EssentialMum
The influence of birth family
29/03/2010 23:43
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.
|
Lift your game carers
26/01/2010 00:21
Just so you know we are quite prepared to have a go at anyone, we bring you our latest opinion.
It’s time for carers to set a standard.
When a consultation paper has just been released in relation to National Standards for Out of Home Care, we wonder whether carers need to step up and set more of those standards themselves, by their actions.
Here’s one. A simple one really.
We’ve welcomed a number of foster children into our home over the years. Foster children who have been in other foster care placements. Not one has arrived with nice clothes, well cared for and loved toys, packaged in a decent bag.
We are inspired by the work Backpacks for Aussie Kids are doing. They aim to fill backpacks and nappy bags with essential and personal items for children going into foster and kinship care.
So here’s the rule we’d like to see carers adopt:
Foster carers will not send children in care to another placement with their belongings in plastic bags.
And no, those blue, red and white striped bags, from Kmart or Target, don’t cut it either.
How do you begin to show a child they are worth anything, when dropping their belongings into a plastic bag is acceptable? You might try and convince us that the child, if they are young enough, is oblivious to it.
That’s not the point.
It’s all about care and respect.
Care and respect for the child. Care about their belongings. Care about the small number of toys, items and clothing that, in some circumstances, make up this child’s life. Respect that, no matter how young they are, belongings are important.
Carers, go buy a decent bag, or demand one from your worker. You get an allowance each fortnight. Use it.
Just in case you wondered, the move this child will make from you to their next placement is always significant. They will listen and watch and take their cues in a way we adults have long lost. Treat them with respect, and treat their belongings with respect too.
It’s time for carers to set a standard.
When a consultation paper has just been released in relation to National Standards for Out of Home Care, we wonder whether carers need to step up and set more of those standards themselves, by their actions.
Here’s one. A simple one really.
We’ve welcomed a number of foster children into our home over the years. Foster children who have been in other foster care placements. Not one has arrived with nice clothes, well cared for and loved toys, packaged in a decent bag.
We are inspired by the work Backpacks for Aussie Kids are doing. They aim to fill backpacks and nappy bags with essential and personal items for children going into foster and kinship care.
So here’s the rule we’d like to see carers adopt:
Foster carers will not send children in care to another placement with their belongings in plastic bags.
And no, those blue, red and white striped bags, from Kmart or Target, don’t cut it either.
How do you begin to show a child they are worth anything, when dropping their belongings into a plastic bag is acceptable? You might try and convince us that the child, if they are young enough, is oblivious to it.
That’s not the point.
It’s all about care and respect.
Care and respect for the child. Care about their belongings. Care about the small number of toys, items and clothing that, in some circumstances, make up this child’s life. Respect that, no matter how young they are, belongings are important.
Carers, go buy a decent bag, or demand one from your worker. You get an allowance each fortnight. Use it.
Just in case you wondered, the move this child will make from you to their next placement is always significant. They will listen and watch and take their cues in a way we adults have long lost. Treat them with respect, and treat their belongings with respect too.
Growing up in the care of strangers
12/01/2010 22:25
That’s the title of a book…. about care.
We haven’t read the book. But its authors are profiled over at www.fostercareinamerica.com, so that tells us it’s worth looking into. It’s available on Amazon but takes some time to be delivered to us here in Oz (and at some expense). So we hope the authors will forgive us for taking little more than the title, and a bit of information from the blurbs, and writing something about it.
You can read about the authors, Dr John Seita and Waln Brown, at www.fostercareinamerica.com, and they have a website for the book (which tells you a little more).
They and their contributors are foster care alumni. It is marvelous to see those who experienced the system capable of, and interested in, working in it. That’s one of their points. When is the system going to take on board advice from those who experienced it?
Business listens to its customers (or tries to) frequently. And there’s a whole wave of debate and discussion globally about Government transparency and interaction. And yet our experience of the foster care system is, quite frankly, that the ‘consumers’ of it – children and birth families – and partners in it – carers – often don’t get much of a say. Their ability to do so seems to be very much at the mercy of individual workers, and not enshrined in the system.
If we take the title of this book at face value, you shouldn’t have to grow up in the care of strangers, should you?
The word ‘strangers’ hit us hard because we have been strangers to more than one small, bemused child who landed on our doorstep. The dazed look on their faces was quite hard to face, and we remember our pleasure when we’ve watched it gradually give way to some expression as they become familiar with us.
It’s a good day for your child in care when the only strangers in their life are those outside your family and their birth family, and their circle of friends and acquaintances. Like most kids.
The answer to strangers is permanency. If a child needs permanency then it is up to the system to make that decision and make that decision for them, in a timely fashion. Every day counts.
Then, as carers, you need to hold the line. You will know which relationships mean what to the child. We’ve always tried to make sure workers understand that a child in care is a child who has a birth family they don’t live with, rather than a child in substitute care who needs to conform to some pre-defined relationship with their birth family. We have made sure that any child’s individual interests didn’t get swamped beneath the standard way the system does things. We’ve acted like the parents. Because we are.
We’ve said for a while that the foster carer base needs to be segmented. There is a vast difference between short and long term care – both in what a child needs from it and what a carer needs to be able to commit to and provide. All of which drives us to advocate more transparency about how this system works.
So our congratulations to every one of the contributors to Growing up in the Care of Strangers. Not just for what they have achieved in their lives, but for speaking out.
We haven’t read the book. But its authors are profiled over at www.fostercareinamerica.com, so that tells us it’s worth looking into. It’s available on Amazon but takes some time to be delivered to us here in Oz (and at some expense). So we hope the authors will forgive us for taking little more than the title, and a bit of information from the blurbs, and writing something about it.
You can read about the authors, Dr John Seita and Waln Brown, at www.fostercareinamerica.com, and they have a website for the book (which tells you a little more).
They and their contributors are foster care alumni. It is marvelous to see those who experienced the system capable of, and interested in, working in it. That’s one of their points. When is the system going to take on board advice from those who experienced it?
Business listens to its customers (or tries to) frequently. And there’s a whole wave of debate and discussion globally about Government transparency and interaction. And yet our experience of the foster care system is, quite frankly, that the ‘consumers’ of it – children and birth families – and partners in it – carers – often don’t get much of a say. Their ability to do so seems to be very much at the mercy of individual workers, and not enshrined in the system.
If we take the title of this book at face value, you shouldn’t have to grow up in the care of strangers, should you?
- Did you ever wonder where you might be sleeping tomorrow, or the next day?
- Did you ever wonder whether the adult giving you assistance or instruction really, really cared deep down for you, or were they just doing a job?
- Did you ever want just one person to tell you they loved you, just you?
- Did you ever think that, no matter what, there was one place and one person who would welcome you, any time?
The word ‘strangers’ hit us hard because we have been strangers to more than one small, bemused child who landed on our doorstep. The dazed look on their faces was quite hard to face, and we remember our pleasure when we’ve watched it gradually give way to some expression as they become familiar with us.
It’s a good day for your child in care when the only strangers in their life are those outside your family and their birth family, and their circle of friends and acquaintances. Like most kids.
The answer to strangers is permanency. If a child needs permanency then it is up to the system to make that decision and make that decision for them, in a timely fashion. Every day counts.
Then, as carers, you need to hold the line. You will know which relationships mean what to the child. We’ve always tried to make sure workers understand that a child in care is a child who has a birth family they don’t live with, rather than a child in substitute care who needs to conform to some pre-defined relationship with their birth family. We have made sure that any child’s individual interests didn’t get swamped beneath the standard way the system does things. We’ve acted like the parents. Because we are.
We’ve said for a while that the foster carer base needs to be segmented. There is a vast difference between short and long term care – both in what a child needs from it and what a carer needs to be able to commit to and provide. All of which drives us to advocate more transparency about how this system works.
So our congratulations to every one of the contributors to Growing up in the Care of Strangers. Not just for what they have achieved in their lives, but for speaking out.
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.
Twitter stream to 30-12-09
30/12/2009 23:25
Sometimes this could more readily be called a ‘Twitter trickle’, rather than a stream, but hey, there’s still some good stuff in here.
Sammut: Community needs to accept that children in danger need to be removed, and the earlier the better for the child. http://ow.ly/R368 2 minutes ago from HootSuite
Creation of a stand alone dept that investigates reports of children at risk sorely needed and long overdue. Top priority. 3 minutes ago from HootSuite
NSW Govt throwing additional $300 million into support services for dysfunctional families after Wood Royal Commission. http://ow.ly/R34e 5 minutes ago from HootSuite
Sammut says DOCS budget was 'in excess of $1 billion last financial year'. That's a lot of shekels. http://ow.ly/R32J 6 minutes ago from HootSuite
Perhaps more honesty is needed about the real chances of solving drug abuse, mental illness and domestic violence in dysfunctional families? 9 minutes ago from HootSuite
Removal of 'at risk' children as a last resort can be a high risk policy. See Ebony and Dean Shillingsworth cases: http://ow.ly/R30b 10 minutes ago from HootSuite
Sammut comes out and says that family preservation - the current approach in child protection - is flawed: http://ow.ly/R2ZA 11 minutes ago from HootSuite
Two dreadful cases this year of parental neglect that were fatal for the children: Jeremy Sammut in the SMH http://ow.ly/R2YL 12 minutes ago from HootSuite
'Ghost Child' (Caroline Overington) available from Dymocks http://ow.ly/PPG4. If you are interested in children's rights - worth reading. 10:47 PM Dec 26th from HootSuite
Just read Caroline Overington's Ghost Child. Fiction - but some interesting and authentic perspectives from players in 'the system'. 10:43 PM Dec 26th from HootSuite
Hate to break it to you folks, but more money ain't gonna fix the social welfare system: http://ow.ly/PPzT 10:39 PM Dec 26th from HootSuite
We are not sure how much one-on-one our lovely Happy Camper got in her first years. Not much we suspect. Can you catch up? A resounding YES! 11:52 PM Dec 22nd from HootSuite
We read all the 'can do' advice for birth parents. And we realise that our small bundle of humanity might have missed out on lots of that. 11:48 PM Dec 22nd from HootSuite
We are tired at the end of the year and so it is very easy to scoff at all the rubbish on Twitter. 3:03 AM Dec 21st from HootSuite
Parental responsibility? rt @kimota Just blogged: 18+ video games in Aus "Won't somebody think of the children?" http://bit.ly/5R52jX 2:31 PM Dec 16th from HootSuite
Wonderful to see a mother provide such a sterling example to her daughter - NOT. Kid bashes another and mother films it! http://ow.ly/I1dU 12:37 PM Dec 3rd from HootSuite
What do kids in care need? Stability. Our view on what that looks like and the benefits for a child in care http://ow.ly/HsQt 11:42 PM Dec 1st from HootSuite
Our view on Adoption Awareness week in Oz. Is adoption actively discouraged here? http://ow.ly/HsPo 11:40 PM Dec 1st from HootSuite
Children have expectations about daily life. Harder to handle for children in care are the expectations about birth parents. What to expect? 10:08 PM Nov 24th from HootSuite
When a child in care becomes more responsible and mature than the birth parent, what do you do? We can see this coming. http://ow.ly/CVmj 1:33 PM Nov 17th from HootSuite
Awesome post from fostercareinamerica - honest, practical, insightful. A must read. http://ow.ly/CVlS 1:32 PM Nov 17th from HootSuite
Interesting reader responses on News.com.au to Adoption Awareness Week report. Everyone has an opinion! http://ow.ly/CTh9 10:27 AM Nov 17th from HootSuite
@emqff Nationaladoptionweek is happening in the UK as well. http://ow.ly/CCM0 4:33 PM Nov 16th from HootSuite in reply to emqff
Furness calls on Government to create 'a dedicated agency with a parliamentary secretary to oversee the adoption process' http://ow.ly/CC7F 3:50 PM Nov 16th from HootSuite
Deborah-Lee Furness comes out fighting on Oz Govt's 'anti-adoption culture' http://ow.ly/CC66 3:48 PM Nov 16th from HootSuite
Adoption is viable solution for 'children stuck in foster care drift'. And to prevent kids drifting into foster care drift http://ow.ly/CC54 3:47 PM Nov 16th from HootSuite
It's National Adoption Awareness Week. There is a perception that Oz is reluctant to advocate adoption. http://ow.ly/CC3Y 3:46 PM Nov 16th from HootSuite
@jcflamini Agree - re @childrensrights. Lots of solid info in their report. Want to write more on it! 7:06 PM Nov 13th from HootSuite in reply to jcflamini
Really like this report from @childrensrights on NYC foster care, and the effort to bring kids to permanent families. http://ow.ly/BPB2 7:05 PM Nov 13th from HootSuite
Increase in number of children being taken into care post the Baby P case UK. Predictable? http://ow.ly/BOiS 4:40 PM Nov 13th from HootSuite
Irritating = news reports on children being taken into care on a single issue. Who doesn't understand the complexity? ttp://ow.ly/BOcJ 4:32 PM Nov 13th from HootSuite
Poor reporting from the journos - children removed from 'so-called fat family'. Called by whom? Not social workers http://ow.ly/BObS 4:30 PM Nov 13th from HootSuite
rt @childrensrights New report on Oklahoma child welfare: treatment of kids in foster care there is "immoral." http://is.gd/4SSRwdrensrights 10:15 AM Nov 12th from HootSuite
If you live in an apartment and have small children, check the safety of the windows and upgrade them if necessary http://ow.ly/Bc8t 2:08 PM Nov 11th from HootSuite
'Huge backlog' of cases in NT; - independent enquiry announced to report into the 'notification system' for child abuse http://ow.ly/BbPD 1:45 PM Nov 11th from HootSuite
When agencies can't work out what information can be shared people really do suffer JGOS (mental health service) http://ow.ly/BbNm 1:43 PM Nov 11th from HootSuite
rt @gauntlent rt @drewfromtv Follow me and LIVESTRONG gets 1 M Cancer DOLLARS help me reach1 m followers by 12/31/09 help save a life 11:52 AM Nov 10th from HootSuite
Babies having babies - 12 yr old who escaped proper supervision now has her own child http://ow.ly/ASIE 11:45 AM Nov 10th from HootSuite
Pew Report Only 6% of the adult population has no one who they consider to be “especially significant” in their life. http://ow.ly/ASFG 11:41 AM Nov 10th from HootSuite
Pew report on social isolation 'Only 6% of the adult population has no one with whom they can discuss important matters' http://ow.ly/ASF3 11:40 AM Nov 10th from HootSuite
the old adage - it takes a village to raise a child. http://bit.ly/eWnLe 1:12 PM Nov 6th from web
Medical world first saves baby's life - wonderful how this world of ours can collaborate http://ow.ly/zlgy 12:31 PM Nov 5th from HootSuite
'What do I call my foster carer? Whatever I choose just as long as I feel comfortable with it'. http://ow.ly/yNhC Sensible. 4:33 PM Nov 3rd from HootSuite
Useful publications for children in care from WA Govt - includes a charter of rights for children in care on page 20 http://ow.ly/yNfc 4:31 PM Nov 3rd from HootSuite
We are 'wired' similarly to degus (rodents) and so scientists can extrapolate the impact of single parents? Honestly. http://ow.ly/ygWQ 8:19 PM Nov 1st from HootSuite
Bad reporting 'Scientists are now finding that growing up without a father actually changes the way your brain develops.' http://ow.ly/ygVo 8:17 PM Nov 1st from HootSuite
Six dimensions of child well-being: material, housing, education, health, risk behaviours and quality of school life.http://ow.ly/xsIb 1:33 PM Oct 30th from HootSuite
Oh dear. How many things are wrong with this story. A Kiwi politician's answer to child abuse. http://ow.ly/xsxc 1:18 PM Oct 30th from HootSuite
Parents - become familiar with online tools so you can educate your children. Facebook hate sites are unacceptable! http://ow.ly/xspa 1:10 PM Oct 30th from HootSuite
There IS a link between diet and immune system http://ow.ly/xdva 12:53 PM Oct 29th from HootSuite
We like Chris Gardiner's article on the The Punch (CEO of PCYC) http://ow.ly/x00i so we wrote about it http://tinyurl.com/yhjshpp 12:57 AM Oct 29th from web
Kids need an adult committed to them, and not a committee of social workers and public servants: Chris Gardiner PCYC http://ow.ly/x00i 2:44 PM Oct 28th from HootSuite
intervention...must be built on an intense engagement around a single, consistent and strong adult relationship http://ow.ly/x004 2:43 PM Oct 28th from HootSuite
Failing kids, failing the community - good article in The Punch, re-socialising kids better than locking them up later on http://ow.ly/wZZm
Sammut: Community needs to accept that children in danger need to be removed, and the earlier the better for the child. http://ow.ly/R368 2 minutes ago from HootSuite
Creation of a stand alone dept that investigates reports of children at risk sorely needed and long overdue. Top priority. 3 minutes ago from HootSuite
NSW Govt throwing additional $300 million into support services for dysfunctional families after Wood Royal Commission. http://ow.ly/R34e 5 minutes ago from HootSuite
Sammut says DOCS budget was 'in excess of $1 billion last financial year'. That's a lot of shekels. http://ow.ly/R32J 6 minutes ago from HootSuite
Perhaps more honesty is needed about the real chances of solving drug abuse, mental illness and domestic violence in dysfunctional families? 9 minutes ago from HootSuite
Removal of 'at risk' children as a last resort can be a high risk policy. See Ebony and Dean Shillingsworth cases: http://ow.ly/R30b 10 minutes ago from HootSuite
Sammut comes out and says that family preservation - the current approach in child protection - is flawed: http://ow.ly/R2ZA 11 minutes ago from HootSuite
Two dreadful cases this year of parental neglect that were fatal for the children: Jeremy Sammut in the SMH http://ow.ly/R2YL 12 minutes ago from HootSuite
'Ghost Child' (Caroline Overington) available from Dymocks http://ow.ly/PPG4. If you are interested in children's rights - worth reading. 10:47 PM Dec 26th from HootSuite
Just read Caroline Overington's Ghost Child. Fiction - but some interesting and authentic perspectives from players in 'the system'. 10:43 PM Dec 26th from HootSuite
Hate to break it to you folks, but more money ain't gonna fix the social welfare system: http://ow.ly/PPzT 10:39 PM Dec 26th from HootSuite
