behaviour
Can a foster parent ‘over-advocate’ for their foster child?
30/12/2009 23:57
We follow a number of online forums and this came up over at www.fostercarecentral.com. A carer posted that they’d been told they ‘over-advocated’ for their foster child.
Over-advocate? That seems to be legal-speak creeping into the child services area. We are sure we could find some plain english expressions that are much clearer and, quite frankly, a whole lot more honest.
‘An advocate is someone who speaks on behalf of another person, especially in a legal context. … Implicit in the concept is the notion that the represented lacks the knowledge, skill, ability, or standing to speak for themselves.’ (Wikipedia)
So let’s be honest and decipher what that term might mean. As a foster parent, you attend case conferences, and talk with social workers on behalf of your foster child. Depending on their age or their circumstances they might lack the knowledge, skill, ability, maturity or capability to speak on their own behalf.
Can a carer ‘over-speak’, or ‘over-represent’? Are we saying more than we should?
We’d love to hear an honest debate on this one. We’d like to ask the social workers whether they are saying that we aren’t educated or qualified or experienced enough to make a contribution to the discussion about the child’s needs?
Or are they saying that we simply don’t have the right to contribute? Is our role to provide a home and care but leave the decision making to the ‘system’?
Sadly, this sounds like a turf war.
If the social welfare profession is so precious that outspoken foster parents cause grief, then we really need an overhaul. Business deals with outspoken, opinionated customers and shareholders all the time. We judge their contribution according to their talents, but we don’t – and can’t – prevent them from having their say.
We’ve had workers who spent a great deal of energy telling us, with diminishing degrees of politeness, to shut up and get back in our box. We had a role to play, designated by the system, and they were thoroughly annoyed that we didn’t stick to the script.
But interestingly, it’s our willingness to step outside ‘our role’ that sees us maintaining contact with children formerly in our care, long after they have become adults. It’s why we stepped up to help them ‘age out’ of foster care (emotionally, financially and with life skills), when the system, previous carers, and all those passionate social workers had left the scene.
If we applied some innovative thinking to the issue, then maybe the passion with which carers might speak on behalf of a child is a good thing? Business has long recognised that divergent viewpoints and passionate debate, if managed well, drive much better results.
So it gets down to frontline training. In all fairness we believe social workers have a large range of stakeholders to deal with – from authorities, to birth families, to agencies, to carers and beyond. But there are other professions that deal with such a range. The ability to manage people is not taught at university (and if anyone tells you it was, or is, they are lying). It is learned on the job, over many years, and requires both an interest in people and a willingness to be self-aware. Too often the fundamental skill that underpins both of those elements – listening – is absent.
So, listen up. We’ll over-advocate for a child in care as long as we can breathe.
(If you are a carer about to provide care, you might like to print these bullet points out, amend or add to them to reflect what you think you bring to the placements, and give them to your worker.)
And if doing any of that is a challenge, we suggest a great deal more training is needed. We’re happy to assist.
Over-advocate? That seems to be legal-speak creeping into the child services area. We are sure we could find some plain english expressions that are much clearer and, quite frankly, a whole lot more honest.
‘An advocate is someone who speaks on behalf of another person, especially in a legal context. … Implicit in the concept is the notion that the represented lacks the knowledge, skill, ability, or standing to speak for themselves.’ (Wikipedia)
So let’s be honest and decipher what that term might mean. As a foster parent, you attend case conferences, and talk with social workers on behalf of your foster child. Depending on their age or their circumstances they might lack the knowledge, skill, ability, maturity or capability to speak on their own behalf.
Can a carer ‘over-speak’, or ‘over-represent’? Are we saying more than we should?
We’d love to hear an honest debate on this one. We’d like to ask the social workers whether they are saying that we aren’t educated or qualified or experienced enough to make a contribution to the discussion about the child’s needs?
Or are they saying that we simply don’t have the right to contribute? Is our role to provide a home and care but leave the decision making to the ‘system’?
Sadly, this sounds like a turf war.
