Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Foster carers

177 replies

mamath · 05/03/2010 00:16

what are mums' views on foster carers?

OP posts:
StewieGriffinsMom · 06/03/2010 13:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Haskell · 06/03/2010 14:10

A step-father is a parent! P was killed by the people he saw as his parents. End of.

mamath · 06/03/2010 15:28

I think it is obvious from my earlier comment I do not regard Baby Peter's mother as any kind of innocent victim. I cannot remember offhand the criminal verdict, but it would be something equivilent to aiding and abetting since she was covering up and lying for the boyfriend/husband/brother-in-law. I wanted to make the distinction between saying the baby was 'murdered by his parents', when in fact he was not murdered by the direct violent hand of his kin. The choices that his birth parents made are another discussion altogether, and certainly a case for an epo and FC: why didn't this happen I wonder; that baby child and his siblings were not unseen.

This step-'father' was no parent.

You will be knowing of cases whereby babies are taken from parents at birth without significant risk of harm (or insignificant risk if there is such a thing).

dolphin13, I am going to come back later to the other points ie that you put to me.

OP posts:
dolphin13 · 06/03/2010 15:33

thank you mamath I look forward to hearing from you

mamath · 06/03/2010 15:36

suffolksocialservices.wordpress.com/

OP posts:
dolphin13 · 06/03/2010 16:15

Interesting mamath but what has this got to do with your op?

Missus84 · 06/03/2010 16:25

Mamath - you may believe there is no significant risk of harm, but obviously social services and the courts believed there was.

mamath · 06/03/2010 16:33

What was the source of the belief?

OP posts:
Missus84 · 06/03/2010 16:36

I am not privy to social services investigations or court hearings - neither is anyone else. So all we ever get in these situations is the parent's side of the story.

mamath · 06/03/2010 16:42

dolphin13 re OP

FCs in the news, notion of raised pay and status
recruitment campaign
leading to perhaps feeding

strange ideas about it being better to take children away from loving parents than...

where are we going with this?

Baby Peter and siblings were seen and were in the system, Baby Peter was left to suffer horrific abuses.

FC recruitment
Q of sticking plasters for self-inflicted wounds; if this is found to be cryptic then so be it

ethical Q of expanding a professional sector
to support an industry.

OP posts:
superchick · 06/03/2010 16:45

Mamath, if that website (and associated links) have some truth to them (and I'm willing to keep an open mind now that you've provided something more solid on the subject) this is a serious issue. And nothing apparently to do with foster carers but rather the police, courts, solicitors, medical professionals of all descriptions and, of course, social care.

So your OP "what are mums' views on foster carers?" is irrelevant and we are way off subject.

Anyway, never mind that, what they are saying on those various blogs, video clips etc is not only are individual professionals incompetant but actively corrupt and that the state has a whole child = cash scam going on.

However my limited experience is that when there are problems with the birth parents (DV, mental health, addiction, previous incidents of risk type behaviour etc) that the child is more often than not placed with a family member such as grandparent, aunt etc and so I remain very sceptical of the idea of a "forced adoption racket" as suggested here. Many of the stories on these blogs paint a picture of a very rosy, loving and happy family into which CYPS has simply waded in for no apparent reason. I'm sorry but I still struggle to believe that this is the case.

and before you ask, no I don't struggle because it is "uncomfortable" but because I have my eyes open and can see what is actually happening.

mamath · 06/03/2010 16:46

Parents are privy to social services and court hearings
and grandparents and uncles and aunties

OP posts:
Missus84 · 06/03/2010 16:47

Mamath I have a couple of questions:

Who thinks it is better to take children away from loving parents?

Do you believe that if there are more foster carers, social services will take more children to fill those spaces?

How would you raise standards in foster care?

mamath · 06/03/2010 16:47

I can tell you children are frequently not being placed with loving kin
guidelines are not being followed in this regard

OP posts:
mamath · 06/03/2010 16:50

Missus84, to answer your 2nd Q above,
Remove the maths correlation because it is arbitrary but you get my point

Haskell Sat 06-Mar-10 12:14:44
"There may well be no previous harm, but there must be significant risk of harm. I do not doubt that there are a few miscarriages of justice, but they must be few and far between. It is better that more children are removed from their parents care (some necessarily, some not) than fewer are removed and some die -in my opinion. "

OP posts:
mamath · 06/03/2010 16:51

Correction Missus84, I quote as an answer to you 1st Q above

OP posts:
Missus84 · 06/03/2010 16:56

Mamath you are not clear at all. So you are saying that yes, if there are more foster carers then more children will be removed?

And that the poster Haskell is saying children should be taken from loving parents?

Missus84 · 06/03/2010 17:15

This is my take on social services:

Child protection social workers do a vital and incredibly difficult job. We, as a society, need them. Undoubtedly some are incompetent, burned out, or just over-stretched. They are also human and make mistakes.

