In the best interest of the unwanted child...

Here is some interesting information about foster care in America:

http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

Got ideas.
Got feelings.

Mulling.

This may be a weekend response for me.

We live in an imperfect world.

Thanks to the fringes of Mr. Noddy's family, I've become uncomfortably aware of the problems of unplanned, unwanted children and children who were planned for all the wrong reasons.

I've also known several excellent, dedicated foster parents.

Let me offer a unproven premise (meaning that I thought it up all by myself): The larger the foster care area covered by a single agency, the more likely it is that abuse will occur.

The larger the area, the larger the agency; the larger the agency, the more turnover among staff and the greater the likelihood of hiring untrained staff. The greater the turnover the more likelihood of cracks developing.

Kids slip through cracks.

Fostercare was never intended to be a permanent home-away-from-home for foster kids. The idea behind foster care was to give birth family a respite from the stress of parenting; train the parents (or unfortunately the single parent) in child care; and then to return the children within months.

One of the uncalculated results of the sexual revolution is that more and more teenagers--children--are having sex. The sex is both passionate and unprotected. The resulting babies are the children of children.

The Children of Children wind up in foster care where the rights of their immature parents are protected. Even the best of foster parents cannot adopt a child unless the parents relinquish custody--and parents who have never had much experience with hands-on parenting are loathe to give up their own flesh and blood--after all, what would people say?

The first step, whether to reforming foster care or to setting up orphanages, is to keep the situation small and managable. Better twenty agencies, each dealing with 50 kids, than one agency dealing with 1000 children.

The second step is that the Foster Care/Orphanage setup should be organized to protect the rights of the children first. Only when the children are safe should the rights of the parents be considered.

Unless there are extraordinary circumstances, no child should spend more than 9-12 months in foster care during his/her life. Parents do not have an infinite time to get a handle on parenthood--they have nine months of pregnancy, nine months of foster care and three months for a permanent decision to be made and executed.

In Home training programs such as those run Visiting Nurses and Right to Life groups should start at birth and continue for at least two years, eliminating the necessity of removing the child from an unhealthy home.

Head Start funding should be increased so that when the In Home programs are being phased out, Head Start should be phased in.

Unfortunately, once kids have been bounced around the foster system, they may be cynical, selfish and completely uncaring about the rights of others. While you can't blame the kids--insecure kids are not loveable--they demand extraordinarily empathy from parents or parent substitutes.

Orphanages--in the form of small group homes with children of varied ages--should be funded and staffed with long-term staff. The group homes should not be considered temporary placement--the way out of a group home should be either adoption or high school graduation.

Meanwhile, birth control as part of responsible family planning should be available to every fornicating couple. In our culture, sex is recreation. In no culture are Little Oopsies completely fun & games.

Unmarried mothers should act like mothers. If they act like teenagers, parental rights should be terminated early to give the babies a chance.

I agree with with what I have excerpted from your post. This is a very tough subject and I wish there was a 'perfect' answer...

As always, you raise some excellent points, Noddy.

It took me three days of pondering to put together my inital post and it will probably take me a while to digest your comments too.

I really never thought that I would come to a place where I thought orphanages were a good idea.

But the staff turnover and the area they have to cover and all of the cracks they have to oversee it really isn't surprising that bad things happen within the foster care system. They can't be everywhere at once. One little boy here was killed just a hour after the social worker left his home; he had been reunited with his bio-family just the week before.

And one little girl was in, I think, nine foster homes in two years, then she died of malnutrition. (This case is going to trial; it seems that she had bulimea (she was 10) and a foster family who punished her by with-holding food.)

You can't be turned out of nine families in two years and not have a few issues.

Our current abstinance only education is going to compound the problem I fear.

More children having children.

Boomer, There is a Mission Orphanage in Grundy, Virginia that is still in operation. I taught with a man who was a counselor there. I'm sure there must be others still in existence.

As for the children who are placed in foster care, there is no solution except to make it a totally non profit situation, then those who care for unwanted children will do so because they love them as you do yours.

Interesting, Letty. I don't know why I thought there were no more orphanages in America. I'm going to look around a little and see what I can find out.

I don't know what a foster family is paid but I doubt there is much profit in it. And I can't see anyone taking on such responibility for whatever money they pay.

Really, they couldn't PAY me to do this.

I know that within Mo's family no one was willing to take him in. I imagine that must be true in many families or there wouldn't really be a need for foster care.

boomer, that's the whole point that I am trying to make. Often the types of people who become foster parents do it FOR the money however small the allowance may be. Think about it. Those who do it for a pittance, are those who don't care about the children. Now this isn't a sweeping generalization, just some reasoning.