We are not sure how much one-on-one our lovely Happy Camper got in her first years. Not much we suspect. Can you catch up? A resounding YES! 11:52 PM Dec 22nd from HootSuite
We read all the 'can do' advice for birth parents. And we realise that our small bundle of humanity might have missed out on lots of that. 11:48 PM Dec 22nd from HootSuite
We are tired at the end of the year and so it is very easy to scoff at all the rubbish on Twitter. 3:03 AM Dec 21st from HootSuite
Parental responsibility? rt @kimota Just blogged: 18+ video games in Aus "Won't somebody think of the children?" http://bit.ly/5R52jX 2:31 PM Dec 16th from HootSuite
Wonderful to see a mother provide such a sterling example to her daughter - NOT. Kid bashes another and mother films it! http://ow.ly/I1dU 12:37 PM Dec 3rd from HootSuite
What do kids in care need? Stability. Our view on what that looks like and the benefits for a child in care http://ow.ly/HsQt 11:42 PM Dec 1st from HootSuite
Our view on Adoption Awareness week in Oz. Is adoption actively discouraged here? http://ow.ly/HsPo 11:40 PM Dec 1st from HootSuite
Children have expectations about daily life. Harder to handle for children in care are the expectations about birth parents. What to expect? 10:08 PM Nov 24th from HootSuite
When a child in care becomes more responsible and mature than the birth parent, what do you do? We can see this coming. http://ow.ly/CVmj 1:33 PM Nov 17th from HootSuite
Awesome post from fostercareinamerica - honest, practical, insightful. A must read. http://ow.ly/CVlS 1:32 PM Nov 17th from HootSuite
Interesting reader responses on News.com.au to Adoption Awareness Week report. Everyone has an opinion! http://ow.ly/CTh9 10:27 AM Nov 17th from HootSuite
@emqff Nationaladoptionweek is happening in the UK as well. http://ow.ly/CCM0 4:33 PM Nov 16th from HootSuite in reply to emqff
Furness calls on Government to create 'a dedicated agency with a parliamentary secretary to oversee the adoption process' http://ow.ly/CC7F 3:50 PM Nov 16th from HootSuite
Deborah-Lee Furness comes out fighting on Oz Govt's 'anti-adoption culture' http://ow.ly/CC66 3:48 PM Nov 16th from HootSuite
Adoption is viable solution for 'children stuck in foster care drift'. And to prevent kids drifting into foster care drift http://ow.ly/CC54 3:47 PM Nov 16th from HootSuite
It's National Adoption Awareness Week. There is a perception that Oz is reluctant to advocate adoption. http://ow.ly/CC3Y 3:46 PM Nov 16th from HootSuite
@jcflamini Agree - re @childrensrights. Lots of solid info in their report. Want to write more on it! 7:06 PM Nov 13th from HootSuite in reply to jcflamini
Really like this report from @childrensrights on NYC foster care, and the effort to bring kids to permanent families. http://ow.ly/BPB2 7:05 PM Nov 13th from HootSuite
Increase in number of children being taken into care post the Baby P case UK. Predictable? http://ow.ly/BOiS 4:40 PM Nov 13th from HootSuite
Irritating = news reports on children being taken into care on a single issue. Who doesn't understand the complexity? ttp://ow.ly/BOcJ 4:32 PM Nov 13th from HootSuite
Poor reporting from the journos - children removed from 'so-called fat family'. Called by whom? Not social workers http://ow.ly/BObS 4:30 PM Nov 13th from HootSuite
rt @childrensrights New report on Oklahoma child welfare: treatment of kids in foster care there is "immoral." http://is.gd/4SSRwdrensrights 10:15 AM Nov 12th from HootSuite
If you live in an apartment and have small children, check the safety of the windows and upgrade them if necessary http://ow.ly/Bc8t 2:08 PM Nov 11th from HootSuite
'Huge backlog' of cases in NT; - independent enquiry announced to report into the 'notification system' for child abuse http://ow.ly/BbPD 1:45 PM Nov 11th from HootSuite
When agencies can't work out what information can be shared people really do suffer JGOS (mental health service) http://ow.ly/BbNm 1:43 PM Nov 11th from HootSuite
rt @gauntlent rt @drewfromtv Follow me and LIVESTRONG gets 1 M Cancer DOLLARS help me reach1 m followers by 12/31/09 help save a life 11:52 AM Nov 10th from HootSuite
Babies having babies - 12 yr old who escaped proper supervision now has her own child http://ow.ly/ASIE 11:45 AM Nov 10th from HootSuite
Pew Report Only 6% of the adult population has no one who they consider to be “especially significant” in their life. http://ow.ly/ASFG 11:41 AM Nov 10th from HootSuite
Pew report on social isolation 'Only 6% of the adult population has no one with whom they can discuss important matters' http://ow.ly/ASF3 11:40 AM Nov 10th from HootSuite
the old adage - it takes a village to raise a child. http://bit.ly/eWnLe 1:12 PM Nov 6th from web
Medical world first saves baby's life - wonderful how this world of ours can collaborate http://ow.ly/zlgy 12:31 PM Nov 5th from HootSuite
'What do I call my foster carer? Whatever I choose just as long as I feel comfortable with it'. http://ow.ly/yNhC Sensible. 4:33 PM Nov 3rd from HootSuite
Useful publications for children in care from WA Govt - includes a charter of rights for children in care on page 20 http://ow.ly/yNfc 4:31 PM Nov 3rd from HootSuite
We are 'wired' similarly to degus (rodents) and so scientists can extrapolate the impact of single parents? Honestly. http://ow.ly/ygWQ 8:19 PM Nov 1st from HootSuite
Bad reporting 'Scientists are now finding that growing up without a father actually changes the way your brain develops.' http://ow.ly/ygVo 8:17 PM Nov 1st from HootSuite
Six dimensions of child well-being: material, housing, education, health, risk behaviours and quality of school life.http://ow.ly/xsIb 1:33 PM Oct 30th from HootSuite
Oh dear. How many things are wrong with this story. A Kiwi politician's answer to child abuse. http://ow.ly/xsxc 1:18 PM Oct 30th from HootSuite
Parents - become familiar with online tools so you can educate your children. Facebook hate sites are unacceptable! http://ow.ly/xspa 1:10 PM Oct 30th from HootSuite
There IS a link between diet and immune system http://ow.ly/xdva 12:53 PM Oct 29th from HootSuite
We like Chris Gardiner's article on the The Punch (CEO of PCYC) http://ow.ly/x00i so we wrote about it http://tinyurl.com/yhjshpp 12:57 AM Oct 29th from web
Kids need an adult committed to them, and not a committee of social workers and public servants: Chris Gardiner PCYC http://ow.ly/x00i 2:44 PM Oct 28th from HootSuite
intervention...must be built on an intense engagement around a single, consistent and strong adult relationship http://ow.ly/x004 2:43 PM Oct 28th from HootSuite
Failing kids, failing the community - good article in The Punch, re-socialising kids better than locking them up later on http://ow.ly/wZZm
National Adoption Awareness Week
27/11/2009 00:02
It was National Adoption Awareness Week mid-November. We would have loved to highlight the event on this site, but were living the equation (simplified, with sincere apologies to all the mathematicians out there):
([Child in care + activities] *JOY300) + work100 + running the family150 = no time to write.
It’s not too late to highlight the message nonetheless. For more details go to the Adoption Awareness Week site. The spokesman is Deborah Lee Furness, an adoptive mum of two. She has commented quite bluntly that adoption in Australia is difficult.
This is from the adoptionawarenessweek.com.au site:
‘There is a perception that Australia has been reluctant to advocate adoption as an option for crisis pregnancies, children stuck in foster care drift, or as a way of keeping siblings together.’
‘Foster care drift’. That’s an interesting choice of words, isn’t it? If it describes children who move from placement to placement to placement, or perhaps children who languish in a placement pending a decision, then what is the goal for them? They shouldn’t drift, should they? Why would we accept that for them?
If you read the Queensland Government’s Charter of rights of a child in care, then the first principle will tell you that the Child Protection Act 1999 establishes that children in care have the right ‘to be provided with a safe and stable living environment’ that ‘best meets the child’s needs’. (We know there is a NSW equivalent, but heaven help us, we searched for it on the DoCS site and ran out of patience. We found flyers describing it here.)
The issue is that ‘stable’ is a relative term, not an absolute one. By that we mean that it is decided in reference to the particular child and their particular circumstances. There is no baseline that can be held to apply universally.
And that is the conundrum. When a family breaks down, or a birth parent can’t cope, all the basic standards of care for a child need to be replaced with a new set. The child’s stability is well and truly interrupted, while the system tries to work out whether the family can be supported and therefore function, or whether it has broken down irretrievably.
So when serious family issues occur, can the system cater for the needs of the family AND the needs of the individual child simultaneously? Equally? Or does one lose out?
We are not advocating an adversarial system. But we are yet to meet an individual or a system (however you define it) that is able to balance the competing needs of two parties, completely impartially, free from agendas.
That’s the court system, you say? We’re not convinced. But even accepting that, perhaps the issue is how long it takes to get a decision from that impartial third party? As we’ve written before, children don’t go into limbo while the adults work it all out. Children often FAIL to do something during times of instability – such as grow, learn, relax, enjoy, love.
We know a number of smart, thoughtful individuals who have been children in care, and we participate in many online forums where those who contribute to the system and those who experienced it come together. A universal theme for many children who experienced care is finding stability.
So here’s what ‘stability’ means in day to day terms for a child in care:
‘We understand you need someone to love you, unconditionally, for a long time, so you see and understand what a long time looks and feels like, and what long-term unconditional love looks and feels like. We know you need to see, experience, feel and understand what it is to have someone who wants, and works for, the very best for you’.
([Child in care + activities] *JOY300) + work100 + running the family150 = no time to write.
It’s not too late to highlight the message nonetheless. For more details go to the Adoption Awareness Week site. The spokesman is Deborah Lee Furness, an adoptive mum of two. She has commented quite bluntly that adoption in Australia is difficult.
This is from the adoptionawarenessweek.com.au site:
‘There is a perception that Australia has been reluctant to advocate adoption as an option for crisis pregnancies, children stuck in foster care drift, or as a way of keeping siblings together.’
‘Foster care drift’. That’s an interesting choice of words, isn’t it? If it describes children who move from placement to placement to placement, or perhaps children who languish in a placement pending a decision, then what is the goal for them? They shouldn’t drift, should they? Why would we accept that for them?
If you read the Queensland Government’s Charter of rights of a child in care, then the first principle will tell you that the Child Protection Act 1999 establishes that children in care have the right ‘to be provided with a safe and stable living environment’ that ‘best meets the child’s needs’. (We know there is a NSW equivalent, but heaven help us, we searched for it on the DoCS site and ran out of patience. We found flyers describing it here.)
The issue is that ‘stable’ is a relative term, not an absolute one. By that we mean that it is decided in reference to the particular child and their particular circumstances. There is no baseline that can be held to apply universally.
And that is the conundrum. When a family breaks down, or a birth parent can’t cope, all the basic standards of care for a child need to be replaced with a new set. The child’s stability is well and truly interrupted, while the system tries to work out whether the family can be supported and therefore function, or whether it has broken down irretrievably.
So when serious family issues occur, can the system cater for the needs of the family AND the needs of the individual child simultaneously? Equally? Or does one lose out?
We are not advocating an adversarial system. But we are yet to meet an individual or a system (however you define it) that is able to balance the competing needs of two parties, completely impartially, free from agendas.
That’s the court system, you say? We’re not convinced. But even accepting that, perhaps the issue is how long it takes to get a decision from that impartial third party? As we’ve written before, children don’t go into limbo while the adults work it all out. Children often FAIL to do something during times of instability – such as grow, learn, relax, enjoy, love.
We know a number of smart, thoughtful individuals who have been children in care, and we participate in many online forums where those who contribute to the system and those who experienced it come together. A universal theme for many children who experienced care is finding stability.
So here’s what ‘stability’ means in day to day terms for a child in care:
- ‘The system’ makes the decision and gives the child certainty about their home.
- The child is able to concentrate on living, and learning, and loving, rather than managing changing living circumstances.
- If you see birth family members, there is no mystery for the child about their whole family.
- The child can deal with all the continuing uncertainty of birth family from the safety net of a loving family.
- The new foster family actively works with the child to help them understand and accept why the child lives with the family. That’s not an impossible task by the way. It never should be.
- The child is not drifting. They are moving forward. And that is the loveliest sight in the world.
‘We understand you need someone to love you, unconditionally, for a long time, so you see and understand what a long time looks and feels like, and what long-term unconditional love looks and feels like. We know you need to see, experience, feel and understand what it is to have someone who wants, and works for, the very best for you’.
Children need a strong adult relationship
29/10/2009 00:13
‘We should also, however, recognise that some adults fail to raise their children properly, fail to care for them, and fail to socialise them.’
So, a voice of reason. Chris Gardiner is the CEO of the Police and Community Youth Clubs. He posted a great article on The Punch today about kids at risk. That quote is from his article.
He argues that we should be investing in our youth in trouble, because while ‘re-socialising dysfunctional, delinquent kids is relationship and resource intensive, … it is cheaper and more effective in the long run than detention centres and prisons. For example, it costs $11 per day for youth conferencing, and $556 per day for custody.’
(And just to explain why this is an issue, he notes that NSW has several times the number of kids in detention that Victoria has, and that over half the kids locked up are aboriginal.)
It’s the same message we hear from the ‘children at risk’ support system. Get into the family, support them, stop the family structure breaking down. Fix it, rather than manage the fallout.
So why does Gardiner’s article sound more realistic to us?
He puts the child at the centre of it.
After that early statement about the family, he talks about the child, and what they need. Let’s be blunt - he doesn’t talk about propping up a failing family structure. He advocates action with the child, and for the child. He says we need to give these children ‘the chance for social development that they have been thus far denied’.
There is no reason why support for the family shouldn’t continue. But it should be separate to support allocated to the child.
And here’s the paragraph that could well be written for children in care.
‘For intervention to work, though, it must be built on an intense engagement around a single, consistent and strong adult relationship and an alternative peer setting. Kids need an adult committed to them, and not a committee of social workers and public servants (as interagency case management often becomes).’
This issue of attachment came up in an American Academy of Paediatrics article on Developmental Issues for Young Children in Foster Care , and we wrote about it previously on our blog. Here’s the relevant paragraph from the Academy article:
‘Having at least 1 adult who is devoted to and loves a child unconditionally, who is prepared to accept and value that child for a long time, is key to helping a child overcome the stress and trauma of abuse and neglect.’
So we think those two paragraphs might contain some guidance for assessing whether a child at risk is getting what they need:
Those of us lucky enough to grow up in a nurturing family will read those points and understand what they mean. We know what that looks and feels like.
So, how long should we take to decide a child is NOT getting that, and what are we prepared to do about it?
So, a voice of reason. Chris Gardiner is the CEO of the Police and Community Youth Clubs. He posted a great article on The Punch today about kids at risk. That quote is from his article.
He argues that we should be investing in our youth in trouble, because while ‘re-socialising dysfunctional, delinquent kids is relationship and resource intensive, … it is cheaper and more effective in the long run than detention centres and prisons. For example, it costs $11 per day for youth conferencing, and $556 per day for custody.’
(And just to explain why this is an issue, he notes that NSW has several times the number of kids in detention that Victoria has, and that over half the kids locked up are aboriginal.)
It’s the same message we hear from the ‘children at risk’ support system. Get into the family, support them, stop the family structure breaking down. Fix it, rather than manage the fallout.
So why does Gardiner’s article sound more realistic to us?
He puts the child at the centre of it.
After that early statement about the family, he talks about the child, and what they need. Let’s be blunt - he doesn’t talk about propping up a failing family structure. He advocates action with the child, and for the child. He says we need to give these children ‘the chance for social development that they have been thus far denied’.
There is no reason why support for the family shouldn’t continue. But it should be separate to support allocated to the child.
And here’s the paragraph that could well be written for children in care.
‘For intervention to work, though, it must be built on an intense engagement around a single, consistent and strong adult relationship and an alternative peer setting. Kids need an adult committed to them, and not a committee of social workers and public servants (as interagency case management often becomes).’
This issue of attachment came up in an American Academy of Paediatrics article on Developmental Issues for Young Children in Foster Care , and we wrote about it previously on our blog. Here’s the relevant paragraph from the Academy article:
‘Having at least 1 adult who is devoted to and loves a child unconditionally, who is prepared to accept and value that child for a long time, is key to helping a child overcome the stress and trauma of abuse and neglect.’
So we think those two paragraphs might contain some guidance for assessing whether a child at risk is getting what they need:
- A single, consistent and strong adult relationship
- An adult committed to them (our comment – in action, not words)
- An adult devoted to them
- An adult who loves them unconditionally
- An adult who is prepared to accept and value that child for a long time
Those of us lucky enough to grow up in a nurturing family will read those points and understand what they mean. We know what that looks and feels like.
So, how long should we take to decide a child is NOT getting that, and what are we prepared to do about it?
Twitter stream to 27-10-09
28/10/2009 21:43
We post links daily on Twitter to many articles we come across. They are often news reports or research studies that may be relevant to children in care, or to children generally.
We usually manage to provide our blunt opinion with them. While we try hard to be constructive on www.fostercarer.com.au, you’ll see we have a bit more fun with our tweets.
In case you missed them (or heaven forbid, you don’t follow us!) here is a list of our last couple of weeks’ tweets. Oh, and you’ll find the most recent posts at the top. So if you are unfamiliar with Twitter then you should read from the bottom of the post up.