If the social welfare profession is so precious that outspoken foster parents cause grief, then we really need an overhaul. Business deals with outspoken, opinionated customers and shareholders all the time. We judge their contribution according to their talents, but we don’t – and can’t – prevent them from having their say.
We’ve had workers who spent a great deal of energy telling us, with diminishing degrees of politeness, to shut up and get back in our box. We had a role to play, designated by the system, and they were thoroughly annoyed that we didn’t stick to the script.
But interestingly, it’s our willingness to step outside ‘our role’ that sees us maintaining contact with children formerly in our care, long after they have become adults. It’s why we stepped up to help them ‘age out’ of foster care (emotionally, financially and with life skills), when the system, previous carers, and all those passionate social workers had left the scene.
If we applied some innovative thinking to the issue, then maybe the passion with which carers might speak on behalf of a child is a good thing? Business has long recognised that divergent viewpoints and passionate debate, if managed well, drive much better results.
So it gets down to frontline training. In all fairness we believe social workers have a large range of stakeholders to deal with – from authorities, to birth families, to agencies, to carers and beyond. But there are other professions that deal with such a range. The ability to manage people is not taught at university (and if anyone tells you it was, or is, they are lying). It is learned on the job, over many years, and requires both an interest in people and a willingness to be self-aware. Too often the fundamental skill that underpins both of those elements – listening – is absent.
So, listen up. We’ll over-advocate for a child in care as long as we can breathe.
(If you are a carer about to provide care, you might like to print these bullet points out, amend or add to them to reflect what you think you bring to the placements, and give them to your worker.)
- We will challenge you on decisions, and we will give you our well thought out opinion on what we see the child going through.
- We will raise issues and suggest decisions that need to be made for you to give us feedback on.
- We will tell you politely if we think you are wrong, and we will become less polite if you ignore us.
- We will expect you to be skilled enough to see the love/compassion we have for this child and understand the depth of our care for the child.
- As time goes by we will expect you to be skilled enough to see the love this child has for us, or the reliance they place on us, and take that into account.
- We don’t accept there is any ‘mark’ to overstep so we will have no tolerance for you complaining, overtly or covertly, about us doing that.
- We will expect that you, as the professional you hold yourself out to be, will be able to assess us and judge us and manage us and collaborate with us.
And if doing any of that is a challenge, we suggest a great deal more training is needed. We’re happy to assist.
|
You can't force a relationship
22/09/2009 21:59
‘THE Family Court has warned separated parents that they are required to hand over children for access visits, whether the children want to go or not.
While parents don't have to "physically drag" the children to the other parent, they do have to "positively encourage" them to go, and punish those who refuse.’
This quote is from an article in The Australian. The Family Court is saying that a parent should punish a child who refuses to abide by any orders made about their access with other parents. If ever there was an example of parental rights walking rough-shod over the well-being of a child, and enshrined in law, this is it.
So it struck a chord with us. Because at some stage your foster child might not want to go to a contact visit to meet with members of their birth family.
Their reaction, and how you and the support network handles it, will depend on the child, the birth family, and the stage of understanding and development the child is at. It will also depend on how skilled your social worker is, and what the social worker’s agenda is.
The article bothers us, not least because a Family Court Judge appears to be slavishly adopting what we have come to think of as dodgy law. Law becomes dodgy when it is high-jacked by interest groups, and driven by a political agenda.
It bothers us because, as Pragnell says, ‘how can it be in (a child’s) best interests to force them into a relationship?’
We’ve seen social workers ‘play God’ (and we don’t use that expression lightly) with foster children’s relationships for many, many years. We’ve seen foster families denied any follow up relationship with a foster child after a placement has ended, despite the fact that relationship was the longest and most stable of the child’s life. And we’ve experienced contact visits with birth family being managed aggressively by the social workers. Here’s a sample of what can happen:
You can’t force a relationship.
