Foster carers

[mamath]

what are mums' views on foster carers?

Oh come on HAskell

You get together with someone to start a family.

You suffer DV
and if you know anything at all about DV for women
one of the most psychologically oppressive categories is the situation of you home with your children bound up with the DV

and escaping that is nothing otherthan heroic and urgent

and women and children should be punished for this ??

seeing and hearing DV and then you mother getting you free of it for a new life, is not nearly as damaging for a child (to generalise now on the basis of many common experiences/scenarios) as being removed from the source of your security and nurturing

as for the mother, it would be nothing less than a living bereavement
and it is.

And besides I am not only referring to DV case scenraios, that was but one issue.

So... you think children who have experience of DV who are placed in FC are more damaged than children who have experience of DV but still live with their parent who has since escaped DV?

I seriously doubt this is the case.

You get together with someone to start a family.

See- this is where you're going wrong. Most people get together because of mutual attraction. The starting a family thing comes later.

psychologically oppressive categories

What does this mean please?

I am serious when I ask if English is your first language, because you do not seem to have a particularly strong command of it.

StewieGriffinsMom
I said it wasn't evidence myself, so there you are, you and I have consensus.

I raise an uncomfortable issue which we can all easily turn away from, from the moral and social high ground?

I hadn't even mentioned Hemmings.

And why cite again DV situ of mother not leaving, when I cite situ of mother leaving?

Besides, there is a lot of quality academic research and a huge body of evidence on DV that leaving is largely a practical social obstacle.

Like the uncommon occurrance of MaryPoppinsFCs, women's refuges are no holiday inn, nor on every other street.

Like I said DV is but one scenario.

My initial focus was competent, loving, ordinary and committed parents.

BTW, even if I answered every reply one by one, the comments would still be out of sequence because people are posting as I write.

Good night all. Thanks for sharing your views.

What a bizarre thread

OP is a member of MFJ forum, aren't you? I'm sure I recognise your style.
Sensationalist and misguided.

Your tone is really patronising. You seem to think that if we disagree with you we are having difficulty facing unpalatable issues.
How odd. Many women on this forum have had awful experiences, who are you to tell them that you know more than they do?

itsmeitsmeolord, Not sure why you keep telling me what I think, and you call me patronising
by the same token,
who are you to tell me that you know more than I do

It wasn't compulsorary to participate in the thread

I feel that many of the comments on here have become personal towards me, sarcastic and unkind.

'You get together with someone to start a family.'
"See- this is where you're going wrong. Most people get together because of mutual attraction. The starting a family thing comes later."

OMG I'm sorry but this is cultural fascism

This is a really strange thread.
The youtube clip was pathetic and did nothing to enhance the debate. The Times articles only showed the mum's POV not the evidence as presented to Social Services.
Of course with all walks of life there will be foster carers and social workers who don't have a 100% altruistic motivation but why suggest that there is a huge scandal of children being removed from decent safe homes for no good reason? Do you seriously think that SWs have nothing better to do? The paperwork alone is a complete nightmare, all important decisions like this have to be countersigned by managers and enforced by Courts and the vast majority of SWs are fully aware of the potential damage that an unsucessful placement could have on the child and family. The thought that there is a whole child snatching industry set up is ridiculous.

scaremongering does nothing to support the very hard and difficult work that social workers and other child protection agencies do every day. You are a Daily Mail reader's wet dream.

abusiveness does nothing to change my right to express myself

children affected by UK plc unaccountable social work sector
something in the region of 65,000

but sorry for disturbing your personal space with your partcipation in the thread

who cares about those children anyway

my last comment was in response to superchick

To StewieGriffinsMom
I appreciate your input in the thread

however, I am simply coming at it fom a different angle,
With respect, my angle is no more black and white than your own.

superchick

is it 'ridiculous' because it is uncomfortable?

snigger, be personal, turn away

I am disappointed.

If I want to write an essay about it I'll write an essay about it.

This thread, people are posting simultaneously, which affects the sequence of comments, so I don't know why people are making such a fuss about following the thread.

As for a command of English language
well this is patronising, maybe English is my first language, maybe it isn't, maybe it's my only language,
the thread got so busy yesterday evening, that I whacked out a few in note form typos and all to try and get back to the point

I have avoided being sensationalist. I think this word gets misused to avoid looking at uncomfortable issues.

As for misguided, well who can say.

WTF? Cultural Fascism? WTfucking fuck?

Are you honestly telling me that you form a partnership, a loving, stable relationship with someone purely to breed?
Sorry- I think actually people form relationships because of mutual attraction. I realise biology has us all by the throat, and subconsciously we are attracted to that person because we may wish to breed with them in the future, but I do not form relationships purely to reproduce. DC are a by-product of the relationships we form, not the raison d'etre.

I think you need to separate out your hang-ups here, and start different threads for the different aspects you wish to discuss. This thread is too disjointed and confusing- you are not going to garner any support for your cause in this manner.

no it is ridiculous because it is untrue

I do not mean to be patronising- I am trying to cut you some slack, and be understanding. Unfortunately the way you write (nothing to do with the cross-posting) is unintelligible in the main, and obfuscating. This is why people are picking you apart, and pulling you up on things you have posted.

Haskell
That post was to cut to the chase when discussing when the hopes of a normal family life fall foul to DV, and the placing of a woman and her children in that setting, and the body of knowledge re how a woman's choices can be limited in practical financial terms, and psychological ones because of the broad spectrum of actual DV in reality etc that is not the thread.

I cut to the chase and it seems that there is a real desire to misunderstand me

I spell it out and I was called patronising.

'Purely to breed' is very loaded language
The want of a loving stable relationship and partnership is integral to starting a family and therefore to the aspirations of many many people. That is not a crime.

I think this is relevant to the thread on second thoughts.

superchick, how do you know it is untrue

Do you know anyone who has had their First child taken whilst feeding at the breast and being perfectly cared for in a stable relationship?

"DC are a by-product of the relationships we form, not the raison d'etre."

Haskell, what is DC an abbreviation for?