Child protection workers raised 'serious concerns' about an adult's capability to care for a child but no one acted. Why? http://ow.ly/wvZH about 18 hours ago from HootSuite
And on the flip side, parenting is now a competition sport? Its one extreme to the other, isn't it. http://ow.ly/wvkF about 20 hours ago from HootSuite
Beyond belief that parents would let a child suffer because they are fearful of losing her. Or is it? http://ow.ly/wv6j about 21 hours ago from HootSuite
What is the test parents must pass if they have lost custody of a child, before that child or another is returned to them? http://ow.ly/wv5y about 21 hours ago from HootSuite
Good to see technology used to protect children's rights and wellbeing 'kidnapped child found through global money trail' http://ow.ly/vQ2G 3:13 PM Oct 22nd from HootSuite
Mental impairment defence for dad accused of throwing daughter from bridge. Not surprising. http://ow.ly/vPZW 3:09 PM Oct 22nd from HootSuite
Was about to huff about the guidelines but if those TV stats are true then we need more education out there! http://ow.ly/vNx5 9:46 AM Oct 22nd from HootSuite
'four-month-old babies watch 44 minutes of TV daily ...under-fours spend at least three hours a day in front of TV' (ACMA) http://ow.ly/vNwA 9:45 AM Oct 22nd from HootSuite
New parenting guidelines for parents - Don't force your kids to clear their plates at meal times. http://ow.ly/vNvp 9:42 AM Oct 22nd from HootSuite
rt Bckpck4AusKids 5 computers to give to long term foster/kinship carers! The computers are not new and fancy but ... http://bit.ly/r8zDL 1:57 PM Oct 21st from HootSuite
Foster care allowance is lower than this average cost of raising a child 'til 5. After 5 it is even more expensive! http://ow.ly/vAwG 1:54 PM Oct 21st from HootSuite
Small person is squealing with delight doing www.readingeggs.com. Really cool site for spelling and word skills for the under 10's.7:33 PM Oct 20th from HootSuite
Sue Price Men's Rights Agency: 'reasonable contact'. That's the issue - what's reasonable for the child? http://ow.ly/vn8N 4:00 PM Oct 20th from HootSuite
Submission: Family Court to consider parenting roles played by each parent pre-separation before deciding on roles after http://ow.ly/vn0l 3:38 PM Oct 20th from HootSuite
'Children under the current system DO NOT HAVE A VOICE' Submission on Shared parenting rollback - http://ow.ly/vmSp 3:31 PM Oct 20th from HootSuite
What a shame - child abduction hoax: rt @mashable WARNING: “98B351″ AMBER Alert Hoax Still Spreading on Twitter, Facebook - http://bit.ly/3v 10:35 PM Oct 15th from HootSuite
The results of a poor decision in child welfare can scar a child for life. http://ow.ly/uv8J Maybe we need an insurance scheme? 4:02 PM Oct 15th from HootSuite
You can sue a lawyer or a doctor for malpractice - should caseworkers be accountable to the same degree? http://ow.ly/uv8n
While we don't agree with punishment for caseworkers who make errors, we do agree accountability needs to be there http://ow.ly/uv7S 3:41 PM Oct 15th from HootSuite
When the current ideology is restitution with bio family @PruGoward, maybe social workers can argue just following orders? http://ow.ly/ujBL 8:52 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
That'll help recruitment and retention @PruGoward (not). Criminal charges for caseworkers who get it wrong http://ow.ly/ujBm 8:50 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
'Ms Goward said the prospect of punishment for caseworkers could provide better outcomes.' REALLY BAD IDEA http://ow.ly/ujyY 8:45 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
To quote @jcflamini (who knows of what she speaks), 'sometimes the state should not give repeat chances to failing parents' 4:26 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
'A desire to keep children with their families would not change, Ms Burney said.' No, 'keeping with' and 'returning to' are very different. 4:25 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
There are many serious long term impacts of returning children to bio families again, and again, and again. Our post: http://ow.ly/uijV 4:23 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
Is the ideology and desire to return children to bio family overriding their safety? Here's an example of where it did http://ow.ly/uijr 4:21 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
'A BABY girl severely injured since being put in the care of relatives after DOCS took her from a foster family'. http://ow.ly/uiiI 4:19 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
Pre-emptive strike: we teach the Camper that advertising is a crock, and you can't believe what you see in mags #bodyimage http://ow.ly/uh6E 12:59 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
A Youth Advisory Board? Now there's an idea for children's services in Oz. Example here from the US. http://ow.ly/u4U3 3:18 PM Oct 13th from HootSuite
No TV for toddlers? The point is not only quantity, but QUALITY. http://ow.ly/u4Sn 3:13 PM Oct 13th from HootSuite
Just completed the NAPCAN survey on child abuse and neglect - please contribute! http://ow.ly/u3Ff 12:06 PM Oct 13th from HootSuite
RT @colgo too much research flying at parents, maybe they just shouldn't have kids? http://bit.ly/5ASmG 11:48 AM Oct 13th from HootSuite
We usually manage to provide our blunt opinion with them. While we try hard to be constructive on www.fostercarer.com.au, you’ll see we have a bit more fun with our tweets.
In case you missed them (or heaven forbid, you don’t follow us!) here is a list of our last couple of weeks’ tweets. Oh, and you’ll find the most recent posts at the top. So if you are unfamiliar with Twitter then you should read from the bottom of the post up.
Child protection workers raised 'serious concerns' about an adult's capability to care for a child but no one acted. Why? http://ow.ly/wvZH about 18 hours ago from HootSuite
And on the flip side, parenting is now a competition sport? Its one extreme to the other, isn't it. http://ow.ly/wvkF about 20 hours ago from HootSuite
Beyond belief that parents would let a child suffer because they are fearful of losing her. Or is it? http://ow.ly/wv6j about 21 hours ago from HootSuite
What is the test parents must pass if they have lost custody of a child, before that child or another is returned to them? http://ow.ly/wv5y about 21 hours ago from HootSuite
Good to see technology used to protect children's rights and wellbeing 'kidnapped child found through global money trail' http://ow.ly/vQ2G 3:13 PM Oct 22nd from HootSuite
Mental impairment defence for dad accused of throwing daughter from bridge. Not surprising. http://ow.ly/vPZW 3:09 PM Oct 22nd from HootSuite
Was about to huff about the guidelines but if those TV stats are true then we need more education out there! http://ow.ly/vNx5 9:46 AM Oct 22nd from HootSuite
'four-month-old babies watch 44 minutes of TV daily ...under-fours spend at least three hours a day in front of TV' (ACMA) http://ow.ly/vNwA 9:45 AM Oct 22nd from HootSuite
New parenting guidelines for parents - Don't force your kids to clear their plates at meal times. http://ow.ly/vNvp 9:42 AM Oct 22nd from HootSuite
rt Bckpck4AusKids 5 computers to give to long term foster/kinship carers! The computers are not new and fancy but ... http://bit.ly/r8zDL 1:57 PM Oct 21st from HootSuite
Foster care allowance is lower than this average cost of raising a child 'til 5. After 5 it is even more expensive! http://ow.ly/vAwG 1:54 PM Oct 21st from HootSuite
Small person is squealing with delight doing www.readingeggs.com. Really cool site for spelling and word skills for the under 10's.7:33 PM Oct 20th from HootSuite
Sue Price Men's Rights Agency: 'reasonable contact'. That's the issue - what's reasonable for the child? http://ow.ly/vn8N 4:00 PM Oct 20th from HootSuite
Submission: Family Court to consider parenting roles played by each parent pre-separation before deciding on roles after http://ow.ly/vn0l 3:38 PM Oct 20th from HootSuite
'Children under the current system DO NOT HAVE A VOICE' Submission on Shared parenting rollback - http://ow.ly/vmSp 3:31 PM Oct 20th from HootSuite
What a shame - child abduction hoax: rt @mashable WARNING: “98B351″ AMBER Alert Hoax Still Spreading on Twitter, Facebook - http://bit.ly/3v 10:35 PM Oct 15th from HootSuite
The results of a poor decision in child welfare can scar a child for life. http://ow.ly/uv8J Maybe we need an insurance scheme? 4:02 PM Oct 15th from HootSuite
You can sue a lawyer or a doctor for malpractice - should caseworkers be accountable to the same degree? http://ow.ly/uv8n
While we don't agree with punishment for caseworkers who make errors, we do agree accountability needs to be there http://ow.ly/uv7S 3:41 PM Oct 15th from HootSuite
When the current ideology is restitution with bio family @PruGoward, maybe social workers can argue just following orders? http://ow.ly/ujBL 8:52 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
That'll help recruitment and retention @PruGoward (not). Criminal charges for caseworkers who get it wrong http://ow.ly/ujBm 8:50 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
'Ms Goward said the prospect of punishment for caseworkers could provide better outcomes.' REALLY BAD IDEA http://ow.ly/ujyY 8:45 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
To quote @jcflamini (who knows of what she speaks), 'sometimes the state should not give repeat chances to failing parents' 4:26 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
'A desire to keep children with their families would not change, Ms Burney said.' No, 'keeping with' and 'returning to' are very different. 4:25 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
There are many serious long term impacts of returning children to bio families again, and again, and again. Our post: http://ow.ly/uijV 4:23 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
Is the ideology and desire to return children to bio family overriding their safety? Here's an example of where it did http://ow.ly/uijr 4:21 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
'A BABY girl severely injured since being put in the care of relatives after DOCS took her from a foster family'. http://ow.ly/uiiI 4:19 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
Pre-emptive strike: we teach the Camper that advertising is a crock, and you can't believe what you see in mags #bodyimage http://ow.ly/uh6E 12:59 PM Oct 14th from HootSuite
A Youth Advisory Board? Now there's an idea for children's services in Oz. Example here from the US. http://ow.ly/u4U3 3:18 PM Oct 13th from HootSuite
No TV for toddlers? The point is not only quantity, but QUALITY. http://ow.ly/u4Sn 3:13 PM Oct 13th from HootSuite
Just completed the NAPCAN survey on child abuse and neglect - please contribute! http://ow.ly/u3Ff 12:06 PM Oct 13th from HootSuite
RT @colgo too much research flying at parents, maybe they just shouldn't have kids? http://bit.ly/5ASmG 11:48 AM Oct 13th from HootSuite
How foster children respond to stress
10/10/2009 00:00
By the time I ended up at my first Foster Care home, so much had been taken from me. I no longer had a sense of self, family, belonging, comfort, familiarity, unconditional love, trust, confidence (let’s face it, this comes from stability), and hope! If I use my adult voice I can explain that I was angry, hurt, devastated, abandoned, emotionally disconnected, physically beaten, verbally abused, ridiculed by society and my peers, and completely petrified! I am almost 4 years old.
These words are from Jenny, at www.fostercareinamerica.com. She and her brother Mat write about their memories of childhood. If ever you have stared at your foster child and wondered what is going on, you will find insight here. It’s a unique perspective and we applaud Jenny for having the courage and the energy to show it.
We find those two paragraphs quite hard to read. They represent the stripping away, for a child, of all that they have known. And at 4 years of age, a child has little left.
What is compelling about Jenny’s post is how she talks about the rage that came, unbidden and usually unexpectedly.
These episodes came without warning, calm one minute, and then the rage would surface.
Are you surprised? That a child of four might respond this way?
Mat on the other hand, describes withdrawing, shutting down.
We’ve been highlighting an article from the American Academy of Pediatrics – Developmental Issues for Young children in Foster Care. It has a section on the response in children to psychological stress.
Physical and mental abuse during the first few years of life tends to fix the brain in an acute stress mode that makes the child respond in a hyper-vigilant, fearful manner.
When a child is under acute stress, the typical ‘fight’ response to stress may change from crying – because that was unsuccessful – to temper tantrums, aggressive behaviour, or inattention and withdrawal.
The child, rather than physically running away - the ‘flight’ response, may psychologically disengage. It’s called the freeze response – a child may react to alarm or stress by ceasing any activity. Adults unfamiliar with the child may think they are uncooperative.
We’ve found the article very enlightening, and quite scary. Because it is telling us that these experiences can have a profound impact on a child.
So that’s why we love fostercareinamerica.com. Because Jen shows us how kids can come through. She celebrates the overcoming of adversity for the most vulnerable in society. She shows us it is possible. As carers, faced with a small bundle or anger/anxiety/silence, that’s good to remember.
Agencies' neglect fatal for Ebony
07/10/2009 23:57
There are a few circumstances in life where one mistake can be fatal. But in most cases, adults are usually involved. Adults choose to put themselves at risk.
Small children don’t choose to put themselves at risk.
Not in relation to the fundamentals – like love, family, care, learning. They rely on adults to protect them. They rely first on their parents. And our child protection system is set up to monitor, and manage, when parents fail. We expect it to work. But if the parents fail, and then the system fails, a child can die.
So what an absolute tragedy to read about a child in New South Wales who starved to death while in the care of her parents. No child should go through what Ebony went through. If ‘the system’ is the last line of defence, then it’s a huge responsibility for the people who work in ‘the system’.
We know when software fails. We know when a company fails. We know when some appliance fails. Do we know when a parent fails? You don’t just get a blue computer screen. In many cases it is not just one event that makes it obvious you have a #parentfail.
But when the risk of not acting is a child’s life, you may ask why on earth someone didn’t do something?
One of the newspaper reports stated that DoCs had ‘failed to convince the Children's Court to remove Ebony and her two older sisters from their parents, despite the fact Ebony's younger sister had been removed’. So the ‘system’ had a ‘fail’ at what appears in hindsight to have been the right course of action? Why?
The Ombudsman concluded that Ebony’s case "illustrates very clearly what can go wrong for children when agencies fail to work effectively, fail to work together and fail to take shared responsibility for the care and protection of children".
No kidding.
Small children don’t choose to put themselves at risk.
Not in relation to the fundamentals – like love, family, care, learning. They rely on adults to protect them. They rely first on their parents. And our child protection system is set up to monitor, and manage, when parents fail. We expect it to work. But if the parents fail, and then the system fails, a child can die.
So what an absolute tragedy to read about a child in New South Wales who starved to death while in the care of her parents. No child should go through what Ebony went through. If ‘the system’ is the last line of defence, then it’s a huge responsibility for the people who work in ‘the system’.
We know when software fails. We know when a company fails. We know when some appliance fails. Do we know when a parent fails? You don’t just get a blue computer screen. In many cases it is not just one event that makes it obvious you have a #parentfail.
But when the risk of not acting is a child’s life, you may ask why on earth someone didn’t do something?
- Is it because the online forums are full of condemnation at the apparent ease with which we remove children from biological parents who don’t care properly for them?
- Is it because we hear from children who have been in care that they have never managed to deal with, or been given the support to cope with, being removed from their birth parents?
- Is it because psychologists have studies that tell us that even a poor biological family is better than removing a child from them?
- Is it because the ideology favours family support and keeping a family together, no matter what?
- Is it because none of the ‘systems’ or agencies that look out for a child in NSW are linked?
- Is it because no one is able to see the complete picture?
- Is it because worker turnover meant there was never one worker with the family history?
- Is it because the processes in the main organisation charged with the responsibilities for children at risk simply don’t work?
One of the newspaper reports stated that DoCs had ‘failed to convince the Children's Court to remove Ebony and her two older sisters from their parents, despite the fact Ebony's younger sister had been removed’. So the ‘system’ had a ‘fail’ at what appears in hindsight to have been the right course of action? Why?
The Ombudsman concluded that Ebony’s case "illustrates very clearly what can go wrong for children when agencies fail to work effectively, fail to work together and fail to take shared responsibility for the care and protection of children".
No kidding.
- Agencies failing to work effectively means process improvement is required.
- Agencies failing to work together means no links (technical or personal), no reason to share and no habit of collaboration. Links need to be built and people need to be trained in collaborating. Having worked with social workers who didn’t even like collaborating with us, we suspect there’s a cultural issue to address in some sectors as well.
- Shared responsibility? That means all of us. Courts, system and community. This isn’t just a DoCS problem.
Details on children kept from foster carers
01/10/2009 23:01
‘Thousands of foster carers are welcoming children into their homes without being given the full facts about the children’s past, including whether they were victims of abuse’.
We put the link to this Times Online (UK) article on Twitter, and quickly got a response:
11:25pm, Sep 17 from Web
feeling this first hand
The report came from Fostering Network, which represents 43,000 carers in Britain. A couple of court rulings had opened the door for local authorities to be sued if they didn’t meet their duty of care to foster families.
The statistics were blunt – more than 51% of carers in the UK say that they have been given inadequate information about a child in their care, which has put themselves, their own children and even the foster child at risk. A full 30% weren’t told about the child’s medical requirements, 50% were not informed about a history of abuse, and 75% said that they were not made aware of the child’s general behaviour.
This is not an uncommon problem. In the early years it may be critical to understanding the child’s behaviour and health, and as they get older it may be essential to help them understand their past and their birth family.
When the turnover of workers is high (average we’ve heard for DoCS in Oz is about a year, and even in private agencies it runs at about 2 years), and if a child has moved placements a great deal, who on earth has any history for this child?
Oh, that’s right, the system does. (Btw, this is why life story work, however you may do that, is critical for these kids. More on that later.)
So what’s the problem with getting the right information to carers? The case file on a child who comes into your care may:
Why can’t carers see the child’s files, you might ask? We actually don’t think that’s a good idea. There are privacy issues relating to information in there about people other than the child. Carers need to retain some objectivity about birth parents and families. You need a good relationship with them for the child’s sake, and reading what might be a troubled history, that you will make a judgement on, might actually stop you doing that.
What needs to happen is for the files to be reproduced for the carers, with all the facts relevant to the child, but with none of the other stuff.
When the general consensus seems to be that many of our workers are overloaded, it’s not surprising that paperwork isn’t their first priority.
The people to do, what would essentially be a ‘sifting’ job, need to understand privacy, and they need to understand which facts are relevant to the child’s history. So why not find some lawyers, or social workers, who want to work part time? Get them in, make them sign a confidentiality agreement, and get them at it.
We think some rigour needs to be directed at solving these problems. Outsourcing a task is common in business, provided risk and privacy is managed well.
And as the survey shows, there is real risk to the foster family and the child if information is not forthcoming. ‘Flying blind’ can be fun sometimes, but not for a foster carer struggling to understand, manage and care for a small person.
We put the link to this Times Online (UK) article on Twitter, and quickly got a response:
11:25pm, Sep 17 from Web
feeling this first hand
The report came from Fostering Network, which represents 43,000 carers in Britain. A couple of court rulings had opened the door for local authorities to be sued if they didn’t meet their duty of care to foster families.
The statistics were blunt – more than 51% of carers in the UK say that they have been given inadequate information about a child in their care, which has put themselves, their own children and even the foster child at risk. A full 30% weren’t told about the child’s medical requirements, 50% were not informed about a history of abuse, and 75% said that they were not made aware of the child’s general behaviour.
This is not an uncommon problem. In the early years it may be critical to understanding the child’s behaviour and health, and as they get older it may be essential to help them understand their past and their birth family.
When the turnover of workers is high (average we’ve heard for DoCS in Oz is about a year, and even in private agencies it runs at about 2 years), and if a child has moved placements a great deal, who on earth has any history for this child?
Oh, that’s right, the system does. (Btw, this is why life story work, however you may do that, is critical for these kids. More on that later.)
So what’s the problem with getting the right information to carers? The case file on a child who comes into your care may:
- Be very large
- Contain information that is not relevant to the child in your care (for example information about birth family)
- Contain highly sensitive, prejudicial or private information about someone other than your foster child,
- Be very large – oh, we said that.
Why can’t carers see the child’s files, you might ask? We actually don’t think that’s a good idea. There are privacy issues relating to information in there about people other than the child. Carers need to retain some objectivity about birth parents and families. You need a good relationship with them for the child’s sake, and reading what might be a troubled history, that you will make a judgement on, might actually stop you doing that.
What needs to happen is for the files to be reproduced for the carers, with all the facts relevant to the child, but with none of the other stuff.
When the general consensus seems to be that many of our workers are overloaded, it’s not surprising that paperwork isn’t their first priority.
The people to do, what would essentially be a ‘sifting’ job, need to understand privacy, and they need to understand which facts are relevant to the child’s history. So why not find some lawyers, or social workers, who want to work part time? Get them in, make them sign a confidentiality agreement, and get them at it.
We think some rigour needs to be directed at solving these problems. Outsourcing a task is common in business, provided risk and privacy is managed well.
