Adoption/Fostering
02 October 2010, 03:14 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep - that is basically what they insist. They will give you a pile of money for the pleasure (up to 900 quid a week in some cases) but I think that can only encourage people to do it for the money. Pack in your Macjob and foster a kid you will be minted for ages. That probably isn't what genuinely decent people want to achieve, but that is what social service rules encourage. The other reason we 'failed' the interview was that we said that we would be more than happy to take 'difficult' children, but we didn't think it would be appropriate to look after boys who were substiantially older than our girls. So we gave them the option of boys under 12 and any aged girls. My thinking on this is that a 16 year old boy with a difficult upbringing may have deviant tendencies towards 9 year old girls, but it would be rare for a 16 year old girl to have the same desires. Social services took the PC view on us being specific with ages of problem kids and decided that I must be a deviant of some description..... this is just too stupid for words.
02 October 2010, 09:38 AM
#33
Scooby Regular
Yep - that is basically what they insist. They will give you a pile of money for the pleasure (up to 900 quid a week in some cases) but I think that can only encourage people to do it for the money. Pack in your Macjob and foster a kid you will be minted for ages. That probably isn't what genuinely decent people want to achieve, but that is what social service rules encourage. The other reason we 'failed' the interview was that we said that we would be more than happy to take 'difficult' children, but we didn't think it would be appropriate to look after boys who were substiantially older than our girls. So we gave them the option of boys under 12 and any aged girls. My thinking on this is that a 16 year old boy with a difficult upbringing may have deviant tendencies towards 9 year old girls, but it would be rare for a 16 year old girl to have the same desires. Social services took the PC view on us being specific with ages of problem kids and decided that I must be a deviant of some description..... this is just too stupid for words.
I can see it from both sides.
I understand you not wanting older boys with a clouded past around your girls.
However SS usually need more people to foster older children as every foster parent wants younger children, but not the older 'problem' children with baggage.
I can see how it is frustrating for SS when everyone preferes 4 year olds with no issues.
It's a difficult thing to do, when fostering you either need to be 100% open as to who you are willing to accept, or understand that there are only a small ammount of younger children to help.
And I can totally understand why they would want at least one parent to stay at home. If they have suffered a life of abuse and abandonment, or never been shown love or effection, these are the things they need.
Someone to have the time and money to cook a family meal and all sit at the table together.
Someone who can bath them and read them a story without popping to the office to send emails and invoices.
Last edited by Hysteria1983; 02 October 2010 at 09:43 AM.
02 October 2010, 09:57 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep - that is basically what they insist. They will give you a pile of money for the pleasure (up to 900 quid a week in some cases) but I think that can only encourage people to do it for the money. Pack in your Macjob and foster a kid you will be minted for ages. That probably isn't what genuinely decent people want to achieve, but that is what social service rules encourage. The other reason we 'failed' the interview was that we said that we would be more than happy to take 'difficult' children, but we didn't think it would be appropriate to look after boys who were substiantially older than our girls. So we gave them the option of boys under 12 and any aged girls. My thinking on this is that a 16 year old boy with a difficult upbringing may have deviant tendencies towards 9 year old girls, but it would be rare for a 16 year old girl to have the same desires. Social services took the PC view on us being specific with ages of problem kids and decided that I must be a deviant of some description..... this is just too stupid for words.
02 October 2010, 03:46 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Heathfield, East Sussex
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I havent posted in a while, but as i've just come back into the fold and purchased a Fozzy, spotted this, i'd thought i'd put my tup'ences worth on.
I worked until very recently in a local authority Fostering Service that was excellent rated, but i would have to say that you could not pay me enough money to become a foster carer.
The criteria are strict to do so and rightly so, but not as much so as some have stated on here, if you are taking children of any age as per your assessment, of course you are going to have to have a person at home, would you expect to have a newborn child in the house and say, oh, just going off to work from 9 to 5, monday to friday.
If you are taking school age children, any fostering agency / organisation will be happy to hear from you as long as your employer is flexible about your "work", just say the foster child comes home sick from school, is your employer going to be okay with the fact you have to go home, as you would with your own child?
In addition, the modern statistics around fostering / adopting are scary. Chris L's post about the experience is far from uncommon.
If you think of 30 / 40 years ago, children would come into care or be adopted because of a woman was a single mum or a parent passed away. Nowadays, due to constraints on local authority budgets, only the most "damaged" or hard line cases come through into fostering, let alone go through to adoption.