There are also problems in the management structure of social services, with funding, political interference, media scapegoating etc. Mistakes do happen, but I think probably more children aren't removed from dangerous situations that should be than are removed than shouldn't be.

A lot of children have a terrible time in the care system, and in a lot of cases it's probably better for children to be left with crap parents than be taken into care. Standards in foster and residential care need to be improved - we need highly competent, qualified carers, and lots of them.

Being a "loving parent" sometimes is not enough if the parent is not able to meet a child's needs or keep them safe from harm. Uninvolved people can't judge individual cases as obviously we only ever hear the parents side of the story, not social services.

While I do know that mistakes are made - whether genuinely, or through arrogance or incompetence - the suggestion that there is a highly organised child-snatching conspiracy going on is ridiculous.

dolphin13 · 06/03/2010 17:25

mamath you still have not answered my questions.
I still don't understand what it is you are asking.
I am uncomfortable with you naming people in your link. These people are not in a position to answer your claims.
You are saying that:
a)children in foster care are more often abused than not.
b)ss are running some illicit child snatching scheme to make money.
This is all getting a bit crazy for me. All I can go on is my own knowledge of the system and experience in caring for many children. The professionals I deal with only want the best outcome for the children they deal with. Maybe I have been very lucky or maybe blinkered for the past 15 years but I think not. I'm off now got better things to do than listen to your tosh anymore.

StewieGriffinsMom · 06/03/2010 17:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

ObsidianBlackbirdMcNight · 06/03/2010 18:54

Bollocks to the OP

I have known amazing foster carers, good ones, acceptable ones and one set of shit ones who got deregged when I had finished with them.

OP sounds like johnhemming in disguise.

johnhemming · 06/03/2010 18:57

The problem in childrens (social) services is that the checks and balances don't operate properly.

Practitioners work with little accountability although the GSCC is now starting to have an effect.

Practitioners also resist accountability and generally refuse to explain the basis of their decisionmaking.

That does not mean that there are no good practitioners. There are indeed some good ones, but it allows the bad ones to run riot through people's lives.

hester · 06/03/2010 21:13

This thread is getting too bizarre for me. I see johnhemming has joined the thread, the klaxon is now ringing for nananina, and the roadshow has commenced, so I'll be off.

My last comment: I'm an approved adopter who has now read a number of the in-depth reports of children available to adopt. All of them were taken into care at birth, and this nearly always means that there are older siblings who have been neglected or abused for some years before social services involvement. In other words, the mother ran out of chances. There's no question that social services would get involved for no good reason to take a baby with no previous evidence of abuse - how would they come to their attention? How would they have time?

These reports make for very, very depressing reading; it is impossible to envisage the birth mothers ever being able to care for a child (or a gerbil). Only one exception - a young birth mother who had had a terrible life herself, and who had been terribly failed by social services in her own childhood. In other words, if SHE had been taken into care, there might be a hope of her being able to keep her own child, who she undoubtedly loved and was not abusing (but equally, wasn't keeping safe). She had been taken into a mother-and-baby foster arrangement, though, and given lots of support, but too little too late.

I feel passionately about us doing more to break the cycle of abuse and dysfunction, so that fewer children of the future are taken into care. I think social work is vitally important and horribly under-supported, and it is not at all surprising that standards are not as high as they should be. I think foster care is one of the most important jobs around, and that foster carers should be better supported and trained. This doesn't mean it should be professionalised - it should be about family care, not institutional care - but loving, sensitive people shouldn't be put off doing it because they can't afford to, and people who do do it need to be properly trained to support the traumatised children who come to them. What I can't agree with, though, is that it is any kind of solution to leave children in abusive families or engage in conspiracy theories about child-trading.

inevitable · 07/03/2010 11:45

Hester
Do you think you are being objective without the full facts?

Should each case be adjudicated within lawful processes on its merits - or does tick box processing serve the needs of the system?

Should parents and other kin be excluded from processes, and if so how does this assist, and who does this assist?

What recourse is there, if parents are excluded from processes hidden from public view, for children traumatised by unlawful processes?

Are more state powers and secrecy useful for quelling the discontent that arises from injustice?

21st century UK plc

hester · 07/03/2010 17:34

inevitable - I am trying to be objective with limited facts. I will never know the full story on the child I adopt, and the possibility that they were unfairly taken into care is of course nightmarish. I think most people would agree that the system need improvement; it is under-resourced, bureaucratic, the people within it feel they are operating under siege... Where we differ is whether they think there is an active conspiracy to remove children from loving, competent parents. These discussions are not made easier by the fact that individual cases - our evidence - are shrouded in secrecy. You see that as evidence of UK plc protecting its own interests; I see it as an inevitable part of protecting children's interests.