And as the survey shows, there is real risk to the foster family and the child if information is not forthcoming. ‘Flying blind’ can be fun sometimes, but not for a foster carer struggling to understand, manage and care for a small person.
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.
65 Australian children per 1000 are living in out of home care
20/09/2009 21:28
We don’t often see statistics in Australia about children in care. This came across our RSS feed the other week from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
As at 30 June 2008 in Australia, there were 31,116 children living in out of home care (OOHC). That’s 6.5% per 1,000, or 65 children per 1000.
One third were aged 10-14 years, one third aged 5-9 years, 25% were aged under 5 years, and 14% were aged 15-17 years.
This rate and number has more than doubled since 1997 (from 11,600 to the current number). The increase is a result of more children commencing OOHC than are being discharged from it each year. The increased duration of OOHC placements also reflects the increasing complexity in family situations.
Common family situations are low family income, parental substance abuse, mental health issues and family violence.
The majority of children - 95% - aged 0-14 were in home based care. That is split into foster care (48%) and kinship care (45%). A smaller proportion were in residential care (5%), and they were generally older children over the age of 10 years.
During 2007-08, there were 317,526 reports of suspected child-abuse and neglect made to authorities. These figures appear to indicate that the reporting of abuse has increased. Of that number, 194,937 concerned the same children. There were a total of 148,824 finalised investigations recorded in Australia (an increase of 8% on the 2005-06 year).
Pretty sobering figures, don’t you think?
As at 30 June 2008 in Australia, there were 31,116 children living in out of home care (OOHC). That’s 6.5% per 1,000, or 65 children per 1000.
One third were aged 10-14 years, one third aged 5-9 years, 25% were aged under 5 years, and 14% were aged 15-17 years.
This rate and number has more than doubled since 1997 (from 11,600 to the current number). The increase is a result of more children commencing OOHC than are being discharged from it each year. The increased duration of OOHC placements also reflects the increasing complexity in family situations.
Common family situations are low family income, parental substance abuse, mental health issues and family violence.
The majority of children - 95% - aged 0-14 were in home based care. That is split into foster care (48%) and kinship care (45%). A smaller proportion were in residential care (5%), and they were generally older children over the age of 10 years.
During 2007-08, there were 317,526 reports of suspected child-abuse and neglect made to authorities. These figures appear to indicate that the reporting of abuse has increased. Of that number, 194,937 concerned the same children. There were a total of 148,824 finalised investigations recorded in Australia (an increase of 8% on the 2005-06 year).
Pretty sobering figures, don’t you think?
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.
Attachment issues for children in foster care
01/09/2009 21:13
The next section of the superb article from the American Academy of Pediatrics covers attachment. Specifically, what is required in order for a child to develop into a healthy human being. Again, we will put the report in our own words in the hope that we can make it a little more accessible.
Not surprisingly, the child needs a relationship with an adult who exhibits the behaviour of a loving, caring parent – nurturing, protection, trust and security. Attachment refers to the relationship between a child and another – that is, two people, and forms the basis for long term relationships.
They state that attachment is an active process. By that they mean something is always happening regarding attachment for children. Children in a poor family circumstance don’t go into limbo while parents and support agencies work things out (we’ve said that before and we’ll say it again.) So attachment at such a time can be both insecure and maladaptive – meaning faulty or inadequate. The child may be actively learning that attachment is faulty, or insecure, or inadequate, not healthy, or enduring, or wonderful.
And in case anyone was wondering: ‘attachment to a primary caregiver (…who provides nurturing, protection, trust and security…) is essential to the development of emotional security and social conscience’ (page 1146).
So far so clear. Attachment issues affect self-esteem and long term relationships. What else?
The article states that the ‘optimal’ child development occurs when a range of the child’s needs are consistently met over an extended period. We’ve paraphrased this concept before and made it personal to us: the Camper deserves to know that there is another day tomorrow that will be, in relation to all the essential elements like nurturing, protection, trust and security, exactly the same as the one she has just had.
And it goes the other way too. Successful parenting is based on a healthy, respectful and long-lasting relationship with the child. In many cases it is highly likely that a birth parent never had this opportunity with their parent, and was unable to provide it for their child. So the cycle begins.
It is the process of parenting – looking after the child’s emotional and psychological needs, as well as their biological needs – that leads a child to perceive a particular adult as his or her parent. And that’s the person they attach to. And the strength of that relationship plays a big part in helping a child overcome early stress or trauma.
So the real risk for children in and out of foster care is that they might fail to form healthy attachments to anyone. They don’t have an adult who is devoted to them, and who accepts and values them for the long term. And in our experience, many of the interactions with both workers and birth family, unless handled with great skill and care, can undermine the forming of that attachment and cause the child more stress and insecurity.
Separation during the first year of life, especially in the first 6 months, may not have a negative effect on social or emotional development.
Separations between 6 months and 3 years of age, if they come about as a result of family breakdown and disruption, are more likely to have ongoing emotional consequences for the child. This is partly due to their age and how they feel around strangers, but also because they do not have the language skills at this age to fully express themselves and make sense of it.
Children older than 3 years when placed with a new family are likely to have the language skills to help them deal with the change. They are at an age where they are able to form strong attachments.
The section concludes with the statement ‘the emotional consequences of multiple placements or disruptions are likely to be harmful at any age.’
So we need to provide stability and long term nurturing for these children? Doesn’t sound too hard, does it?
Not surprisingly, the child needs a relationship with an adult who exhibits the behaviour of a loving, caring parent – nurturing, protection, trust and security. Attachment refers to the relationship between a child and another – that is, two people, and forms the basis for long term relationships.
They state that attachment is an active process. By that they mean something is always happening regarding attachment for children. Children in a poor family circumstance don’t go into limbo while parents and support agencies work things out (we’ve said that before and we’ll say it again.) So attachment at such a time can be both insecure and maladaptive – meaning faulty or inadequate. The child may be actively learning that attachment is faulty, or insecure, or inadequate, not healthy, or enduring, or wonderful.
And in case anyone was wondering: ‘attachment to a primary caregiver (…who provides nurturing, protection, trust and security…) is essential to the development of emotional security and social conscience’ (page 1146).
So far so clear. Attachment issues affect self-esteem and long term relationships. What else?
The article states that the ‘optimal’ child development occurs when a range of the child’s needs are consistently met over an extended period. We’ve paraphrased this concept before and made it personal to us: the Camper deserves to know that there is another day tomorrow that will be, in relation to all the essential elements like nurturing, protection, trust and security, exactly the same as the one she has just had.
And it goes the other way too. Successful parenting is based on a healthy, respectful and long-lasting relationship with the child. In many cases it is highly likely that a birth parent never had this opportunity with their parent, and was unable to provide it for their child. So the cycle begins.
It is the process of parenting – looking after the child’s emotional and psychological needs, as well as their biological needs – that leads a child to perceive a particular adult as his or her parent. And that’s the person they attach to. And the strength of that relationship plays a big part in helping a child overcome early stress or trauma.
So the real risk for children in and out of foster care is that they might fail to form healthy attachments to anyone. They don’t have an adult who is devoted to them, and who accepts and values them for the long term. And in our experience, many of the interactions with both workers and birth family, unless handled with great skill and care, can undermine the forming of that attachment and cause the child more stress and insecurity.
Separation during the first year of life, especially in the first 6 months, may not have a negative effect on social or emotional development.
Separations between 6 months and 3 years of age, if they come about as a result of family breakdown and disruption, are more likely to have ongoing emotional consequences for the child. This is partly due to their age and how they feel around strangers, but also because they do not have the language skills at this age to fully express themselves and make sense of it.
Children older than 3 years when placed with a new family are likely to have the language skills to help them deal with the change. They are at an age where they are able to form strong attachments.
The section concludes with the statement ‘the emotional consequences of multiple placements or disruptions are likely to be harmful at any age.’
So we need to provide stability and long term nurturing for these children? Doesn’t sound too hard, does it?
It takes courage to be a foster carer
25/08/2009 23:43
Every so often in life it is worth getting back to basics, isn’t it? We talk about many things on this blog to try and cover as much useful information as we can. But we’ve recently been talking to some new carers, and we know other carers who are about to take a placement, so we thought it might be timely to go back to the beginning for a moment.
Dear New Foster Carers,
Congratulations on your courage. Has anyone said that to you lately? You’ve stepped out to help someone else, in the most personal way possible. You are putting yourself and your family on the front line, giving not just money, or even just time, but yourselves and your relationships and your home.
We hope that your training, and/or your life experience, will have prepared you for what you are experiencing. But don’t be surprised if, as a first time carer, you are stressed, because that’s the most natural reaction in the world.
No matter how well prepared or supported you might be, the first weeks of a placement can be difficult. Foster care can often be described as degrees of difficulty to be honest. But the first weeks, before you start to understand the child, can be positively exhausting.
It takes time. Yes, we know that is the platitude to end all platitudes, but it is true. Don’t judge anything by those first weeks.
Why? Because the child you have just welcomed into your home, with hope and love, may well be dazed, and confused, and untrusting. (We could add many more adjectives here like angry, or scared, or blasé, but it might go on a bit….). He doesn’t know you, and you don’t know him. And depending on his life experience, many of the things that you might take for granted in a child of his age may be missing completely. He may never have learned a lot of the basics. Like how to go shopping with you, how to stay by your side, how to happily come home from the park, how to share with other children. He may never have learned to eat properly. He may not even know how to cuddle. He may not enjoy bedtime or know how to settle himself. He may not have had anyone to teach it to him, you see.
(You can write that paragraph again with age appropriate characteristics, right up until teenage years, by the way. The last sentence will often remain the same.)
So it’s really important for you to remember that now is not the time to be reticent, or noble (‘I can cope. Really I can. Yes, I can.’) You deserve support and answers and advice, so ask for them. Every child in care is unique, and has very different experiences that will have impacted him in different ways. Don’t be afraid of stepping on toes or worry that you will be seen as demanding. The workers are there to support you and this placement.
And we hope that at some stage soon, there will come one experience with this child that will warm your heart, make you feel that it’s all worthwhile. That’s often all it takes to keep you going.
You’ve started a journey. It took courage to start it, and it will take courage to continue it. Keep going. A child will benefit from your courage.
Dear New Foster Carers,
Congratulations on your courage. Has anyone said that to you lately? You’ve stepped out to help someone else, in the most personal way possible. You are putting yourself and your family on the front line, giving not just money, or even just time, but yourselves and your relationships and your home.
We hope that your training, and/or your life experience, will have prepared you for what you are experiencing. But don’t be surprised if, as a first time carer, you are stressed, because that’s the most natural reaction in the world.
No matter how well prepared or supported you might be, the first weeks of a placement can be difficult. Foster care can often be described as degrees of difficulty to be honest. But the first weeks, before you start to understand the child, can be positively exhausting.
It takes time. Yes, we know that is the platitude to end all platitudes, but it is true. Don’t judge anything by those first weeks.
Why? Because the child you have just welcomed into your home, with hope and love, may well be dazed, and confused, and untrusting. (We could add many more adjectives here like angry, or scared, or blasé, but it might go on a bit….). He doesn’t know you, and you don’t know him. And depending on his life experience, many of the things that you might take for granted in a child of his age may be missing completely. He may never have learned a lot of the basics. Like how to go shopping with you, how to stay by your side, how to happily come home from the park, how to share with other children. He may never have learned to eat properly. He may not even know how to cuddle. He may not enjoy bedtime or know how to settle himself. He may not have had anyone to teach it to him, you see.
(You can write that paragraph again with age appropriate characteristics, right up until teenage years, by the way. The last sentence will often remain the same.)
So it’s really important for you to remember that now is not the time to be reticent, or noble (‘I can cope. Really I can. Yes, I can.’) You deserve support and answers and advice, so ask for them. Every child in care is unique, and has very different experiences that will have impacted him in different ways. Don’t be afraid of stepping on toes or worry that you will be seen as demanding. The workers are there to support you and this placement.
And we hope that at some stage soon, there will come one experience with this child that will warm your heart, make you feel that it’s all worthwhile. That’s often all it takes to keep you going.
You’ve started a journey. It took courage to start it, and it will take courage to continue it. Keep going. A child will benefit from your courage.
Humans are very poor judges
22/07/2009 22:40
‘The most fundamental problem with child protection in Australia is a philosophical one… the source of the problem is the erroneous assumption that because the protagonists in child abuse are people…the solution lies with other more socially competent people who are employed to make judicious decisions about risk and provide wise advice on parenting.’
This paragraph is from the article by James Barber published in the SMH.
If we had to summarise the article in one word (and we are not known for our brevity), we’d say it was on specialisation. It’s about making use of more specialised skills and methods in judging families and children at risk. Just as medicine has moved to make use of science over ‘practice wisdom’, Barber suggests that children’s services must follow suit.
The issue is whether humans can really detach themselves from their own prejudices and experiences to make objective decisions about other humans?
We’d all like to think we can. But whether we can or not, the other way of looking at the issue is to ask ‘are there now better ways to review information and make decisions about children and families at risk?’
It would be a brave person who said no.
Barber advocates for Evidence Based Practice, which suspends the human judgment in judging humans, and ‘which is about the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of the best available evidence in making decisions about the care of individual clients’.
He mentions recent research in North America. It has proven that mathematicians and actuaries, making use of bucket loads of data in a way that one person simply cannot, are actually able to make better decisions about families at risk than social workers.
Considering that the way most people manage the daily onslaught of work and life challenges is to find the ‘norm’ or pull everything towards the average, it seems entirely reasonable to us that more technology, science and skill is required to handle some of the critical calls in children’s services.
And if the out of home care system is only going to be more distributed to the private agencies, as per the Wood Royal Commission recommendations, more rigour, science and common standards are essential.
It sounds funny to consider that certain parts of the children’s services model need to lose the human element, but after mulling over this for a week we think it does.
This paragraph is from the article by James Barber published in the SMH.
If we had to summarise the article in one word (and we are not known for our brevity), we’d say it was on specialisation. It’s about making use of more specialised skills and methods in judging families and children at risk. Just as medicine has moved to make use of science over ‘practice wisdom’, Barber suggests that children’s services must follow suit.
The issue is whether humans can really detach themselves from their own prejudices and experiences to make objective decisions about other humans?
We’d all like to think we can. But whether we can or not, the other way of looking at the issue is to ask ‘are there now better ways to review information and make decisions about children and families at risk?’
It would be a brave person who said no.
Barber advocates for Evidence Based Practice, which suspends the human judgment in judging humans, and ‘which is about the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of the best available evidence in making decisions about the care of individual clients’.
He mentions recent research in North America. It has proven that mathematicians and actuaries, making use of bucket loads of data in a way that one person simply cannot, are actually able to make better decisions about families at risk than social workers.
Considering that the way most people manage the daily onslaught of work and life challenges is to find the ‘norm’ or pull everything towards the average, it seems entirely reasonable to us that more technology, science and skill is required to handle some of the critical calls in children’s services.
And if the out of home care system is only going to be more distributed to the private agencies, as per the Wood Royal Commission recommendations, more rigour, science and common standards are essential.
It sounds funny to consider that certain parts of the children’s services model need to lose the human element, but after mulling over this for a week we think it does.
Who should assess whether families are at risk?
11/07/2009 09:27
Every so often a very provocative article comes across our desk.
There are very frank conversations that should happen in relation to children’s services, but we’re not sure they happen very often, if at all.
So it’s refreshing to see a completely different viewpoint offered, especially by someone with relevant experience.
This article is quite challenging. Here James Barber suggests that there are people better qualified than social workers to assess families most at risk.
We’ll write more about it soon.
There are very frank conversations that should happen in relation to children’s services, but we’re not sure they happen very often, if at all.
So it’s refreshing to see a completely different viewpoint offered, especially by someone with relevant experience.
This article is quite challenging. Here James Barber suggests that there are people better qualified than social workers to assess families most at risk.
We’ll write more about it soon.
Foster children walking on eggshells
25/06/2009 22:15
Here is a quote, from a real person, Jennifer, who runs a site called Foster Care in America. Her site gets the thumbs up from us because of its constructive focus, and its positive objectives. Jennifer highlights foster care alumni and their achievements, and has recently started writing about her experiences as a child in care. How’s that for leadership?
So just take a moment, close your eyes, and try to think about what that might feel like. Knowing that the most fundamental element of your life – where you live and who you live with – might change at any moment. No warning. Out of your control. That’s stressful.
Why on earth would you begin to put down any roots? Why would you bother?
Children are learning to live with a level of stress that most of us only deal with as adults. What does that do to them?
As adults, we have lots of resources available to help us cope with stress. We have the ability to research for ourselves. We have support groups, family networks and often employers who care enough to teach us to deal with it or to support us if it becomes overwhelming. And we have life experience to put the stressful event in some sort of context.
Kids have none of that.
So, time for the ‘state the obvious’ question:
If moving children causes them such stress, shouldn’t we aim not to move them? Or if we need to move them, shouldn’t we have the guts to make it permanent, at the very least for those early formative years. When there is so much evidence that multiple moves harm children, why do we keep accepting that it is the best we can do?
Imagine if we could get a Prime Minister to say ‘No child should walk on eggshells, knowing that at any moment without warning; HOME CHANGE!’
So just take a moment, close your eyes, and try to think about what that might feel like. Knowing that the most fundamental element of your life – where you live and who you live with – might change at any moment. No warning. Out of your control. That’s stressful.
Why on earth would you begin to put down any roots? Why would you bother?
Children are learning to live with a level of stress that most of us only deal with as adults. What does that do to them?
As adults, we have lots of resources available to help us cope with stress. We have the ability to research for ourselves. We have support groups, family networks and often employers who care enough to teach us to deal with it or to support us if it becomes overwhelming. And we have life experience to put the stressful event in some sort of context.
Kids have none of that.
So, time for the ‘state the obvious’ question:
If moving children causes them such stress, shouldn’t we aim not to move them? Or if we need to move them, shouldn’t we have the guts to make it permanent, at the very least for those early formative years. When there is so much evidence that multiple moves harm children, why do we keep accepting that it is the best we can do?
Imagine if we could get a Prime Minister to say ‘No child should walk on eggshells, knowing that at any moment without warning; HOME CHANGE!’
'Shattered father failed by DoCS system'
17/06/2009 22:30
OK, we’d like to warn anyone who has been more than an occasional reader of this blog to hold on. Because we are about to stand up for DoCS. Bet you never saw that coming, heh?
We regularly hold social work agencies and workers up to scrutiny for poor policy, poor performance, and poor people management. But we try to balance our rants with some constructive suggestions about what the preferred approach should be. And as we are foster parents in the system, we are actively putting our money where our mouth is. We’ve earned our right to have a say and it is an informed one. Right?