At best, a child going into local authority care, with go through the legal processes in just about a year, to be released for adoption, to allow searches for alternative family members and legal orders to be made. Potentially in that time, the child could have had any number of short term fostering placements, and remember, that is in a good case.
The children that come through for adoption are the ones that tend to be "unfosterable" otherwise a lot of fostercarers offer long term care for children that fit into their households.
Recently a well documented study by British Adoption and Fostering (BAF) showed that over 2/3rds of recent adoptions breakdown, due to challenging / extreme behaviour, or unkown problems coming out after adoption takes place, not all of the children's history is passed onto prospective adopters and the post adoption support services, i.e. psychologists, trauma counsiling are just not robust enought to cope with the demand. The increase in needs and abuse that have been perpetrated onto the children of our society is shocking, i've recently left because i just got completetly burnt out and still have nightmares over some of the situation i've removed children from.
I would commend anyone thinking of doing it, but make sure you go into it with your eyes fully open. The lovely little children just do not come through the system any more as they are supported at home or with other family members. If you are going to do it, it has to be, 100% because you want to help children, not because you want to help yourself in anyway, as the money just isn't worth it.
on that point, £900 is rediculous. Local Authorities will pay around £350ish per week depending on geographical area, independant fostering agencies will pay slightly more than that but YOU WILL get the most difficult children. The support is generally better with local authorities, but that is not always the case.
Sorry for the excessively long post.
Steve
I worked until very recently in a local authority Fostering Service that was excellent rated, but i would have to say that you could not pay me enough money to become a foster carer.
The criteria are strict to do so and rightly so, but not as much so as some have stated on here, if you are taking children of any age as per your assessment, of course you are going to have to have a person at home, would you expect to have a newborn child in the house and say, oh, just going off to work from 9 to 5, monday to friday.
If you are taking school age children, any fostering agency / organisation will be happy to hear from you as long as your employer is flexible about your "work", just say the foster child comes home sick from school, is your employer going to be okay with the fact you have to go home, as you would with your own child?
In addition, the modern statistics around fostering / adopting are scary. Chris L's post about the experience is far from uncommon.
If you think of 30 / 40 years ago, children would come into care or be adopted because of a woman was a single mum or a parent passed away. Nowadays, due to constraints on local authority budgets, only the most "damaged" or hard line cases come through into fostering, let alone go through to adoption.
At best, a child going into local authority care, with go through the legal processes in just about a year, to be released for adoption, to allow searches for alternative family members and legal orders to be made. Potentially in that time, the child could have had any number of short term fostering placements, and remember, that is in a good case.
The children that come through for adoption are the ones that tend to be "unfosterable" otherwise a lot of fostercarers offer long term care for children that fit into their households.
Recently a well documented study by British Adoption and Fostering (BAF) showed that over 2/3rds of recent adoptions breakdown, due to challenging / extreme behaviour, or unkown problems coming out after adoption takes place, not all of the children's history is passed onto prospective adopters and the post adoption support services, i.e. psychologists, trauma counsiling are just not robust enought to cope with the demand. The increase in needs and abuse that have been perpetrated onto the children of our society is shocking, i've recently left because i just got completetly burnt out and still have nightmares over some of the situation i've removed children from.
I would commend anyone thinking of doing it, but make sure you go into it with your eyes fully open. The lovely little children just do not come through the system any more as they are supported at home or with other family members. If you are going to do it, it has to be, 100% because you want to help children, not because you want to help yourself in anyway, as the money just isn't worth it.
on that point, £900 is rediculous. Local Authorities will pay around £350ish per week depending on geographical area, independant fostering agencies will pay slightly more than that but YOU WILL get the most difficult children. The support is generally better with local authorities, but that is not always the case.
Sorry for the excessively long post.
Steve
05 October 2010, 04:25 PM
#36
I've looked into adopting, though the one we've got's a real handful.
I did a photoshoot yesterday for Social Services, with a couple of young kids looking for a new home. Saddest thing I've ever done work-wise, especially having to shoot them individually, in case they went to different homes. as if they hadn't been through enough
I did a photoshoot yesterday for Social Services, with a couple of young kids looking for a new home. Saddest thing I've ever done work-wise, especially having to shoot them individually, in case they went to different homes. as if they hadn't been through enough