Here’s what can happen if a foster child is forced into a relationship:
But the system should tread softly for the children’s sake. There are no hard and fast rules or policy, not if you accept that every child is an individual. What is in the child’s best interest at that point in time, considering their age, circumstances, development and security, should prevail.
What should you, as a foster parent, do in these circumstances if you see a relationship being forced? Stand up for your foster child. Support what you think is best for them. Fight if you have to. We’ve done it.
While parents don't have to "physically drag" the children to the other parent, they do have to "positively encourage" them to go, and punish those who refuse.’
This quote is from an article in The Australian. The Family Court is saying that a parent should punish a child who refuses to abide by any orders made about their access with other parents. If ever there was an example of parental rights walking rough-shod over the well-being of a child, and enshrined in law, this is it.
So it struck a chord with us. Because at some stage your foster child might not want to go to a contact visit to meet with members of their birth family.
Their reaction, and how you and the support network handles it, will depend on the child, the birth family, and the stage of understanding and development the child is at. It will also depend on how skilled your social worker is, and what the social worker’s agenda is.
The article bothers us, not least because a Family Court Judge appears to be slavishly adopting what we have come to think of as dodgy law. Law becomes dodgy when it is high-jacked by interest groups, and driven by a political agenda.
It bothers us because, as Pragnell says, ‘how can it be in (a child’s) best interests to force them into a relationship?’
We’ve seen social workers ‘play God’ (and we don’t use that expression lightly) with foster children’s relationships for many, many years. We’ve seen foster families denied any follow up relationship with a foster child after a placement has ended, despite the fact that relationship was the longest and most stable of the child’s life. And we’ve experienced contact visits with birth family being managed aggressively by the social workers. Here’s a sample of what can happen:
- Members of the foster family are told not to attend. This might be despite the fact that the child is now drawing great comfort and stability from the newly forming foster relationships, and needs them even more when confronted by birth family.
- Any and all members of birth family are entitled to turn up, no notice required. So when a child is dealing with who their birth family members are and the part they play in their life, another one can appear. And just as quickly disappear.
- Social workers take an active role in access and facilitate (or force - depends on your viewpoint) intervention between the child and members of their birth family. These can be quite full on commands to a child, and very difficult for you to manage.
You can’t force a relationship.
Here’s what can happen if a foster child is forced into a relationship:
- You run the risk of alienating the child towards their birth family.
- Pushing an aggressive agenda of interaction risks the child losing trust in the social worker.
- Forcing a relationship between foster child and birth family risks the child losing faith in their foster parent. ‘You’re not in control of this’ they will say to you. ‘You can’t help me’.
But the system should tread softly for the children’s sake. There are no hard and fast rules or policy, not if you accept that every child is an individual. What is in the child’s best interest at that point in time, considering their age, circumstances, development and security, should prevail.
What should you, as a foster parent, do in these circumstances if you see a relationship being forced? Stand up for your foster child. Support what you think is best for them. Fight if you have to. We’ve done it.
Children's sense of time
09/09/2009 22:23
Continuing our series from the American Academy of Pediatrics article.
This post deals with children’s sense of time, and how that specifically impacts children in foster care.
Placing children in care might deal with their immediate need for physical care, nourishment, comfort, affection and stimulation. But continuity of care is critical (continuity means continuous or connected). Children need to learn how to bond and trust, and that happens with a stable consistent carer over a period of time. So changes to their carer can be detrimental. Temporary care can, in fact, be detrimental.
And if a child is suffering the consequences of stress and inadequate parenting, then moving them from home to home only makes it worse. This reminds us of the Eggshells comment from Jen who writes about a foster child’s perspective at www.fostercareinamerica.com.
So how do adults deal with change and impermanence? Some restless souls like it. But most of us build on the self-reliance that we have learned, probably from stable and supportive parents and family circumstances, over the years. And we usually have the skill to anticipate and plan for a time when things settle down. We may well have experienced more settled times before, so we know what they look like.
But kids have few life experiences to draw on. They can’t pull out an experience and say ‘well, the last time that happened to me I handled it this way.’ They simply don’t have enough experiences in ‘the bank’.