So we’ve been watching this week’s vitriol from the great uninformed about DoCS’ performance in relation to the 12 year old mum to be. If you follow us on Twitter (@fostercarer) then you’ll have seen some tweets (and if you don’t follow us on Twitter, give it a go. Pithy is good and we are at our pithiest there…)
Here’s the most recent, in depth (and we use that term loosely) article on the subject from The Daily Telegraph. It’s titled Shattered father failed by rotten DoCS system. That’s an award winning headline.
All fingers, including those of anyone who can type a comment on a news website, are pointing to DoCS as having failed the expectant child. Despite an order awarding custody to the mother, who was clearly not fit to care for the child or provide a safe home (so who made THAT decision?), when the non-custodial father raised his concerns to DoCS about the child’s welfare, they didn’t remove the child.
In work and life we believe you should cop it on the chin when you deserve it. But our sense of fairness is feeling a bit confronted.
Even Community Services Minister Linda Burney seems to have waved goodbye to the horse as it bolted past her out the gate, and has given up trying to provide any cogent explanation as to what really happened in DoCS when one of these cases hits the headlines.
So we applauded just a bit when we saw this piece from Tory Maguire on The Punch, entitled Blaming Government for rotten parents.
She writes: ‘Blaming the authorities has become the default position for so many people who don’t think the ultimate responsibility for the care of children lies with their parents.’
Spot on. We’re not sure who appointed DoCS as the only defence for children in this state, but they seem to be expected to pick up the pieces when it all goes pear-shaped no matter what the previous circumstances. If they were resourced, and structured to do just that, then we’d be leading the calls for accountability. The problem with all this is that slowly, relentlessly, we are accepting the idea that DoCS is ultimately and finally responsible. Not the parents. Not the community. Not the police or the legal system. Not the other support systems like schools and the medical profession.
Maguire points out that ‘there were children in greater danger than this little girl’ that took the available resources.
Do you know, at some point that could have been our foster child? We have a child in care because the decision was made that her birth family couldn’t care for her properly. She was at serious risk of immediate harm and enduring hardship, and a worker mobilised the system to remove her and initiated the decision to keep her safe. Her case was, in an over-taxed system, given priority.
So here’s a quiet round of applause for all the dedicated DoCS workers who make the right decisions. Credit where credit is due. It’s a shame that the positive stories don’t sell newspapers, isn’t it.
We regularly hold social work agencies and workers up to scrutiny for poor policy, poor performance, and poor people management. But we try to balance our rants with some constructive suggestions about what the preferred approach should be. And as we are foster parents in the system, we are actively putting our money where our mouth is. We’ve earned our right to have a say and it is an informed one. Right?
So we’ve been watching this week’s vitriol from the great uninformed about DoCS’ performance in relation to the 12 year old mum to be. If you follow us on Twitter (@fostercarer) then you’ll have seen some tweets (and if you don’t follow us on Twitter, give it a go. Pithy is good and we are at our pithiest there…)
Here’s the most recent, in depth (and we use that term loosely) article on the subject from The Daily Telegraph. It’s titled Shattered father failed by rotten DoCS system. That’s an award winning headline.
All fingers, including those of anyone who can type a comment on a news website, are pointing to DoCS as having failed the expectant child. Despite an order awarding custody to the mother, who was clearly not fit to care for the child or provide a safe home (so who made THAT decision?), when the non-custodial father raised his concerns to DoCS about the child’s welfare, they didn’t remove the child.
In work and life we believe you should cop it on the chin when you deserve it. But our sense of fairness is feeling a bit confronted.
Even Community Services Minister Linda Burney seems to have waved goodbye to the horse as it bolted past her out the gate, and has given up trying to provide any cogent explanation as to what really happened in DoCS when one of these cases hits the headlines.
So we applauded just a bit when we saw this piece from Tory Maguire on The Punch, entitled Blaming Government for rotten parents.
She writes: ‘Blaming the authorities has become the default position for so many people who don’t think the ultimate responsibility for the care of children lies with their parents.’
Spot on. We’re not sure who appointed DoCS as the only defence for children in this state, but they seem to be expected to pick up the pieces when it all goes pear-shaped no matter what the previous circumstances. If they were resourced, and structured to do just that, then we’d be leading the calls for accountability. The problem with all this is that slowly, relentlessly, we are accepting the idea that DoCS is ultimately and finally responsible. Not the parents. Not the community. Not the police or the legal system. Not the other support systems like schools and the medical profession.
Maguire points out that ‘there were children in greater danger than this little girl’ that took the available resources.
Do you know, at some point that could have been our foster child? We have a child in care because the decision was made that her birth family couldn’t care for her properly. She was at serious risk of immediate harm and enduring hardship, and a worker mobilised the system to remove her and initiated the decision to keep her safe. Her case was, in an over-taxed system, given priority.
So here’s a quiet round of applause for all the dedicated DoCS workers who make the right decisions. Credit where credit is due. It’s a shame that the positive stories don’t sell newspapers, isn’t it.
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.
Children in care need a pushy parent
13/05/2009 06:41
‘England's care system needs a radical overhaul with the state acting as a "pushy parent" to get the very best for the children in its charge, MPs say.’
We understand the sentiment behind this call in the UK, reported on the BBC in April. Someone needs to – let’s say it like it is – fight for these children, or never give up, just like a parent who loves them dearly.
So in theory, OK. At a system level, the state should put in place the best care for these children, and use its considerable muscle to make sure that level of care is provided.
But the state – a collective, anonymous, corporate entity – cannot replicate a parent’s care. Individual workers of real empathy and talent may bond with and counsel children in care. But let’s hope the MPs haven’t gotten carried away.
‘A report by the Commons' Children, Schools and Families Committee says the state fails as a "parent" because it does not demand enough from services.’
Good luck to them. We hope the ‘services’ are up to it. As foster parents, we demanded more from our agency. Like a seat at the table in decisions about the child, and an evaluation of whether their ‘one size fitted all’ policy really applied to our child in care. They didn’t like that. Junior manager, senior manager, and agency head honcho. They lined up one after the other like dominoes, to tell us that we were ‘just the carers’ and their policy won.
‘We welcome the government's assertion that it should become exceptional for a young person to leave care before they turn 18, and hope that it will precipitate a culture change in local authorities.’
Well, yeah. Don’t you love how the most obvious principles are restated as if they are the Eleventh Commandment? But think about what the system teaches many of these children, by bouncing them from home to home to home through their childhood. By moving these children so many times, we are actively teaching them that attachment is transient, that they will survive moving homes, and that they really shouldn’t learn to care about a family. And we’re surprised when they leave?
‘(entering the care system) must be seen as a positive experience, but this will only happen if the state can better replicate the warm, secure care of good parents for every child in the system.’
We have cared for children and become the longest term and most enduring relationships in their lives. The younger the child the more chance you have that love, warmth and security overwhelms any conscious memories of earlier unsettled times. And yet too often there seems to be no sense of urgency in finding this for children.
‘For some children care should be seen as "the best available option rather than a last resort", they said.’
Care will be the best available option for children when it is permanent. Stable. And enduring. So maybe we need to have the courage to make a decision for the child’s sake early on. Does the birth parent have a perpetual right to try and get their child back, no matter what? Too often care becomes the last resort when a rehabilitation plan fails. Or too much of the plan with birth parent is visible to the child, before there are any indications it will be successful. And the person who suffers long term damage is the child.
‘…concern for the happiness and welfare of the 60,000 children in care should be at the heart of the system.’
Everyone says this. ‘It’s all for the children’ you hear. Sometimes it can be so piously quoted to justify a viewpoint you feel like shouting. But try to break this principle down to reasonable, sensible decisions that put the child first, and too often policy, process and research get in the way.
We understand the sentiment behind this call in the UK, reported on the BBC in April. Someone needs to – let’s say it like it is – fight for these children, or never give up, just like a parent who loves them dearly.
So in theory, OK. At a system level, the state should put in place the best care for these children, and use its considerable muscle to make sure that level of care is provided.
But the state – a collective, anonymous, corporate entity – cannot replicate a parent’s care. Individual workers of real empathy and talent may bond with and counsel children in care. But let’s hope the MPs haven’t gotten carried away.
‘A report by the Commons' Children, Schools and Families Committee says the state fails as a "parent" because it does not demand enough from services.’
Good luck to them. We hope the ‘services’ are up to it. As foster parents, we demanded more from our agency. Like a seat at the table in decisions about the child, and an evaluation of whether their ‘one size fitted all’ policy really applied to our child in care. They didn’t like that. Junior manager, senior manager, and agency head honcho. They lined up one after the other like dominoes, to tell us that we were ‘just the carers’ and their policy won.
‘We welcome the government's assertion that it should become exceptional for a young person to leave care before they turn 18, and hope that it will precipitate a culture change in local authorities.’
Well, yeah. Don’t you love how the most obvious principles are restated as if they are the Eleventh Commandment? But think about what the system teaches many of these children, by bouncing them from home to home to home through their childhood. By moving these children so many times, we are actively teaching them that attachment is transient, that they will survive moving homes, and that they really shouldn’t learn to care about a family. And we’re surprised when they leave?
‘(entering the care system) must be seen as a positive experience, but this will only happen if the state can better replicate the warm, secure care of good parents for every child in the system.’
We have cared for children and become the longest term and most enduring relationships in their lives. The younger the child the more chance you have that love, warmth and security overwhelms any conscious memories of earlier unsettled times. And yet too often there seems to be no sense of urgency in finding this for children.
‘For some children care should be seen as "the best available option rather than a last resort", they said.’
Care will be the best available option for children when it is permanent. Stable. And enduring. So maybe we need to have the courage to make a decision for the child’s sake early on. Does the birth parent have a perpetual right to try and get their child back, no matter what? Too often care becomes the last resort when a rehabilitation plan fails. Or too much of the plan with birth parent is visible to the child, before there are any indications it will be successful. And the person who suffers long term damage is the child.
‘…concern for the happiness and welfare of the 60,000 children in care should be at the heart of the system.’
Everyone says this. ‘It’s all for the children’ you hear. Sometimes it can be so piously quoted to justify a viewpoint you feel like shouting. But try to break this principle down to reasonable, sensible decisions that put the child first, and too often policy, process and research get in the way.
How do you become a foster carer?
06/05/2009 22:38
Our blog is about helping you understand all the things that the manuals and the agencies and the blurbs don’t tell you. So we won’t reproduce all the decent information already available from government and non-government agencies – but we will link to it.
If you are thinking about becoming a foster carer, here are our reminders as you go through the process.
Think about your circumstances…
A foster child will probably come to you with issues, depending on their age. You need to be able to give them time and attention. You may need to make up huge deficits in every aspect of their health, education, socialisation, emotional growth. Can you do it? Is your family committed with you in doing this? Do you have the time? Do you have the emotional and intellectual energy?
Why do you want to do it?
There are no right reasons, but we’ve written before about making sure that you know what you want or need out of it. It can be tough, and let’s be blunt, if you are doing it to meet some need of yours, then you may be disappointed. We fostered because we wanted to make a difference. We wanted to break the self-perpetuating cycle of dysfunction that exists in some families. We know carers who came to fostering when they were unable to have their own biological children. We know other carers who have been very successful at everything they have done in family and career and want to give something back. The assessment process will quiz you on your motivation, so spend some time thinking it through. The more honest you are with yourself about it the better.
Who will help you?
Make sure you have a good support network available. This is no time to be gung-ho. You will need support ranging from a sympathetic ear, to constructive advice, to actual physical assistance. If you are already a parent then you may have this in place. But remember that these children have additional needs. To give them what they need and want means a very intense relationship. You need people looking out for you.
Research
Our blog is Australian, so the resources we will point you to are Australian. But there are equivalent organisations around the world.
There is plenty of information available online from both the Department of Community Services (NSW and other Australian states), and Non-Government Foster care agencies.
To get you started, visit the DOCS website.
General information on fostering
Types of care
What to expect
Non-government agencies provide foster care services and recruit carers. You will be able to click through to their websites for more information.
Note that the links are sometimes to ‘Out-of-home care’, which is another name for foster care.
There are differences in approach, support, structure and process between DOCS and the private agencies. We’ve experienced both over many years, and have made some suggestions on our site before. You need to make sure you know what to expect from the agency. They can over-service you, under-support you, have policies that say one thing on paper and mean something else in practice, and may have vastly differing levels of skills and experience in their workers. You may not be able to avoid the issues but it helps if you know what you are getting into. Just as child and you should be a good match, so too should you and the agency.
If you are thinking about becoming a foster carer, here are our reminders as you go through the process.
Think about your circumstances…
A foster child will probably come to you with issues, depending on their age. You need to be able to give them time and attention. You may need to make up huge deficits in every aspect of their health, education, socialisation, emotional growth. Can you do it? Is your family committed with you in doing this? Do you have the time? Do you have the emotional and intellectual energy?
Why do you want to do it?
There are no right reasons, but we’ve written before about making sure that you know what you want or need out of it. It can be tough, and let’s be blunt, if you are doing it to meet some need of yours, then you may be disappointed. We fostered because we wanted to make a difference. We wanted to break the self-perpetuating cycle of dysfunction that exists in some families. We know carers who came to fostering when they were unable to have their own biological children. We know other carers who have been very successful at everything they have done in family and career and want to give something back. The assessment process will quiz you on your motivation, so spend some time thinking it through. The more honest you are with yourself about it the better.
Who will help you?
Make sure you have a good support network available. This is no time to be gung-ho. You will need support ranging from a sympathetic ear, to constructive advice, to actual physical assistance. If you are already a parent then you may have this in place. But remember that these children have additional needs. To give them what they need and want means a very intense relationship. You need people looking out for you.
Research
Our blog is Australian, so the resources we will point you to are Australian. But there are equivalent organisations around the world.
There is plenty of information available online from both the Department of Community Services (NSW and other Australian states), and Non-Government Foster care agencies.
To get you started, visit the DOCS website.
General information on fostering
Types of care
What to expect
Non-government agencies provide foster care services and recruit carers. You will be able to click through to their websites for more information.
Note that the links are sometimes to ‘Out-of-home care’, which is another name for foster care.
There are differences in approach, support, structure and process between DOCS and the private agencies. We’ve experienced both over many years, and have made some suggestions on our site before. You need to make sure you know what to expect from the agency. They can over-service you, under-support you, have policies that say one thing on paper and mean something else in practice, and may have vastly differing levels of skills and experience in their workers. You may not be able to avoid the issues but it helps if you know what you are getting into. Just as child and you should be a good match, so too should you and the agency.
Reporting more detail on children in care?
28/04/2009 17:20
This came from Caroline Overington (#overingtonc) via Twitter. The full article is called The girl in the window, and recounts, in quite astonishing detail, the story of a 9 year old Florida girl.
She was so neglected and abused in her birth family that she now suffers developmental delay of the most extreme, fundamental kind. She has been adopted by a family who are trying to mend what they can. The article discloses a great deal of personal information about the child and her birth family, and a lot of detail on what the child experienced.
It should be compulsory reading for anyone who thinks they have an informed opinion on children’s services.
So, why can’t Overington and other responsible journos report this type of story, at this level of detail, in Australia?
Should we be able to report this type of story at this level of detail?
How can you work to a solution when no one is able to openly discuss the problem?
Can you educate all the people involved when the facts remain hidden?
Can you bring struggling parents to some degree of self-awareness if they never hear other stories they might identify with?
Can you report at this level of detail and still protect people’s privacy, particularly the children’s?
Perhaps it is time for a new approach.
Just today it was reported that ’Australian health and welfare agencies … formed a taskforce to combat increasing numbers of child abuse and neglect, which reached 55,000 cases last year’.
With notifications for alleged child abuse and neglect almost tripling in Australia between 1999 and 2007, the problem isn’t being solved by existing methods.
So maybe the time has come to give some committed, experienced, responsible journos the green light to start reporting.
Is it too easy to consider it ‘someone else’s problem’ if we don’t get too close to it?
When do we listen to the children?
18/04/2009 21:08
Well done to Jenny Brockie and her team for the Insight program on Kids on Divorce.
While we think it is one of the most thought-provoking shows on the box, sometimes the dive is way too shallow. Just when you think the issue is finally open, the show finishes. And presenting one perspective, while powerful, can leave a viewer wondering what the other ‘side’ is. Some of the comments on the website suggest that there is another perspective.
But Brockie and Co should be giving lessons, for they are doing what too many institutions, and individuals, have failed to do for a long time now.
They are listening.
In Brockie’s case, she asks people what they actually think. And in this episode the kids had a view on divorce and its impact on them.
LISTEN
Where does the system give the secondary players (that would be the minor children) a say? Too often they are deemed too young to know what’s best for them. But their behaviour will often tell you that what is happening to them isn’t good.
LISTEN
And yet no one asks them their view. Or if they are asked there is no follow through. We once counselled a senior corporate executive that IF he asked the question then he needed to SHOW how he was acting on the answers.
LISTEN
Children might know what they want today. And then tomorrow they want something different. That’s the nature of small people. But if you spend enough time with them, you will hear a consistent message.
LISTEN
Too often the system pays lip service to listening, and then marshals all the research to tell the individual why they are wrong. Anyone who’s done at least a year at uni knows that you can make the statistics say just about anything if you try hard enough and ask the right questions.
LISTEN
How about listening to the individual? We need a system that stops dragging people to the average. The most amazing comment we ever heard was from a private agency senior manager who told us that neither the child we were caring for nor we ourselves were unique. Well we’ve got news for you. We are. We’re happy to say that there is no one else EXACTLY the same as us in the world. That makes us unique. You wanted to classify us as average so we would fit the statistics and do as you said.
LISTEN
We watched a worker sit beside a very young child in out of home care, and listen. She asked thoughtful questions, heard the answers, asked some careful and gentle follow up questions. It was done with such care and skill that we were mightily impressed. So if one person in the system can do it, why can’t everyone?
LISTEN
We don’t raise children using statistics and averages. We use our love for the child, our knowledge of the child, and our desire to see the child become the person they deserve to be. It would be nice if the system listened a bit harder to us as well.
While we think it is one of the most thought-provoking shows on the box, sometimes the dive is way too shallow. Just when you think the issue is finally open, the show finishes. And presenting one perspective, while powerful, can leave a viewer wondering what the other ‘side’ is. Some of the comments on the website suggest that there is another perspective.
But Brockie and Co should be giving lessons, for they are doing what too many institutions, and individuals, have failed to do for a long time now.
They are listening.
In Brockie’s case, she asks people what they actually think. And in this episode the kids had a view on divorce and its impact on them.
LISTEN
Where does the system give the secondary players (that would be the minor children) a say? Too often they are deemed too young to know what’s best for them. But their behaviour will often tell you that what is happening to them isn’t good.