Yes, I was going to make that same point as letty. That's come out in several cases -- especially malnutrition cases. (The money that was supposed to be used towards care of the child was not...)

This is a very interesting question, I am impressed with Noddy's breakdown of how to fix it.

I'm still thinking.

Total agreement re: abstinence-only education. Sigh...

Perhaps the world has changed, but 25-odd years ago a government publication listed jobs in terms of skills. Foster parenting ranked below dog grooming.

Of course, foster care is very poorly paid--but for the unskilled and unethical, any extra money to fritter away is welcome.

Remember "natural" mothers also starve their children. I remember a case in New Jersey--death of a toddler from malnutrition. Mama said indignantly, "That can't be. We all went to MacDonald's two days ago."

Another "natural" mother had a malnourished baby. Tactful questioning revealed that the child had never had milk--only koolaid. Mama didn't like milk and wanted her kid to have only "good stuff".

Perhaps ignorance is the root of all evil.

Ohmygoshohmygosh.

I don't think I've ever mentioned that at the time Mo was born his mom was a dog groomer.

How freaky is that?

I do know that foster parents are hard to find. More kids are entering foster care and fewer people are available as parents. I think the placement rate is not something like a maximum of 8 kids. In a way I guess that is a group home.

I know how expensive adding a kid to the household can be. Heck, putting Mo on our insurance was about $200 each month.

People who are willing to open their doors and accept a kid under trying circumstances should get some kind of stipend to help.

We were very lucky that we didn't need such help. But I can't say that it has always been easy financially.

I think if there was no pay at all that even the very best foster parents would have to say "no" to adding people to their homes.

There are over half a million kids in foster care in America. We read only a few horror stories in our city each year - multiply that by 50 states and you have maybe 150 bad situations each year. Truly we hear more horror stories that have happened at the hands of parents.

Maybe we expect things from foster parents that we don't expect from "real" parents.

But I think of those half million kids and I just think that there has to be a better way.

It just really makes me sick to think that it is MY GENERATION that is responsible for this madness.

I thought we were going to fix everything.

Boomer - tragically, the same problems are endemic in my state's foster system, and child welfare agency.

To "do" foster care properly - especially with the level of disturbance in many kids when they come into the system - already deeply emotionally scarred (and the info we now have about the neuro-physiology of early neglect and abuse is, frankly, terrifying) - requires intensive training and support.

This is bloody expensive.

Sadly, governments tend to look at the short term cost, and not really consider the terrible long term effects - and costs - of failing to act quickly and seriously support families in trouble - or remove kids fast - and properly support foster care.

Here, we have a number of kids who cannot be managed in foster care - and the state is JUST beginning to face up to this, and approach the notion of professionally staffed therapeutic foster homes again. (I was recently involved in advocating for this successfully with one large, and horrendously abused, and horrendously behaved, family.)

These used to exist - and fell from favour - here we are re-inventing the goddamn wheel.

My developing philosophy is that, in child welfare, the search for, and mirage-like belief in, the "perfect" system, stuffs up the ability to do what is least worst - which is, in a way, for kids who were unlucky enough to draw the short family straw in the great lottery of life, the best that we can expect.

This sounds weird - but I find that there is an ongoing sort of weird belief that there is some sort of goddamn fix for this stuff. This leads to constantly changing fads and fashions in the area - especially with new governments coming in and wanting to be seen to do stuff, without spending money.

These waves - which are enthusiastically ridden by senior bureaucrats in search of promotion, or just survival - mean that knowledge and expertise is buried and forgotten, and good people get buried.

We professionals are prone to the same stuff - the realities are just so awful that, when some new idea comes along, we often to think "Yes - that's IT!" and charge after it.

The thing is - there isn't a holy grail. There is lots you can do with families - and the work based on attachment and trauma theory that we are doing where I work is immensely exciting - and based on damn fine research. BUT - there is no quick fix. This is hard, messy, long, taxing and complex work - engaging deeply in "the foul rag and bone shop of the heart."

And - it is EXPENSIVE!!!! Governments constantly try to get in fancy, cheap stuff, that promises the world - and cannot deliver. Welfare folk do not understand the rigours of this work - they want a quick fix too - poor darlins - I really feel for them in their impossible task - for which they are ill trained, and badly supported. But - the system's failings **** kids up - and on and on the cycle plods its weary, sad and ugly track.