And they are right in the process of discovering who they are. They don’t yet have a strong sense of ‘self’, not like adults do. It’s being created. A child in a stable family doesn’t have to be anxious about the fundamentals like nurturing, protection, trust and security. So they are free to get on with working out who they are. For a child in care energy is expended on the fundamentals. Who will care for them? Are they safe? Who will protect them? Who can they trust?
And think about how children focus. On the right here, right now. We have enough trouble getting the Camper to plan for the next hour, let alone the next month, year and so on (although the stand-out exception there is her birthday party. That goes into SWAT type planning at least 7 months before the date).
So because young children don’t understand the concept of temporary versus permanent, periods of time are largely incomprehensible to them. The younger they are, the longer the disruption – the more impact it will have.
This section of the report concludes ‘pediatricians should advocate that evaluation, planning, placement and treatment decision be made as quickly as possible, especially for very young children’. They are saying that the clock is ticking - every minute has an impact on the child.
When we hear workers say that their primary focus is on the ‘family’, we worry like hell for the individual children.
This post deals with children’s sense of time, and how that specifically impacts children in foster care.
Placing children in care might deal with their immediate need for physical care, nourishment, comfort, affection and stimulation. But continuity of care is critical (continuity means continuous or connected). Children need to learn how to bond and trust, and that happens with a stable consistent carer over a period of time. So changes to their carer can be detrimental. Temporary care can, in fact, be detrimental.
And if a child is suffering the consequences of stress and inadequate parenting, then moving them from home to home only makes it worse. This reminds us of the Eggshells comment from Jen who writes about a foster child’s perspective at www.fostercareinamerica.com.
So how do adults deal with change and impermanence? Some restless souls like it. But most of us build on the self-reliance that we have learned, probably from stable and supportive parents and family circumstances, over the years. And we usually have the skill to anticipate and plan for a time when things settle down. We may well have experienced more settled times before, so we know what they look like.
But kids have few life experiences to draw on. They can’t pull out an experience and say ‘well, the last time that happened to me I handled it this way.’ They simply don’t have enough experiences in ‘the bank’.
And they are right in the process of discovering who they are. They don’t yet have a strong sense of ‘self’, not like adults do. It’s being created. A child in a stable family doesn’t have to be anxious about the fundamentals like nurturing, protection, trust and security. So they are free to get on with working out who they are. For a child in care energy is expended on the fundamentals. Who will care for them? Are they safe? Who will protect them? Who can they trust?
And think about how children focus. On the right here, right now. We have enough trouble getting the Camper to plan for the next hour, let alone the next month, year and so on (although the stand-out exception there is her birthday party. That goes into SWAT type planning at least 7 months before the date).
So because young children don’t understand the concept of temporary versus permanent, periods of time are largely incomprehensible to them. The younger they are, the longer the disruption – the more impact it will have.
This section of the report concludes ‘pediatricians should advocate that evaluation, planning, placement and treatment decision be made as quickly as possible, especially for very young children’. They are saying that the clock is ticking - every minute has an impact on the child.
When we hear workers say that their primary focus is on the ‘family’, we worry like hell for the individual children.
Self control, and self interest, for children in care?
09/06/2009 22:56
An interesting article crossed our desk this week.
It’s from The New Yorker, and it’s about self-control. Or rather, the ability or willingness of some people to delay gratification. The experiment, carried out in the 1960’s at Stanford University, put nursery school children in a room with a treat. The researcher offered that they could eat it straight away, but that if they waited until the researcher came back before eating it, they would get a second treat. A number of children successfully waited, and they used a number of mechanisms to take their focus off the treat sitting before them.
Over time, and with further analysis, the researcher ‘began to notice a link between the children’s academic performance as teenagers and their ability to wait for the second marshmallow’.
We quote: ‘ “What we’re really measuring with the marshmallows isn’t will power or self-control,” Mischel says. “It’s much more important than that. This task forces kids to find a way to make the situation work for them. They want the second marshmallow, but how can they get it? We can’t control the world, but we can control how we think about it.”’