LISTEN
And yet no one asks them their view. Or if they are asked there is no follow through. We once counselled a senior corporate executive that IF he asked the question then he needed to SHOW how he was acting on the answers.
LISTEN
Children might know what they want today. And then tomorrow they want something different. That’s the nature of small people. But if you spend enough time with them, you will hear a consistent message.
LISTEN
Too often the system pays lip service to listening, and then marshals all the research to tell the individual why they are wrong. Anyone who’s done at least a year at uni knows that you can make the statistics say just about anything if you try hard enough and ask the right questions.
LISTEN
How about listening to the individual? We need a system that stops dragging people to the average. The most amazing comment we ever heard was from a private agency senior manager who told us that neither the child we were caring for nor we ourselves were unique. Well we’ve got news for you. We are. We’re happy to say that there is no one else EXACTLY the same as us in the world. That makes us unique. You wanted to classify us as average so we would fit the statistics and do as you said.
LISTEN
We watched a worker sit beside a very young child in out of home care, and listen. She asked thoughtful questions, heard the answers, asked some careful and gentle follow up questions. It was done with such care and skill that we were mightily impressed. So if one person in the system can do it, why can’t everyone?
LISTEN
We don’t raise children using statistics and averages. We use our love for the child, our knowledge of the child, and our desire to see the child become the person they deserve to be. It would be nice if the system listened a bit harder to us as well.
At what age can a child make his/her own decision?
06/04/2009 21:47
A decision about what? Before we launch off, let’s refine that question a bit.
There’s been a lot in the news lately regarding children trying to juggle the needs of both parents after a marriage breakdown. Yes, you heard right – the children often do the juggling – emotions, loyalty, sheer tiredness, change of homes. Unfortunately the decision often seems to pay little regard to what the children want. ‘But they are children’, you say? ‘They are too young to know what’s best for them’.
As a foster parent your child may well be juggling contact with a birth family and life with you. Depending on their age and the circumstances you may also find loyalty issues, emotions and stress come from that contact.
So at what age is a child able to offer a valid viewpoint on their contact with a non-custodial parent?
Is it 12 (mentioned in the Adoption Act) or younger? Dare we ask whether younger children, in certain circumstances, actually know what they need?
Our role, as second parents who love the child, is to prepare a child for living their life. That means teaching them to have an opinion. And it means teaching them to express that opinion. Given their circumstances and the players in their lives, we think the sooner they learn that skill the better.
And there are good things that flow from that. You can teach a child to talk about things, and not bottle it up. You can teach them to articulate how they feel and explore their reactions. You can help them work through how they feel and how to manage. Importantly, you can teach them to accept their circumstances as part of life and get it in perspective. And most importantly, you can show them what control looks like. Theirs, actually.
Having an opinion is a fundamental first step to making a decision. Creating and forming opinions, and the two way interaction that usually follows, teaches a child what a good decision looks like.
The importance of this became clear to us when we had a worker who ‘ran’ access. We have no doubts that came about because the agency had an agenda to restore the child to birth parent, combined with a ferocious ‘tick-the-box’ approach. The agency paid lip-service to ‘we are a team and we want your contribution’ but that was a crock. Not only did the relentlessly artificial management of the visit unsettle the child mightily, it created a false expectation in the birth family about prospects in the future.
We think that the adults in ‘the system’, from workers to the judiciary, need to listen a lot more carefully to the small people.
There’s been a lot in the news lately regarding children trying to juggle the needs of both parents after a marriage breakdown. Yes, you heard right – the children often do the juggling – emotions, loyalty, sheer tiredness, change of homes. Unfortunately the decision often seems to pay little regard to what the children want. ‘But they are children’, you say? ‘They are too young to know what’s best for them’.
As a foster parent your child may well be juggling contact with a birth family and life with you. Depending on their age and the circumstances you may also find loyalty issues, emotions and stress come from that contact.
So at what age is a child able to offer a valid viewpoint on their contact with a non-custodial parent?
Is it 12 (mentioned in the Adoption Act) or younger? Dare we ask whether younger children, in certain circumstances, actually know what they need?
Our role, as second parents who love the child, is to prepare a child for living their life. That means teaching them to have an opinion. And it means teaching them to express that opinion. Given their circumstances and the players in their lives, we think the sooner they learn that skill the better.
And there are good things that flow from that. You can teach a child to talk about things, and not bottle it up. You can teach them to articulate how they feel and explore their reactions. You can help them work through how they feel and how to manage. Importantly, you can teach them to accept their circumstances as part of life and get it in perspective. And most importantly, you can show them what control looks like. Theirs, actually.
Having an opinion is a fundamental first step to making a decision. Creating and forming opinions, and the two way interaction that usually follows, teaches a child what a good decision looks like.
The importance of this became clear to us when we had a worker who ‘ran’ access. We have no doubts that came about because the agency had an agenda to restore the child to birth parent, combined with a ferocious ‘tick-the-box’ approach. The agency paid lip-service to ‘we are a team and we want your contribution’ but that was a crock. Not only did the relentlessly artificial management of the visit unsettle the child mightily, it created a false expectation in the birth family about prospects in the future.
We think that the adults in ‘the system’, from workers to the judiciary, need to listen a lot more carefully to the small people.
'Shared parenting' in foster care?
31/03/2009 23:39
The whole ‘shared parenting - isn’t it a good idea’ debate goes on. Caroline Overington reports on a custody ruling where once again, the kids seem to come off worst.
We’re not going to wade into the circumstances of a family breakdown where parents battle over shared care. But there are parallels in relation to children who have been removed from their birth parent/s and still have contact.
Now, let’s restate our position. We’re in favour of contact with birth family. That’s what we signed up for as carers, and we think it’s a good approach. That doesn’t mean it isn’t one of the hardest things to deal with, and challenging for your loved foster babe, but in the long term we think it’s best. The child knows where they came from, knows the reality of their birth family.
But what saddened us about the story, and about a number of the comments on the story from readers, was how it was all about the parents and their rights. What seemed to sit behind this story, and in fact behind the shared parenting principle, Is the assumption that - despite enormous changes in the child’s circumstances - their relationship with a parent shouldn’t, and doesn’t, change at all.
Don’t the relationships change the minute the family circumstances change?
You may face this in your contact with a birth parent.
You may find you have a birth parent who still wants to ‘parent’. Or who feels strongly about their status as parent. They might actively tell your foster child that they still play a role. For an older child or a child likely to be reunited with their birth parent, that’s great. If you have a child who is with you until they are 18 or more, it can be very confronting. For a little one who may not know this birth parent very well, it can be terrifying.
You do need to step in.
You need to be clear about the type of relationship that is appropriate for your foster child. Just as contact with a birth parent is about your child accepting reality, a birth parent needs to accept reality as well. Their relationship changed when the child moved from their care. They need to adjust to that. It might be very hard for them to put the child first. But you must.
A child who has maintained contact with a birth parent can deepen that relationship as they get older. But it should happen when the child is ready to cope with it and wants it, not because all the adults in the relationship are so intent on maintaining ‘their rights’ that the children come last.
We’re not going to wade into the circumstances of a family breakdown where parents battle over shared care. But there are parallels in relation to children who have been removed from their birth parent/s and still have contact.
Now, let’s restate our position. We’re in favour of contact with birth family. That’s what we signed up for as carers, and we think it’s a good approach. That doesn’t mean it isn’t one of the hardest things to deal with, and challenging for your loved foster babe, but in the long term we think it’s best. The child knows where they came from, knows the reality of their birth family.
But what saddened us about the story, and about a number of the comments on the story from readers, was how it was all about the parents and their rights. What seemed to sit behind this story, and in fact behind the shared parenting principle, Is the assumption that - despite enormous changes in the child’s circumstances - their relationship with a parent shouldn’t, and doesn’t, change at all.
Don’t the relationships change the minute the family circumstances change?
You may face this in your contact with a birth parent.
You may find you have a birth parent who still wants to ‘parent’. Or who feels strongly about their status as parent. They might actively tell your foster child that they still play a role. For an older child or a child likely to be reunited with their birth parent, that’s great. If you have a child who is with you until they are 18 or more, it can be very confronting. For a little one who may not know this birth parent very well, it can be terrifying.
You do need to step in.
You need to be clear about the type of relationship that is appropriate for your foster child. Just as contact with a birth parent is about your child accepting reality, a birth parent needs to accept reality as well. Their relationship changed when the child moved from their care. They need to adjust to that. It might be very hard for them to put the child first. But you must.
A child who has maintained contact with a birth parent can deepen that relationship as they get older. But it should happen when the child is ready to cope with it and wants it, not because all the adults in the relationship are so intent on maintaining ‘their rights’ that the children come last.
US laws ban single foster carers
22/03/2009 21:55
We’ve had debates about obese people fostering, and now a number of US states have passed laws that will, among other things, prevent single carers from fostering.
It seems inconceivable that policy-makers would try to limit who can apply, when the most important thing should be finding these children someone to love them.
What’s behind it? The conservative movement considers that the appropriate family is a mum, a dad and the kids.
Well, that’s great. In a perfect world. But most children entering care left a perfect world far behind them, if in fact they ever knew it. Many of them have never experienced the glorious ‘nuclear family’. They wouldn’t know it if they tripped over it. So why should it be the only type of care available?
Maybe, just maybe, the best care for many of these children might be finding one person who loves them. Just one. Who really loves them. And cares about them. Perhaps that’s all it takes?
The authorities have an obligation to seek out the best for these children once they enter care. But that doesn’t mean the nuclear family is essential in all instances. And it doesn’t mean the nuclear family is possible in all circumstances.
Should these children be denied a home where one parent who loves and nurtures them might be more than they have ever had before?
We know many single carers, both foster parents and birth parents. Without exception they are very aware of what they need to supplement, for themselves and for the children, to provide a well-balanced life.
So for a solo mother, that might mean a loved uncle or grandad who provides a strong male role model for the child. And vice versa for a solo father. For children of a solo parent, that might mean close contact with married couples. And so on.
Foster children often deal with a birth family, so their concept of the perfect ‘nuclear family’ is already well extended. We suspect they are not nearly as hung up on the structure of the care they go into as the moral majority. Families come in all shapes and sizes, and often the children accept this more readily than adults.
So we are pleased to see that agencies in Australia consider that sole carers, with the right support, can make excellent foster parents.
For many of these children, a stable home with one loving parent is a vast improvement on what they have experienced.
And provided the child’s education and life experience shows them all the options that make up ‘a family’, their home circumstances should be a positive thing, not a negative.
The US must be well served with carers if they can afford to be so exclusive.
It seems inconceivable that policy-makers would try to limit who can apply, when the most important thing should be finding these children someone to love them.
What’s behind it? The conservative movement considers that the appropriate family is a mum, a dad and the kids.
Well, that’s great. In a perfect world. But most children entering care left a perfect world far behind them, if in fact they ever knew it. Many of them have never experienced the glorious ‘nuclear family’. They wouldn’t know it if they tripped over it. So why should it be the only type of care available?
Maybe, just maybe, the best care for many of these children might be finding one person who loves them. Just one. Who really loves them. And cares about them. Perhaps that’s all it takes?
The authorities have an obligation to seek out the best for these children once they enter care. But that doesn’t mean the nuclear family is essential in all instances. And it doesn’t mean the nuclear family is possible in all circumstances.
Should these children be denied a home where one parent who loves and nurtures them might be more than they have ever had before?
We know many single carers, both foster parents and birth parents. Without exception they are very aware of what they need to supplement, for themselves and for the children, to provide a well-balanced life.
So for a solo mother, that might mean a loved uncle or grandad who provides a strong male role model for the child. And vice versa for a solo father. For children of a solo parent, that might mean close contact with married couples. And so on.
Foster children often deal with a birth family, so their concept of the perfect ‘nuclear family’ is already well extended. We suspect they are not nearly as hung up on the structure of the care they go into as the moral majority. Families come in all shapes and sizes, and often the children accept this more readily than adults.
So we are pleased to see that agencies in Australia consider that sole carers, with the right support, can make excellent foster parents.
For many of these children, a stable home with one loving parent is a vast improvement on what they have experienced.
And provided the child’s education and life experience shows them all the options that make up ‘a family’, their home circumstances should be a positive thing, not a negative.
The US must be well served with carers if they can afford to be so exclusive.
'Make haste slowly' implementing the Wood recommendations
01/03/2009 21:54
We don’t go around quoting the ancient Romans, but this gem from Augustus has been in our family for years, and it seems entirely apt.
We take serious issue with Mr Crispin Hull from Barnardos on a number of points in his SMH article.
He is giving the Government a right hurry up in relation to the planning and implementation of the Wood Royal Commission recommendations. He warns that DOCs and member unions might be defending their territory and resisting change.
And yet his article is at risk of sounding like a territory grab. We’re sure his intentions are admirable. But his organisation stands to gain a great deal from the proposed changes - financially, in scale and in responsibility. We’d be much happier if the hurry up came from someone who didn’t have a vested interest in the outcome.
That would be Commissioner Wood, we hear you say?
Yes. He made the recommendations. But we haven’t seen him out there jumping about in relation to the timing.
A royal commission is a royal commission. Not a detailed business or organisational restructure blueprint. There is a level of detail Commissioner Wood would not have gone into. And he had to rely on submissions which had, as their purpose, WHY a change is justified. Not HOW it should happen. That’s a whole extra piece of work. And if DOCs is as dysfunctional as everyone says, then understanding that in order to hand it over to someone else will take time.
But we already outsource to these agencies, you say?
We do, but not on this scale, and not the breadth of cases we are talking about here. So we can’t assume that the system of governance and monitoring currently in place is sufficient. And we can’t assume the agencies have processes that will scale up. And we can’t assume they will have the skill base to cope with it. And we can’t assume that moving people across from DOCs to private agencies will actually change a thing.
Here are just some of the issues that need to be solved:
How will cases be handed off between organisations and departments?
Who will ultimately be responsible for the child’s welfare?
How will the relationships be monitored?
Where is the right of appeal if things go wrong?
Who sets the standards and policies?
Who monitors the agencies to ensure their approach is consistent?
Out-sourcing is a complex beast to handle. Many companies have done it in order to provide better service and cut costs, and have found the management of it quite extraordinary.
So take the time to plan it properly, for the childrens’ sake.
We don’t have territory to defend. We just think that such a huge change needs to be planned and implemented well.
Or we might find that we end up swapping an ‘unworkable’ monolithic government department for an outsourced model where no one is accountable and children don’t just fall through the cracks, they disappear into a chasm.
We take serious issue with Mr Crispin Hull from Barnardos on a number of points in his SMH article.
He is giving the Government a right hurry up in relation to the planning and implementation of the Wood Royal Commission recommendations. He warns that DOCs and member unions might be defending their territory and resisting change.
And yet his article is at risk of sounding like a territory grab. We’re sure his intentions are admirable. But his organisation stands to gain a great deal from the proposed changes - financially, in scale and in responsibility. We’d be much happier if the hurry up came from someone who didn’t have a vested interest in the outcome.
That would be Commissioner Wood, we hear you say?
Yes. He made the recommendations. But we haven’t seen him out there jumping about in relation to the timing.
A royal commission is a royal commission. Not a detailed business or organisational restructure blueprint. There is a level of detail Commissioner Wood would not have gone into. And he had to rely on submissions which had, as their purpose, WHY a change is justified. Not HOW it should happen. That’s a whole extra piece of work. And if DOCs is as dysfunctional as everyone says, then understanding that in order to hand it over to someone else will take time.
But we already outsource to these agencies, you say?
We do, but not on this scale, and not the breadth of cases we are talking about here. So we can’t assume that the system of governance and monitoring currently in place is sufficient. And we can’t assume the agencies have processes that will scale up. And we can’t assume they will have the skill base to cope with it. And we can’t assume that moving people across from DOCs to private agencies will actually change a thing.
Here are just some of the issues that need to be solved:
How will cases be handed off between organisations and departments?
Who will ultimately be responsible for the child’s welfare?
How will the relationships be monitored?
Where is the right of appeal if things go wrong?
Who sets the standards and policies?
Who monitors the agencies to ensure their approach is consistent?
Out-sourcing is a complex beast to handle. Many companies have done it in order to provide better service and cut costs, and have found the management of it quite extraordinary.
So take the time to plan it properly, for the childrens’ sake.
We don’t have territory to defend. We just think that such a huge change needs to be planned and implemented well.
Or we might find that we end up swapping an ‘unworkable’ monolithic government department for an outsourced model where no one is accountable and children don’t just fall through the cracks, they disappear into a chasm.
Real life foster care - up close and personal
24/02/2009 20:29
Want to know about foster care?
It’s not often that fostering and children in care, with all the privacy constraints that appropriately go with it, can be so open. If you are thinking of fostering, or are a carer, this Australian Story provides a very detailed and personal view of children in care from the perspective of all parties.
If you missed it on Monday 23rd February on the ABC (NSW):
It will be broadcast again on Saturday 28th February at 12.30pm.
You can read the transcript on the Australian Story site.
Or if you have the bandwidth (both technical and personal!) you can watch it online.
Stay tuned - we will post our thoughts over the next week.
It’s not often that fostering and children in care, with all the privacy constraints that appropriately go with it, can be so open. If you are thinking of fostering, or are a carer, this Australian Story provides a very detailed and personal view of children in care from the perspective of all parties.
If you missed it on Monday 23rd February on the ABC (NSW):
It will be broadcast again on Saturday 28th February at 12.30pm.
You can read the transcript on the Australian Story site.
Or if you have the bandwidth (both technical and personal!) you can watch it online.
Stay tuned - we will post our thoughts over the next week.
Develop and maintain your relationship with birth family
12/02/2009 22:10
We attended a conference once where all the participants were foster parents.
Very few of the parents referred to members of their children’s birth families by name. Instead the terms ‘birth mum’ and ‘birth parent’ were well used. It was so marked that the worker commented on it. Then the worker said something worth remembering. She talked about the importance of maintaining the relationship between foster family and birth family. That is, the adults in the relationship.
She said that foster and birth parents should connect in some way.
You both share an interest in this child after all. But this can be more easily said than done, depending on the birth family and the social workers.
Birth family will almost always have baggage, most of it acquired long before the foster parents came on the scene. While understanding what’s going on can be like working in the dark without your infrared goggles, the birth parent is not your responsibility.
Another complicating factor can be workers who have an agenda about how they think the foster carer/birth family relationship should run. They might discuss this with you, but they might not. You might only see it when the workers try to take control of the relationship between birth family and child. This may range from an active role for the worker at an access visit, to very explicit instructions to your foster child regarding how they interact with their birth family. You, the carer, might even be told not to come to access.
So here are the reasons we think that worker had it right. Apart from the excellent lesson of seeing adults act like adults:
After all, these people are linked by blood to the person you have grown to love. Whatever your view of birth family, the child in your care deserves that you treat that relationship with respect.