And - no matter what, some families can't do it, and kids must be removed and a damn sight faster and more finally than they are where I live.

If we do not put the wise resources into the early stuff - (where we increasingly have GOOD research evidence about what WORKS, dammit!) and into help for the carers and kids, then we continue to have the terrible physical and emotional health outcomes - the forensic costs - and all that.

Damn - you hit a motherlode, sorry!

dlowan--

Well shrieked, well stated--very cogently expressed frustration.

Lol - ok - here it is:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

I CAN'T STAND IT!!!!!

I really can't.

LOOK at what happened to that young man from The Family cult - Davidito - who killed his "nanny" abuser - and himself - what the **** does it TAKE!

Yes exactly exactly dlowan. I have expressed a very similar opinion (though not as well) when it comes to education. The quick fix effect.

How I've seen it happen with education is when they try to bottle the unbottleable -- when you have an educator who is empathetic, creative, flexible, etc., and whose students are doing fantastically well, and who uses some method. The bureaucrats say "It's the method!" and codify it, and send it off to be implemented widely. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons (pay, prestige, being told to mindlessly and exactly hew to the method of the month), there are a lot of lousy teachers out there. They take the method and lo, it doesn't work.

So the bureaucrats say, "the method is flawed!", and pounce on the next flavor.

Second verse, same as the first.

In truth, there are all sorts of overlapping but discrete strands that make up the problem and therefore the solution, and there is no quick fix, and the going will be slow and expensive before there is a payoff.

That doesn't go over well with bureaucrats.

It's not just the bureaucrats. Large portions of the general public aren't willing to live with small, incremental changes either. How many people have posted about one program or another right here on A2K with the comment of "If we just changed "X" to "Y" it would be fixed!".

This sort of thing frustrated the heck out of me with the management training the military used to do (and still does). Every 6 or 7 years they'd roll out the latest management fad and force everyone to go through weeks of training. Every single time they'd do it everyone would just shrug and tell others to grit their teeth and wait it out - in 3 years it'll be dead and we could get back to getting work done.

When I got my degree in sociology I had intended to go into social work but I saw the same sorts of things happening and gave up on it. We shut most, if not all, of our orphanages down (along with most of the psychiatric hospitals) because of abuses within them that led people to believe that having them was cruel and uncaring. Kids with severe mental problems were "main streamed" into public schools because keeping them in specialized schools was somehow violating their rights and then we pretty much closed those specialized schools.

This is, IMO, one of the biggest differences between how we (in the US at least) handle our social problems in comparison to places like Europe. We (collectively) make snap judegments and shift everything from one end of the spectrum to the other and then back again. They tend to have slow incremental transitions so that they aren't revamping their entire systems every 20 years.

Yep. Excellent point about the public's role, you're quite right. This affects what the bureaucrats do/ what they say, as well, because a big part of what they need to do is keep the parents happy. So if the parents have these simplistic, "this'll fix it" expectations and the parents don't have the patience for the slow, expensive changes with the big payoff (though why would they, really, unless they plan on having 12 children and the first is in kindergarten?), that affects whether the bureaucrats do.

Sigh.

Dlowan, please, no "sorry".

Your post is an eloquent testimony to the fact that we have to do better.

And we have to define what is better.

Your post reminded me so much of some old family friends. They adopted a young girl from central America (this, mind you, was 40 years or so ago). It was wonderful.

Then, they adopted a young north American boy who was about two years old. I remember so well they day they brought him home. They had all of us kids there to welcome him.

It was hell from the get-go. They tried everything. The 'Fiengold" diet (an early version of low-carb, I believe) therapy, therapy, therapy and nothing seemed to make a difference.

Finally, as a last resort they had the adoption records opened. This child had been tortured by his family, so horribly abused that there was no way, really, that he could adapt to a normal family, to a normal life, to a normal anything.

The "neuro-psychology of early abuse" is something I have a keen interest in. Not just because of what happened to this family but because of well.... Mo.

It is so much easier to hold our hands over our eyes and pretend that we are at no fault. When people complain more about the potholes on their street than they do what happens to the children of their state, we are at fault. When we vote in administrations that believe tax cuts are more important than caring for our most vulnerable citizens we are at fault.

We are making a mess of things. While in some ways it is a relief to know that it is not just the USA that is making such a mess of things, it is also terribly sad to know that other countries are to.

The least worst thing.

Yep.

The least worst thing may be the best answer.

Short term costs v. long term effects.

Yep.

How deep do we have to dig this hole before we know that we've made a mistake?