This struck a chord with us. So many stories from children in care highlight how powerless and fearful they felt. So much of a skilled and loving parent’s task should be to teach children how to make situations work for them, to understand the ‘give and take’ or negotiations that they need to undertake for many reasons – safety, happiness, fulfilment, success. And if that kind of care and teaching is missing, how disadvantaged are these children in coping with life?
Often when a child in care comes to live with you, self-control will be an alien concept. They can be completely impulsive, fearful of change and dreadfully upset when any experience they are enjoying ends.
Nowdays, the degree of negotiation that goes on at our house makes us feel a bit like the United Nations. On occasion we have to invoke the ‘just do it’ creed. But after reading this article, we are pleased to see that the our child is well and truly working out how to make situations work for them.
It’s a good day when you see that sense of robustness and, to be frank, self-interest. There is plenty of time to teach them to put others first, but given their background, sometimes you have to actively teach them to put themselves first. They often miss because they are just struggling to survive.
So how do you start them on this path? Firstly, we show them how loving parents nurture their children. We show them how we could put them first above everything. They learn, sometimes for the first time in their lives, how it feels to have every need catered for. Through that they learn that they deserve it.
Second, offer them both a reason to do what you want them to do, and an understanding of the consequences. It takes time and it takes energy, and sometimes it will clearly be beyond their understanding and willpower. But they will began to learn how everything is connected, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and that their actions trigger different outcomes.
It’s from The New Yorker, and it’s about self-control. Or rather, the ability or willingness of some people to delay gratification. The experiment, carried out in the 1960’s at Stanford University, put nursery school children in a room with a treat. The researcher offered that they could eat it straight away, but that if they waited until the researcher came back before eating it, they would get a second treat. A number of children successfully waited, and they used a number of mechanisms to take their focus off the treat sitting before them.
Over time, and with further analysis, the researcher ‘began to notice a link between the children’s academic performance as teenagers and their ability to wait for the second marshmallow’.
We quote: ‘ “What we’re really measuring with the marshmallows isn’t will power or self-control,” Mischel says. “It’s much more important than that. This task forces kids to find a way to make the situation work for them. They want the second marshmallow, but how can they get it? We can’t control the world, but we can control how we think about it.”’
This struck a chord with us. So many stories from children in care highlight how powerless and fearful they felt. So much of a skilled and loving parent’s task should be to teach children how to make situations work for them, to understand the ‘give and take’ or negotiations that they need to undertake for many reasons – safety, happiness, fulfilment, success. And if that kind of care and teaching is missing, how disadvantaged are these children in coping with life?
Often when a child in care comes to live with you, self-control will be an alien concept. They can be completely impulsive, fearful of change and dreadfully upset when any experience they are enjoying ends.
Nowdays, the degree of negotiation that goes on at our house makes us feel a bit like the United Nations. On occasion we have to invoke the ‘just do it’ creed. But after reading this article, we are pleased to see that the our child is well and truly working out how to make situations work for them.
It’s a good day when you see that sense of robustness and, to be frank, self-interest. There is plenty of time to teach them to put others first, but given their background, sometimes you have to actively teach them to put themselves first. They often miss because they are just struggling to survive.
So how do you start them on this path? Firstly, we show them how loving parents nurture their children. We show them how we could put them first above everything. They learn, sometimes for the first time in their lives, how it feels to have every need catered for. Through that they learn that they deserve it.
Second, offer them both a reason to do what you want them to do, and an understanding of the consequences. It takes time and it takes energy, and sometimes it will clearly be beyond their understanding and willpower. But they will began to learn how everything is connected, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and that their actions trigger different outcomes.
Social work survey says workers described negatively
26/05/2009 21:36
CommunityCare.co.uk did a survey. And they found that ‘Journalists used negative words to describe social work roughly five times as often as positive or sympathetic words’.