Posted by EssentialMum
Very few of the parents referred to members of their children’s birth families by name. Instead the terms ‘birth mum’ and ‘birth parent’ were well used. It was so marked that the worker commented on it. Then the worker said something worth remembering. She talked about the importance of maintaining the relationship between foster family and birth family. That is, the adults in the relationship.
She said that foster and birth parents should connect in some way.
You both share an interest in this child after all. But this can be more easily said than done, depending on the birth family and the social workers.
Birth family will almost always have baggage, most of it acquired long before the foster parents came on the scene. While understanding what’s going on can be like working in the dark without your infrared goggles, the birth parent is not your responsibility.
Another complicating factor can be workers who have an agenda about how they think the foster carer/birth family relationship should run. They might discuss this with you, but they might not. You might only see it when the workers try to take control of the relationship between birth family and child. This may range from an active role for the worker at an access visit, to very explicit instructions to your foster child regarding how they interact with their birth family. You, the carer, might even be told not to come to access.
So here are the reasons we think that worker had it right. Apart from the excellent lesson of seeing adults act like adults:
- The child sees it is not a competition between adults for his or her affection.
- The birth family does not see it as a competition for the child’s affection.
- The child does not feel torn between the two families.
- You develop a good line of communication with birth family.
- You can talk to birth family about any issues that are impacting the child.
- Birth family will listen to you talk about issues that impact the child.
- The child sees that you are willing to really talk with the birth family.
- If the adolescent child doesn’t want any contact with birth family you are able to maintain it, until such time as they are ready to resume it.
After all, these people are linked by blood to the person you have grown to love. Whatever your view of birth family, the child in your care deserves that you treat that relationship with respect.
Posted by EssentialMum
Call for obese kids to be taken into care
04/02/2009 21:35
Sorry for the slight delay in posting. We’ve had lots of changes in the last couple of weeks, not the least of which has been the start of the school year and settling into a new routine.
While we’re on the subject of weight, we can tell you that on the face of it this article made us choke over our low fat breakfast cereal.
The first paragraph reads ‘SEVERELY obese children should be notified to child protection authorities, and even taken into care, if their parents are unwilling or unable to help them lose weight, experts have argued.’
We get REALLY annoyed at the apparent ease with which some ‘experts’ in child services use the term ‘taken into care’ in relation to children. Really. Annoyed.
Many children don’t get the best care from their parents. They don’t get the right diet, or the right attention, or the right education. Where do you draw the line?
We’re not social workers, and we have some sympathy for them in working out where the line should be. But poor parenting is different to negligent or dangerous parenting. The risk with articles like this is that we all end up talking about taking children off their birth families as if it’s a nice little holiday the child might go on.
Well it isn’t. And it shouldn’t be shanghaied by anyone just to reinforce the seriousness of an issue.
The Camper is currently watching a new dog find its way around our house, yard and life. She’s been involved in the whole process of finding and bringing home the new pup. She is very interested because she knows that at a young age she went through the same dislocation. So it has given us a good opportunity to discuss how a dog, and by extension, a child, might feel, and act, and deal.
We want to send a note to all the ‘experts’ to use the words ‘taken into care’ carefully.
We don’t take those words lightly, because we are at the working end of that decision. We have a child in care, and we know the effort we have had to put in to making her feel secure, the deep seated trauma she suffered in being removed from her birth family, and the complexity of her ongoing relationship with her birth family. We have no doubt the decision was the right one for her but we are glad it wasn’t taken lightly.
Taking a child into care is, and should remain, the ultimate act to secure their future.
To suggest that careless, ill-educated or simply lazy parents should be threatened with it is completely wrong. And it encourages the general public, reading a headline, to discount the real impact of such a decision.
Posted by EssentialMum
While we’re on the subject of weight, we can tell you that on the face of it this article made us choke over our low fat breakfast cereal.
The first paragraph reads ‘SEVERELY obese children should be notified to child protection authorities, and even taken into care, if their parents are unwilling or unable to help them lose weight, experts have argued.’
We get REALLY annoyed at the apparent ease with which some ‘experts’ in child services use the term ‘taken into care’ in relation to children. Really. Annoyed.
Many children don’t get the best care from their parents. They don’t get the right diet, or the right attention, or the right education. Where do you draw the line?
We’re not social workers, and we have some sympathy for them in working out where the line should be. But poor parenting is different to negligent or dangerous parenting. The risk with articles like this is that we all end up talking about taking children off their birth families as if it’s a nice little holiday the child might go on.
Well it isn’t. And it shouldn’t be shanghaied by anyone just to reinforce the seriousness of an issue.
The Camper is currently watching a new dog find its way around our house, yard and life. She’s been involved in the whole process of finding and bringing home the new pup. She is very interested because she knows that at a young age she went through the same dislocation. So it has given us a good opportunity to discuss how a dog, and by extension, a child, might feel, and act, and deal.
We want to send a note to all the ‘experts’ to use the words ‘taken into care’ carefully.
We don’t take those words lightly, because we are at the working end of that decision. We have a child in care, and we know the effort we have had to put in to making her feel secure, the deep seated trauma she suffered in being removed from her birth family, and the complexity of her ongoing relationship with her birth family. We have no doubt the decision was the right one for her but we are glad it wasn’t taken lightly.
Taking a child into care is, and should remain, the ultimate act to secure their future.
To suggest that careless, ill-educated or simply lazy parents should be threatened with it is completely wrong. And it encourages the general public, reading a headline, to discount the real impact of such a decision.
Posted by EssentialMum
Too fat to adopt?
22/01/2009 21:58
This UK couple has been told they cannot adopt because the husband is classed as ‘morbidly obese’. This is tricky territory, so we will tread carefully.
The husband acknowledges he is ‘too fat’. The local authority states ‘The council's adoption service has a legal responsibility to ensure that children are placed with adopters who are able to provide the best possible lifelong care’.
We get to play both sides of the debate on this blog. So here they are.
There are many parents who are obese, who smoke, who drink, who do recreational drugs. In most of those instances they are not denied the right to parent their birth children.
So on the face of it, are we applying a double standard to prospective adoptive or foster parents who may not be ‘perfect’?
On the other hand, there are a number of parents out there whose alcohol or drug habits have spiralled out of control, or who have mental health and other issues. They have had their children removed from their care for the children’s safety. Those children have already suffered loss in their lives.
In adoption with a new family, the children deserve to know that the family they are placed with has the capacity to look after them for the long term.
We have seen the effect of multiple moves on children. Some never recover. The Camper has given us her heart, her love and her trust. We know, quite simply, that to break that now would change her life forever.
So if we put the child first, which is a theme of this site, then this couple needs to minimise any risk to their health.
Adoptive or long term foster parents need to be as healthy and strong as they can be, not because the authority says so, but because some small child – who is going to give them his or her heart and trust - deserves it.
We would suggest that it is the same standard that should apply to ANY parent by the way. Raising children is a tiring, strenuous, whole-hearted activity. We find physical health to be key in handling the workload and the stress. It helps us parent better by being able to share physical activity with our children.
So our advice to this couple? Improve your health. There is a child out there who needs you, but they do need you for the long term. You might not have met them yet but you owe it to them already.
Posted by EssentialMum
The husband acknowledges he is ‘too fat’. The local authority states ‘The council's adoption service has a legal responsibility to ensure that children are placed with adopters who are able to provide the best possible lifelong care’.
We get to play both sides of the debate on this blog. So here they are.
There are many parents who are obese, who smoke, who drink, who do recreational drugs. In most of those instances they are not denied the right to parent their birth children.
So on the face of it, are we applying a double standard to prospective adoptive or foster parents who may not be ‘perfect’?
On the other hand, there are a number of parents out there whose alcohol or drug habits have spiralled out of control, or who have mental health and other issues. They have had their children removed from their care for the children’s safety. Those children have already suffered loss in their lives.
In adoption with a new family, the children deserve to know that the family they are placed with has the capacity to look after them for the long term.
We have seen the effect of multiple moves on children. Some never recover. The Camper has given us her heart, her love and her trust. We know, quite simply, that to break that now would change her life forever.
So if we put the child first, which is a theme of this site, then this couple needs to minimise any risk to their health.
Adoptive or long term foster parents need to be as healthy and strong as they can be, not because the authority says so, but because some small child – who is going to give them his or her heart and trust - deserves it.
We would suggest that it is the same standard that should apply to ANY parent by the way. Raising children is a tiring, strenuous, whole-hearted activity. We find physical health to be key in handling the workload and the stress. It helps us parent better by being able to share physical activity with our children.
So our advice to this couple? Improve your health. There is a child out there who needs you, but they do need you for the long term. You might not have met them yet but you owe it to them already.
Posted by EssentialMum
Contact with birth families is good
12/01/2009 23:36
We are in favour of contact with birth families – 100%.
There are many reasons why it is beneficial for a child to know their birth family. Here are some of them.
‘Who is my birth mum and/or my birth dad?’
Knowing my origins - It is very difficult for a child, particularly when they start to attend school and families are on the curriculum, to cope with a complete blank where a birth parent’s identity might be. As a carer you need an explanation that increases in detail as the child matures.
‘Why isn’t my hair dark brown like yours?’
A sense of identity - This can be important physically, as the child begins to want to emulate or be part of their second family.
‘I’m only living with you because my birth parent is a rock star’
A sense of reality – as a child grows older they may want to know why they are not with their birth family. Contact can help prevent a fantasy life evolving around a birth parent. This in turn may prevent any ‘play-offs’ between birth and second families. It can be quite devastating for an older child to meet a birth parent and experience their shortcomings. Acceptance from an early age is helpful.
‘Why did my birth parents give me up?'
Understanding and communication - An opportunity for child and birth parent to communicate on these issues can be good. It’s tricky territory, for a birth parent may not be prepared to answer the hard questions, or may be in complete denial about what actually happened and their responsibility for it. That in itself is a useful conversation for a trusted person to have with the child.
So what is the issue, for the child, around birth family contact?
BALANCE
You can completely undermine a child’s sense of security if contact with birth family overwhelms them and over-rides their daily life. Let’s state the obvious – access for a child who has a good chance of restitution with their birth family, should be very different to that of a child who has been put into the care of the Minister until they reach 18 years.
We believe that the PURPOSE of contact should be an item on any case plan.
The frequency of contact is usually covered, but we’ve not experienced an open and frank discussion about the purpose. We’ve seen this come unstuck when a worker thought they were meant to re-establish the child/birth parent relationship, when the appropriate purpose of access was to ‘maintain contact between child and birth parent’. There is a world of difference between those two objectives.
Understanding the purpose of contact will help you know how access should run.
We saw that world of difference played out in the behaviours of worker and birth parent. The workers pushed a level of interaction, and a set of rules, that alienated the child and increased her insecurity. It also resulted in a birth parent believing they had far more say in the child’s life than was the case. It was left to a more experienced worker to do damage control, and remind birth parent of the reality of the situation. It wouldn’t have happened if the issue had been discussed properly.
Understanding the purpose of contact will help you help the child manage their response to birth parent.
It will help you know which behaviours, from child and birth parent, to support, and what you should hose down. You know the child best, and you know what their life is now, so you are best placed to understand the impact access with a birth parent may have.
We’re going to have the purpose of access firmly on the agenda at our next case conference. We recommend that you discuss this with your worker until you are really clear about what it means. We think it is a useful discussion for any birth parent to participate in. And we especially recommend it as a discussion with any new worker who wants to change some aspect of access.
Posted by EssentialMum
There are many reasons why it is beneficial for a child to know their birth family. Here are some of them.
‘Who is my birth mum and/or my birth dad?’
Knowing my origins - It is very difficult for a child, particularly when they start to attend school and families are on the curriculum, to cope with a complete blank where a birth parent’s identity might be. As a carer you need an explanation that increases in detail as the child matures.
‘Why isn’t my hair dark brown like yours?’
A sense of identity - This can be important physically, as the child begins to want to emulate or be part of their second family.
‘I’m only living with you because my birth parent is a rock star’
A sense of reality – as a child grows older they may want to know why they are not with their birth family. Contact can help prevent a fantasy life evolving around a birth parent. This in turn may prevent any ‘play-offs’ between birth and second families. It can be quite devastating for an older child to meet a birth parent and experience their shortcomings. Acceptance from an early age is helpful.
‘Why did my birth parents give me up?'
Understanding and communication - An opportunity for child and birth parent to communicate on these issues can be good. It’s tricky territory, for a birth parent may not be prepared to answer the hard questions, or may be in complete denial about what actually happened and their responsibility for it. That in itself is a useful conversation for a trusted person to have with the child.
So what is the issue, for the child, around birth family contact?
BALANCE
You can completely undermine a child’s sense of security if contact with birth family overwhelms them and over-rides their daily life. Let’s state the obvious – access for a child who has a good chance of restitution with their birth family, should be very different to that of a child who has been put into the care of the Minister until they reach 18 years.
We believe that the PURPOSE of contact should be an item on any case plan.
The frequency of contact is usually covered, but we’ve not experienced an open and frank discussion about the purpose. We’ve seen this come unstuck when a worker thought they were meant to re-establish the child/birth parent relationship, when the appropriate purpose of access was to ‘maintain contact between child and birth parent’. There is a world of difference between those two objectives.
Understanding the purpose of contact will help you know how access should run.
We saw that world of difference played out in the behaviours of worker and birth parent. The workers pushed a level of interaction, and a set of rules, that alienated the child and increased her insecurity. It also resulted in a birth parent believing they had far more say in the child’s life than was the case. It was left to a more experienced worker to do damage control, and remind birth parent of the reality of the situation. It wouldn’t have happened if the issue had been discussed properly.
Understanding the purpose of contact will help you help the child manage their response to birth parent.
It will help you know which behaviours, from child and birth parent, to support, and what you should hose down. You know the child best, and you know what their life is now, so you are best placed to understand the impact access with a birth parent may have.
We’re going to have the purpose of access firmly on the agenda at our next case conference. We recommend that you discuss this with your worker until you are really clear about what it means. We think it is a useful discussion for any birth parent to participate in. And we especially recommend it as a discussion with any new worker who wants to change some aspect of access.
Posted by EssentialMum
More understanding can mean more insecurity
07/01/2009 22:39
It’s a double-edged sword. An older child might be able to articulate what they feel, what they understand, and what they are confused about in their life and their circumstances. That’s great. But with this understanding comes understanding: there will be more questions about their circumstances, and perhaps more insecurity about what it really means. They might make their own judgment about what they want.
So you may suddenly find you have a small person who doesn’t want to see birth family. A small person who doesn’t want to have a ‘birth parent’. A small person who doesn’t want to be different from their friends.
But the ‘system’ or the ‘research’ will tell you it is good for them to know their birth family. That maintaining contact is positive – that they won’t create some fantasy life surrounding birth family. That reality, however relentless, is good.
For once, let’s put ourselves in the shoes of one of these small people.
Imagine this:
You’ve been moved around a lot since you were born. You’re a resilient kid, so on a day-to-day basis, you manage to smile and laugh and make it look like you are OK. So you’ve learned to be very affectionate, very quickly, with any new people you meet. You take whatever gets thrown at you because you’ve learned that’s how you survive. You might still bang your head on the pillow occasionally at night, because that makes you feel better, but no one hears.
You’re a smart kid: you are very tuned in and hyper-aware of what’s going on around you. In many ways you are much older than your years. You are really quite grateful that you’ve arrived at what seems to be a good place – the parents are nice and reasonable and give you a sense that they know how to deal. You try and show how grateful you are. They hug you and tell you that they are happy too, but you’re not sure they really understand how you feel.
But nothing changes over time, and you get to know them better. They are always the same, and you start to cautiously rely on them. And in there somewhere is a funny feeling. You see it in their eyes when they look at you. And you feel it too. You start to really like their hugs and kisses. Their support and approval feels really good. You like school and have some good mates. One day, you begin to hope that this is how it is going to be.
You see your birth family. That’s been fine, up until the last few times when your birth parent started telling you that you were still part of their family and not to forget it. You tried to shrug it off, but birth parent kept telling you every time you saw them. You mentioned it to your foster parents. They said that no one is taking you anywhere. But you’ve had a few nightmares recently where your birth parent came and took you away. You are really not sure that you want to see your birth family at the moment. Maybe you could take a break from them?
Can you imagine that? How would you feel?
Posted by EssentialMum
So you may suddenly find you have a small person who doesn’t want to see birth family. A small person who doesn’t want to have a ‘birth parent’. A small person who doesn’t want to be different from their friends.
But the ‘system’ or the ‘research’ will tell you it is good for them to know their birth family. That maintaining contact is positive – that they won’t create some fantasy life surrounding birth family. That reality, however relentless, is good.
For once, let’s put ourselves in the shoes of one of these small people.
Imagine this:
You’ve been moved around a lot since you were born. You’re a resilient kid, so on a day-to-day basis, you manage to smile and laugh and make it look like you are OK. So you’ve learned to be very affectionate, very quickly, with any new people you meet. You take whatever gets thrown at you because you’ve learned that’s how you survive. You might still bang your head on the pillow occasionally at night, because that makes you feel better, but no one hears.
You’re a smart kid: you are very tuned in and hyper-aware of what’s going on around you. In many ways you are much older than your years. You are really quite grateful that you’ve arrived at what seems to be a good place – the parents are nice and reasonable and give you a sense that they know how to deal. You try and show how grateful you are. They hug you and tell you that they are happy too, but you’re not sure they really understand how you feel.
But nothing changes over time, and you get to know them better. They are always the same, and you start to cautiously rely on them. And in there somewhere is a funny feeling. You see it in their eyes when they look at you. And you feel it too. You start to really like their hugs and kisses. Their support and approval feels really good. You like school and have some good mates. One day, you begin to hope that this is how it is going to be.
You see your birth family. That’s been fine, up until the last few times when your birth parent started telling you that you were still part of their family and not to forget it. You tried to shrug it off, but birth parent kept telling you every time you saw them. You mentioned it to your foster parents. They said that no one is taking you anywhere. But you’ve had a few nightmares recently where your birth parent came and took you away. You are really not sure that you want to see your birth family at the moment. Maybe you could take a break from them?
Can you imagine that? How would you feel?
Posted by EssentialMum
Do foster children always become troubled teens?
28/12/2008 23:48
‘AN AMERICAN academic is to run a five-year study of NSW children who are removed from their parents and placed in foster care in the hope of finding ways to stop them becoming troubled teenagers.’ SMH 26/12/08
Well Professor Fred Wulczyn, let’s get you started on the way.
The system often prevents these children from putting down roots with a new family. Either the legal process fails to catch up with the child’s needs and the child spends too long in ‘temporary care’, or the system applies the invisible brand to them – ‘foster child’ – and demands things of them that ‘normal’ children never have to contemplate. Let us explain.
