling being smacked and the potential that they might be smacked one day.

i do not think it is appropriate that a child be placed in a foster home where smacking is deemed acceptable, regardless of whether the foster parents actually smack their own child or not.

I've been thinking about this some more. If the couple were not prepared to give up their hypothetical right to smack their nine-year old, in order to be approved as foster carers, it is quite likely that they do not have the open-mindedness, flexibility and ability to cooperate with numerous social workers that effective foster carers need.

So a child is denied a home with a couple whom those who know say are good, loving people? Just because they've been very (perhaps too) honest about something that may never ever happen again?

How is this good for the putative foster child? I simply don't understand.

Foster children are, in general, very troubled souls who will display challenging, sometimes antisocial behaviour. Rightly or wrongly the social workers have decided that this couple does not have the necessary qualities to deal with such challenges. I'm sure the smacking issue is only one part of why they have been turned down.

If they are that bothered about fostering in the first place, you'd think they would be prepared to compromise on something like this, especially when they claim not to even use smacking as discipline anyway! They clearly don't deserve to foster. Fuckers.

I can only think you're right, Janni, and there must be more to this than the smacking issue.

The social worker recommended them. It was the panel who didn't.

Somerset council do not have a public policy that would turn down foster carers who have smacked their own children. If that were the case then the Bowens would have no right to appeal. Nor is there such a nationwide public policy at present. In fact the Council have not asked the Bowens to agree to stop smacking their own child and then they can become foster carers. Presumably because if they did so for the Bowens then they would have to do so for all foster carers in Somerset.

If we have come to a point where it is unacceptable for foster carers to smack their own children then surely such a policy has to apply to all foster carers? And if this is the case then, yes, a large number of foster carers would have to become "un-approved".

Looked after children get a raw deal in so many ways.

In terms of the assumptions that a parent who smacks only ever smacks, then here is a quote from David Bowen "To put this in perspective, our birth daughter is only chastised physically as a last resort amongst a whole range of other forms of behaviour management strategies which include rewards and sanctions. We have been made by the Council to feel that we are bad parents and yet we do nothing that hundreds of thousands of parents across the UK do as loving and responsible parents".

LadyMuck - at first I thought they were daft to fight this as a point of principle, but when I saw them on GMTV (I think it was) the thing became clearer - the point is the lack of policy on this.
For all the reasons mentioned here, it does seem a good idea to make foster carers agree not to smack any children including their own, BUT if this is the case, this needs to be a matter of policy and be explicit, not just be something raised at the last minute by a particular panel (when other panels would have let it pass). It would also need to be the case that the potential foster parents should be given the option of agreeing to stop smacking, which did not happen here.

Otherwise the implication is that anyone who thinks smacking is ok in some circs is therefore a bad parent. Which is not what the law says.

I think its common sense that looked after children should not be in a home where smacking is acceptable. I would agree that anybody who thinks smacking is ok in some circumstances would be a bad foster parent.

They were on the local news where I live and they said that they had agreed not to smack a foster child. They said they had occasionally smacked their own child as a last resort.

"reasonable physical chastisement is perfectly lawful in England" - but is almost always completely inappropriate for a fostered child to either be smacked or to see anoter child smacked or to be led to bleive that its OK.

I am very surprised this council don;t have a policy - haven't yet come across a social worker who would be prepared to put you forward as an adoptive parent or foster carer if you beleive in smacking.