Their results were blunt. Consider this:
‘Words (describing social workers' conduct, ability or demeanour) varied from "inept" and "arrogant" to serious personal allegations, such as "bullying", and "blackmailing". Social workers will no doubt be alarmed that the second most used word was "bully" or "bullying".‘
There are many definitions of bullying, but here is the Wikipedia one.
In colloquial speech, bullying often describes a form of harassment perpetrated by an abuser who possesses more physical and/or social power and dominance than the victim.
So it’s all about an inequality of power, and dominance.
The purpose of this blog is to share and educate. While the survey reviewed journalists’ reporting (and has some interesting things to say on whether all sides of the story are able to be presented), here’s our experience of some behaviour that was not social work’s finest hour.
A worker raising the same issue, after we had indicated we didn’t agree with it, at every single phone call, email message and visit. It was the wrong thing for the particular child and so we just kept saying no.
Now we’d call them on it, indicate we have answered the question and unless they have new reasons to raise it again, we consider the issue has been dealt with.
A worker who, when challenged, got frustrated and aggressive.
We stayed calm and suggested she learn how to receive feedback and work with various parties to achieve agreement. We thought she would have learned that at uni but maybe she missed that class?
Perjorative comments that were belittling or disparaging. Our particular favourite was ‘this is what you signed up for’ (so you as the carer don’t get a say).
We cheerfully advised that we signed up to care for a child, not to slavishly agree with the workers on everything without analysis and debate.
We took a support person with us to a meeting. When that support person spoke, they were told they were allowed to be present at the meeting, but not to speak.
If we were in that situation again, we would initiate a discussion at the start of the meeting as to the roles of all the people present and establish the ground rules.
All of these examples have one thing in common. The unspoken assumption, exhibited by the worker in each instance, was that they held the power, the decision-making responsibility, or the high moral ground. And when we disagreed, or challenged them, their behaviour veered dangerously close to bullying.
The interplay of all the adults responsible for a child’s life can be a delicate matter.
Carers expect the worker to have skill and experience, we care for this child and want to do the right thing for them, and we know the agency has a role to play. But workers are from an institution with all the authority that comes with it, and we are just a family or an individual. The power may not feel equal, and it doesn’t take much to shift it.
Lest we scare off any prospective carers out there, we hasten to tell you that we have experienced the other side of the spectrum. We know workers who are collaborative, wise, thoughtful and perceptive. They share their views without lecturing, and they are prepared to listen to the carers, and more importantly, the child.
We wish there were more of you. We hope you are recognized within the system as the exceptional workers you are, and we hope other, less experienced workers learn from you.
Their results were blunt. Consider this:
‘Words (describing social workers' conduct, ability or demeanour) varied from "inept" and "arrogant" to serious personal allegations, such as "bullying", and "blackmailing". Social workers will no doubt be alarmed that the second most used word was "bully" or "bullying".‘
There are many definitions of bullying, but here is the Wikipedia one.
In colloquial speech, bullying often describes a form of harassment perpetrated by an abuser who possesses more physical and/or social power and dominance than the victim.
So it’s all about an inequality of power, and dominance.
The purpose of this blog is to share and educate. While the survey reviewed journalists’ reporting (and has some interesting things to say on whether all sides of the story are able to be presented), here’s our experience of some behaviour that was not social work’s finest hour.
A worker raising the same issue, after we had indicated we didn’t agree with it, at every single phone call, email message and visit. It was the wrong thing for the particular child and so we just kept saying no.
Now we’d call them on it, indicate we have answered the question and unless they have new reasons to raise it again, we consider the issue has been dealt with.
A worker who, when challenged, got frustrated and aggressive.
We stayed calm and suggested she learn how to receive feedback and work with various parties to achieve agreement. We thought she would have learned that at uni but maybe she missed that class?
Perjorative comments that were belittling or disparaging. Our particular favourite was ‘this is what you signed up for’ (so you as the carer don’t get a say).
We cheerfully advised that we signed up to care for a child, not to slavishly agree with the workers on everything without analysis and debate.
