The influence of birth family
Yet another story in the weekend press that examined one premise – whether children convicted of murder can ever live normal lives – and ended up being another tale of tragedy about a child in care.
Kate Legge in The Weekend Australian Magazine (March 27-28 2010, p 17) recounts ‘The story of S’, convicted at 13 of murder, sent to jail but with his anonymity intact. She charts his journey, from care at the age of 6, to rehabilitation efforts in jail, which led to his release and a relationship, parenthood and a steady job. But he was open to the influence of an associate of his family, and embezzled substantially. While on trial he had a relationship with a minor, and is now in jail.
The details are not contained in the article, but S’s background is distressingly familiar. The article states that he was ‘surrendered to a patchwork of residential placements’ and that during a 2 year period ‘he absconded from state care 26 times’. That’s at least every month.
Legge’s last paragraph concludes that despite the rehab efforts, the counselling, the positive prospects he had proven he could create and capitalise on, he ‘couldn’t in the end withstand the primordial tug of a family that had given him up at such a tender age’.
Well, how on earth could he? When no significant family relationship ever took its place when he was a child? When no one taught him how to think, deal or act with his birth family?
If he’d never experienced a positive parental relationship or formed an enduring relationship with one significant adult, then of course his birth parents remain a force to be reckoned with. As Bernie Geary, Victoria’s Child Safety Commission notes, ‘you can’t transplant empathy into a kid who has grown up with a lack of it, as well as poor role models’.
Geary states that is why they need a champion. We would suggest that is why they need a ‘parent’.
Our experience, supported by the advice of experienced workers, is that coming to grips with birth family and their individual circumstances is make or break stuff for most children in care.
Children need an explanation of the circumstances of their being in care, and this must become deeper and more detailed as they mature. Critically, this has to provide a context for them in which to deal with their birth parents. Using S’s case, he was still open to pressure and intimidation from members of his birth family. No one taught him how to deal with those, and perhaps he had no one to turn to for advice?
There is overwhelming evidence that children need a significant positive relationship that is either parental in nature or very close to it. As carers we become substitute parents, and we should never be accused of overstepping that line. By anyone.
We still read anecdotes online of carers feeling like they are under siege from workers and lawyers in the system. Too many carers have to convince a sceptical ‘system’ that they really are able to take on that relationship for the children, not because they have an agenda (desperate to have children, want to adopt, in it for the money).
We couldn’t help but read the article with that sinking feeling. The feeling that the system worked desperately hard to patch up this child. It threw all its skill and best efforts at him, and he showed he could rise to the challenge. The system tried to teach him empathy, and responsibility. But it was too late.
The system let him down when he was 6. He should have learned empathy and responsibility at the knee of someone who cared about him. He is another example of a child who went into foster care drift. His story is made all the more tragic because for a time, it appeared he was going to defy all the statistics.
Kate Legge in The Weekend Australian Magazine (March 27-28 2010, p 17) recounts ‘The story of S’, convicted at 13 of murder, sent to jail but with his anonymity intact. She charts his journey, from care at the age of 6, to rehabilitation efforts in jail, which led to his release and a relationship, parenthood and a steady job. But he was open to the influence of an associate of his family, and embezzled substantially. While on trial he had a relationship with a minor, and is now in jail.
The details are not contained in the article, but S’s background is distressingly familiar. The article states that he was ‘surrendered to a patchwork of residential placements’ and that during a 2 year period ‘he absconded from state care 26 times’. That’s at least every month.
Legge’s last paragraph concludes that despite the rehab efforts, the counselling, the positive prospects he had proven he could create and capitalise on, he ‘couldn’t in the end withstand the primordial tug of a family that had given him up at such a tender age’.
Well, how on earth could he? When no significant family relationship ever took its place when he was a child? When no one taught him how to think, deal or act with his birth family?
If he’d never experienced a positive parental relationship or formed an enduring relationship with one significant adult, then of course his birth parents remain a force to be reckoned with. As Bernie Geary, Victoria’s Child Safety Commission notes, ‘you can’t transplant empathy into a kid who has grown up with a lack of it, as well as poor role models’.
Geary states that is why they need a champion. We would suggest that is why they need a ‘parent’.
Our experience, supported by the advice of experienced workers, is that coming to grips with birth family and their individual circumstances is make or break stuff for most children in care.
Children need an explanation of the circumstances of their being in care, and this must become deeper and more detailed as they mature. Critically, this has to provide a context for them in which to deal with their birth parents. Using S’s case, he was still open to pressure and intimidation from members of his birth family. No one taught him how to deal with those, and perhaps he had no one to turn to for advice?
There is overwhelming evidence that children need a significant positive relationship that is either parental in nature or very close to it. As carers we become substitute parents, and we should never be accused of overstepping that line. By anyone.
We still read anecdotes online of carers feeling like they are under siege from workers and lawyers in the system. Too many carers have to convince a sceptical ‘system’ that they really are able to take on that relationship for the children, not because they have an agenda (desperate to have children, want to adopt, in it for the money).
We couldn’t help but read the article with that sinking feeling. The feeling that the system worked desperately hard to patch up this child. It threw all its skill and best efforts at him, and he showed he could rise to the challenge. The system tried to teach him empathy, and responsibility. But it was too late.
The system let him down when he was 6. He should have learned empathy and responsibility at the knee of someone who cared about him. He is another example of a child who went into foster care drift. His story is made all the more tragic because for a time, it appeared he was going to defy all the statistics.