We took a support person with us to a meeting. When that support person spoke, they were told they were allowed to be present at the meeting, but not to speak.
If we were in that situation again, we would initiate a discussion at the start of the meeting as to the roles of all the people present and establish the ground rules.
All of these examples have one thing in common. The unspoken assumption, exhibited by the worker in each instance, was that they held the power, the decision-making responsibility, or the high moral ground. And when we disagreed, or challenged them, their behaviour veered dangerously close to bullying.
The interplay of all the adults responsible for a child’s life can be a delicate matter.
Carers expect the worker to have skill and experience, we care for this child and want to do the right thing for them, and we know the agency has a role to play. But workers are from an institution with all the authority that comes with it, and we are just a family or an individual. The power may not feel equal, and it doesn’t take much to shift it.
Lest we scare off any prospective carers out there, we hasten to tell you that we have experienced the other side of the spectrum. We know workers who are collaborative, wise, thoughtful and perceptive. They share their views without lecturing, and they are prepared to listen to the carers, and more importantly, the child.
We wish there were more of you. We hope you are recognized within the system as the exceptional workers you are, and we hope other, less experienced workers learn from you.
Stop - and reflect
17/08/2008 21:50
One thing we’ve learned to do is stop, and reflect.
Think through where you have been, and where you’ve come to. Look at the child with clear eyes and see what you’ve achieved. There will always be challenges – have a chat with any other mother or father of a similarly aged child and you will find they deal with many of the same issues.
The challenge is that you may have a few extra. They will range in severity. At the lower end of the scale you will find yourself wondering how much of the behaviour is due to the child’s past, and how much of it simple six year old passion. There will come a point where you consider that the child has lived with you long enough to treat the behaviour as simple six year old passion. It’s a wonderful day when you all reach that point.
At the other end you’ll wonder how to ever manage this child’s behaviour. Faced with an endless challenge, stop and reflect. You will find some milestones along the way that help you take a breath, feel some satisfaction in what you have all achieved, and soldier on.
And just occasionally, we hope you feel real joy in what you are doing. Because we do, and it’s the best feeling in the world.
While we have much to be happy about in respect of the child’s progress on all fronts, best of all is our relationship. While Happy Camper’s cheeky streak may drive us mad, we are quite delighted at the confidence and intelligence that fuels it. We let her test the boundary, we explain the limits, we let her find them, we pull her firmly into line every so often, then we ease off. It’s an ongoing process.
So what underpins it all is love. When you hold this child in your arms and feel your heart turn over, you stop, and reflect. The child will know that when they reach for you they will find love. That helps keep you going.
Posted by EssentialMum
Think through where you have been, and where you’ve come to. Look at the child with clear eyes and see what you’ve achieved. There will always be challenges – have a chat with any other mother or father of a similarly aged child and you will find they deal with many of the same issues.
The challenge is that you may have a few extra. They will range in severity. At the lower end of the scale you will find yourself wondering how much of the behaviour is due to the child’s past, and how much of it simple six year old passion. There will come a point where you consider that the child has lived with you long enough to treat the behaviour as simple six year old passion. It’s a wonderful day when you all reach that point.
At the other end you’ll wonder how to ever manage this child’s behaviour. Faced with an endless challenge, stop and reflect. You will find some milestones along the way that help you take a breath, feel some satisfaction in what you have all achieved, and soldier on.
And just occasionally, we hope you feel real joy in what you are doing. Because we do, and it’s the best feeling in the world.
While we have much to be happy about in respect of the child’s progress on all fronts, best of all is our relationship. While Happy Camper’s cheeky streak may drive us mad, we are quite delighted at the confidence and intelligence that fuels it. We let her test the boundary, we explain the limits, we let her find them, we pull her firmly into line every so often, then we ease off. It’s an ongoing process.
So what underpins it all is love. When you hold this child in your arms and feel your heart turn over, you stop, and reflect. The child will know that when they reach for you they will find love. That helps keep you going.
Posted by EssentialMum