We’ve cared for children who have been bounced around the system for some years before they landed with us. Often they have been emotionally abandoned and that is obvious from the minute we meet them. Often their physical needs haven’t been well looked after either, but they can be relatively easier to fix. We throw every ounce of care, love and attention into making a child feel that we were their family, that we are here to stay.
But some workers have viewed our level of passion and commitment with nothing less than suspicion.
We know carers who foster with an agency that has a strong agenda around restitution of the children with their birth families. A new worker has suddenly told a carer, who has had a child in care from 4 months to early teen years, that she considers the child needs to have more contact with her birth mum. They see birth mum and other members of the birth family every school holidays and it is pitched at just the right level. The child is old enough to ask her foster mum, who she considers to be her mum, ‘why?’ We hope the carer has what it takes to ask the agency ‘why?’ on behalf of the child.
We can tell you that this particular child is thriving – winning awards at school, happy, a very capable sportsperson, very savvy about her circumstances - and she handles her birth mum’s probing for information with an ease well beyond her years. So she is one of Professor Wulczyn’s success stories.
So what characterises these placements?
The children have put down roots. They feel stable. They trust that nothing is going to change.
The system recognises they have been put into long term care for a very good reason, and is not trying to undermine that. The children are free to get on with living.
They have contact with their birth families, but not at the expense of time with their new families and their sense of stability. It’s a delicate balance.
Imagine if you were a child, and had a worker continually telling you how important your birth mum was, insisting you cuddle the woman when you only see her 5 times a year, reminding you to your face that you are ‘a child in care’, not calling the mum and dad you live with ‘mum’ or ‘dad’, but ‘carer? Imagine if you couldn’t have a play date with your friends on a particular day in the school holidays because of contact with your birth family. Imagine if you knew you couldn’t go away on holidays with your family because you had to be back for access with your birth family?
The agency recognises a ‘good’ placement and plays a monitoring role.
There is often a huge lack of continuity of approach from one worker to the next. Good governance demands that new workers review placements and all the circumstances around them, but aspects of the placement should not be changed without very good reason. These should be thoughtfully monitored and individually researched reasons. They should be discussed and reviewed with the carers over time before any decision to change is made. Workers should be taught that leaving their individual mark on a case is not always a sign of success.
We are good carers.
Forgive us if we state it bluntly, but we are. We treat these children as if they were our own. We don’t expect them to do anything much differently to our other children. We’re not in it for any financial gain. We love them.
So we are genuinely puzzled as to why the system has such a hard time codifying what works?
Maybe it’s not talking to the right people? Maybe it is not prepared to hear what we are saying? Maybe there are agendas and policies that the system, and those who work in it, need to give up?
Posted by EssentialMum
Well Professor Fred Wulczyn, let’s get you started on the way.
The system often prevents these children from putting down roots with a new family. Either the legal process fails to catch up with the child’s needs and the child spends too long in ‘temporary care’, or the system applies the invisible brand to them – ‘foster child’ – and demands things of them that ‘normal’ children never have to contemplate. Let us explain.
We’ve cared for children who have been bounced around the system for some years before they landed with us. Often they have been emotionally abandoned and that is obvious from the minute we meet them. Often their physical needs haven’t been well looked after either, but they can be relatively easier to fix. We throw every ounce of care, love and attention into making a child feel that we were their family, that we are here to stay.
But some workers have viewed our level of passion and commitment with nothing less than suspicion.
We know carers who foster with an agency that has a strong agenda around restitution of the children with their birth families. A new worker has suddenly told a carer, who has had a child in care from 4 months to early teen years, that she considers the child needs to have more contact with her birth mum. They see birth mum and other members of the birth family every school holidays and it is pitched at just the right level. The child is old enough to ask her foster mum, who she considers to be her mum, ‘why?’ We hope the carer has what it takes to ask the agency ‘why?’ on behalf of the child.
We can tell you that this particular child is thriving – winning awards at school, happy, a very capable sportsperson, very savvy about her circumstances - and she handles her birth mum’s probing for information with an ease well beyond her years. So she is one of Professor Wulczyn’s success stories.
So what characterises these placements?
The children have put down roots. They feel stable. They trust that nothing is going to change.
The system recognises they have been put into long term care for a very good reason, and is not trying to undermine that. The children are free to get on with living.
They have contact with their birth families, but not at the expense of time with their new families and their sense of stability. It’s a delicate balance.
Imagine if you were a child, and had a worker continually telling you how important your birth mum was, insisting you cuddle the woman when you only see her 5 times a year, reminding you to your face that you are ‘a child in care’, not calling the mum and dad you live with ‘mum’ or ‘dad’, but ‘carer? Imagine if you couldn’t have a play date with your friends on a particular day in the school holidays because of contact with your birth family. Imagine if you knew you couldn’t go away on holidays with your family because you had to be back for access with your birth family?
The agency recognises a ‘good’ placement and plays a monitoring role.
There is often a huge lack of continuity of approach from one worker to the next. Good governance demands that new workers review placements and all the circumstances around them, but aspects of the placement should not be changed without very good reason. These should be thoughtfully monitored and individually researched reasons. They should be discussed and reviewed with the carers over time before any decision to change is made. Workers should be taught that leaving their individual mark on a case is not always a sign of success.
We are good carers.
Forgive us if we state it bluntly, but we are. We treat these children as if they were our own. We don’t expect them to do anything much differently to our other children. We’re not in it for any financial gain. We love them.
So we are genuinely puzzled as to why the system has such a hard time codifying what works?
Maybe it’s not talking to the right people? Maybe it is not prepared to hear what we are saying? Maybe there are agendas and policies that the system, and those who work in it, need to give up?
Posted by EssentialMum
Foster parent rights?
15/12/2008 22:33
We’ve talked before about being called ‘foster carers’ by the system, when as far as the children in care are concerned we are their parents. An article in the SMH today threw that issue into stark focus.
You can read the article here: ‘Agony of deciding who will look after young’ – the byline is ‘An Aboriginal mother has reclaimed her children, but the foster parents are furious, writes Adele Horin.’
By our reading of the article, the two children in question have been in care for about 4-5 years, from when they were very tiny. The biological mother has reclaimed them, after getting her life back on track and establishing a stable relationship.
One paragraph really struck a chord:
‘When is the right time - if ever - to restore children to their biological parents? How is it possible to weigh up children's stability and their attachment to their long-term foster carers against the potential enduring benefits of growing up in their biological family, knowing their siblings and their culture?’
Listen to the language of that paragraph. Biological parents. Biological family. Siblings. Enduring. Adele Horin is using the terminology the system uses.
The problem is – that terminology is loaded with meaning and riddled with assumptions. We all use that language daily and it instantly evokes, for most of us, a sense of right and entitlement and relationships and outcomes.
The people these children have lived with for the last 4-5 years – the bulk - of their lives are referred to in the paragraph as ‘long term foster carers’. The article later explains that for one of the children the foster mother is ‘the only mum he's known’.
The foster carers lost out in that paragraph, big time. The language does not describe any emotional connection with the child that most of us can relate to. Attachment? Carer?
Here’s how it might have read with one small change:
‘When is the right time - if ever - to restore children to their biological parents? How is it possible to weigh up children's stability and their attachment to their second mum and dad and siblings against the potential enduring benefits of growing up in their biological family, knowing their siblings and their culture?’
The child leaps the divide – giving you their heart, their trust, their love. You become their mum and their dad. And yet the system is unwilling to acknowledge the shift. We could be cynical, and say that it helps the system justify the movement of children back to biological parents. You start by using language that maintains a distance between child and new family.
So, having trouble recruiting foster carers? No wonder. There is nothing in that story to reassure any carer that the child they have parented will be with them until the child is able make a decision about their future.
Until prospective carers hear language from the media and the ‘system’ that recognises the emotional bond we ‘carers’ create with these children, it will continue to be difficult to attract quality carers.
Posted by EssentialMum
You can read the article here: ‘Agony of deciding who will look after young’ – the byline is ‘An Aboriginal mother has reclaimed her children, but the foster parents are furious, writes Adele Horin.’
By our reading of the article, the two children in question have been in care for about 4-5 years, from when they were very tiny. The biological mother has reclaimed them, after getting her life back on track and establishing a stable relationship.
One paragraph really struck a chord:
‘When is the right time - if ever - to restore children to their biological parents? How is it possible to weigh up children's stability and their attachment to their long-term foster carers against the potential enduring benefits of growing up in their biological family, knowing their siblings and their culture?’
Listen to the language of that paragraph. Biological parents. Biological family. Siblings. Enduring. Adele Horin is using the terminology the system uses.
The problem is – that terminology is loaded with meaning and riddled with assumptions. We all use that language daily and it instantly evokes, for most of us, a sense of right and entitlement and relationships and outcomes.
The people these children have lived with for the last 4-5 years – the bulk - of their lives are referred to in the paragraph as ‘long term foster carers’. The article later explains that for one of the children the foster mother is ‘the only mum he's known’.
The foster carers lost out in that paragraph, big time. The language does not describe any emotional connection with the child that most of us can relate to. Attachment? Carer?
Here’s how it might have read with one small change:
‘When is the right time - if ever - to restore children to their biological parents? How is it possible to weigh up children's stability and their attachment to their second mum and dad and siblings against the potential enduring benefits of growing up in their biological family, knowing their siblings and their culture?’
The child leaps the divide – giving you their heart, their trust, their love. You become their mum and their dad. And yet the system is unwilling to acknowledge the shift. We could be cynical, and say that it helps the system justify the movement of children back to biological parents. You start by using language that maintains a distance between child and new family.
So, having trouble recruiting foster carers? No wonder. There is nothing in that story to reassure any carer that the child they have parented will be with them until the child is able make a decision about their future.
Until prospective carers hear language from the media and the ‘system’ that recognises the emotional bond we ‘carers’ create with these children, it will continue to be difficult to attract quality carers.
Posted by EssentialMum
The Commission Outcomes
27/11/2008 11:32
Dear Justice Wood, Premier Rees, Minister Burney and all those who will be working through Justice Wood’s recommendations,
It was big commission wasn’t it? 111 recommendations, and a significant part of those is in relation to moving responsibility for sheltering children at risk to the private sector.
Funnily enough, ask any business person and they will tell you that one of the greatest challenges in outsourcing a service is governance – who monitors the system to make sure it works as intended - and accountability. You can’t outsource accountability. So what structure will still be in place in government? I suppose that’s all to be worked out yet.
Our experience has also shown us a very great difference between DOCS workers and private agency workers – in skill, in maturity, in experience. So the uplift required for many agencies will be huge. But you knew that, didn’t you? And the officers from those agencies who presented to the commission were honest and upfront about how well they functioned, and what it would take to enable their agencies to effectively take over from DOCS. Weren’t they?
We’d like to recommend that one of the toolsets you implement, to maintain standards across this distributed agency group, and to give us carers a clearer picture of what we are entitled to expect, are service levels. They won’t solve all the problems but they will provide some clarity. You see, agencies can get pretty autocratic about how they do things, their policies and their processes. They can push an agenda relentlessly. If you are a carer with an opinion and push hard enough back they can even get a bit narky. But you knew that, didn’t you?
So good luck. It’s a shame that more of the submissions to the Commission were not made public. Then I think we’d all have a better understanding of all the issues we are dealing with. It’s not that we don’t trust you, but at present, having heard the agency and DOCS submissions, we’re just feeling a bit one-sided.
Yours faithfully,
EssentialMum
Posted by EssentialMum
It was big commission wasn’t it? 111 recommendations, and a significant part of those is in relation to moving responsibility for sheltering children at risk to the private sector.
Funnily enough, ask any business person and they will tell you that one of the greatest challenges in outsourcing a service is governance – who monitors the system to make sure it works as intended - and accountability. You can’t outsource accountability. So what structure will still be in place in government? I suppose that’s all to be worked out yet.
Our experience has also shown us a very great difference between DOCS workers and private agency workers – in skill, in maturity, in experience. So the uplift required for many agencies will be huge. But you knew that, didn’t you? And the officers from those agencies who presented to the commission were honest and upfront about how well they functioned, and what it would take to enable their agencies to effectively take over from DOCS. Weren’t they?
We’d like to recommend that one of the toolsets you implement, to maintain standards across this distributed agency group, and to give us carers a clearer picture of what we are entitled to expect, are service levels. They won’t solve all the problems but they will provide some clarity. You see, agencies can get pretty autocratic about how they do things, their policies and their processes. They can push an agenda relentlessly. If you are a carer with an opinion and push hard enough back they can even get a bit narky. But you knew that, didn’t you?
So good luck. It’s a shame that more of the submissions to the Commission were not made public. Then I think we’d all have a better understanding of all the issues we are dealing with. It’s not that we don’t trust you, but at present, having heard the agency and DOCS submissions, we’re just feeling a bit one-sided.
Yours faithfully,
EssentialMum
Posted by EssentialMum
'I am a foster child'
26/11/2008 22:17
How should children in care refer to themselves? How should you introduce them?
We don’t do labels.
So no child in care is ever, ever described to anyone as a foster child or a child in care. They are our child. Generally only those who need to know are told their status. And for anyone who needs to know (doctor, teacher), the basic facts are sufficient and explain all that needs to be said.
Foster care is the child’s legal status. So why should that be what describes them?
We sometimes used to feel like the system gives these children a secret stamp – only visible to it – that said ‘Child in Care’. Different rules apply to ‘normal’ children. This feeling wasn’t helped by the workers’ frequent response, when we disagreed about a particular action, that ‘this is what we do for all our children in care’. One approach suits all? We knew enough other carers to know that wasn’t true.
This issue about labels is really important.
Labels are pejorative. They are loaded with meaning. We have heard of children in out of home care having the term ‘foster child’ flung at them in the school playground in a derisory way.
Come to think of it, maybe the term ‘foster care’ has had its day. What does ‘foster’ mean anyway? Out-of-home care isn’t much better.
Here’s the definition of foster from dictionary.com:
We like number 3 – to care for or cherish.
We made a commitment to bring a child into our family to show them what it means to be cherished. Often they won’t have had that before. Make no mistake – often they have been the centre of attention, and had lots of people spending lots of time reviewing what’s best for them. But they won’t have been cherished. It’s the strength of that individual care that makes a difference to their lives.
We can show children what constant, unchanging love looks like, in all its shapes and colours and circumstances. We can show them how to receive it and give it. Most people take that for granted.
So we provide family care.
Maybe Family Care is the new description. A new family is caring for this child. What do you think?
Posted by EssentialMum
We don’t do labels.
So no child in care is ever, ever described to anyone as a foster child or a child in care. They are our child. Generally only those who need to know are told their status. And for anyone who needs to know (doctor, teacher), the basic facts are sufficient and explain all that needs to be said.
Foster care is the child’s legal status. So why should that be what describes them?
We sometimes used to feel like the system gives these children a secret stamp – only visible to it – that said ‘Child in Care’. Different rules apply to ‘normal’ children. This feeling wasn’t helped by the workers’ frequent response, when we disagreed about a particular action, that ‘this is what we do for all our children in care’. One approach suits all? We knew enough other carers to know that wasn’t true.
This issue about labels is really important.
Labels are pejorative. They are loaded with meaning. We have heard of children in out of home care having the term ‘foster child’ flung at them in the school playground in a derisory way.
Come to think of it, maybe the term ‘foster care’ has had its day. What does ‘foster’ mean anyway? Out-of-home care isn’t much better.
Here’s the definition of foster from dictionary.com:
- to promote the growth or development of; further; encourage, to foster new ideas
- to bring up, raise, or rear as a foster child
- to care for or cherish
- British, to place (a child) in a foster home
We like number 3 – to care for or cherish.
We made a commitment to bring a child into our family to show them what it means to be cherished. Often they won’t have had that before. Make no mistake – often they have been the centre of attention, and had lots of people spending lots of time reviewing what’s best for them. But they won’t have been cherished. It’s the strength of that individual care that makes a difference to their lives.
We can show children what constant, unchanging love looks like, in all its shapes and colours and circumstances. We can show them how to receive it and give it. Most people take that for granted.
So we provide family care.
Maybe Family Care is the new description. A new family is caring for this child. What do you think?
Posted by EssentialMum
'I've been instructed to...'
31/10/2008 22:42
How timely. In our last post we were being very reasonable about how one might ‘fix’ DOCs.
Well, here’s a problem that needs fixing.
It’s the ‘I’ve been instructed to’ message.
You might get it by email – or if you are lucky (and we have been) you might even get it in person. That’s really special.
Even when a first conversation might be a collaborative discussion, there will come a point where a worker will pull rank. You’ll be told to just do it. They might even move it up the food chain and state ‘I’ve been instructed to…’. Wow, by the Manager.
If we were trying to address all the problems, then we’d acknowledge that there are stubborn, careless, less than satisfactory carers out there who would try the patience of a saint (and probably break the heart of one sometimes) and need to be told what to do.
But we’re not trying to address all the problems. And we don’t need to be told what to do.
In business using the ‘I’ve been instructed to’ defence is called abrogating responsibility, and any manager worth their salary won’t let a team member get away with it. It teaches bad habits and leads to bad outcomes.
In this foster care world, it is toxic. Let us tell you the sub-text that sits behind that request. We’ll range from the generous to the less than….
So don’t serve up the ‘I’ve been instructed to…’ advice to us. It doesn’t wash.
Posted by EssentialMum
Well, here’s a problem that needs fixing.
It’s the ‘I’ve been instructed to’ message.
You might get it by email – or if you are lucky (and we have been) you might even get it in person. That’s really special.
Even when a first conversation might be a collaborative discussion, there will come a point where a worker will pull rank. You’ll be told to just do it. They might even move it up the food chain and state ‘I’ve been instructed to…’. Wow, by the Manager.
If we were trying to address all the problems, then we’d acknowledge that there are stubborn, careless, less than satisfactory carers out there who would try the patience of a saint (and probably break the heart of one sometimes) and need to be told what to do.
But we’re not trying to address all the problems. And we don’t need to be told what to do.
In business using the ‘I’ve been instructed to’ defence is called abrogating responsibility, and any manager worth their salary won’t let a team member get away with it. It teaches bad habits and leads to bad outcomes.
In this foster care world, it is toxic. Let us tell you the sub-text that sits behind that request. We’ll range from the generous to the less than….
- I’m genuinely too busy to negotiate any solution with these people.
- I haven’t got time to debate this.
- I have a job to do.
- You (carer) have a job to do.
- I’m obeying a court order for my case, there is no room in it to accommodate your (carer) needs.
- Your (carer) reason for not being able to accommodate this request is irrelevant.
- I decide what’s best.
- I know what’s best.
- I’m in charge – just do as you (carer) are told.
So don’t serve up the ‘I’ve been instructed to…’ advice to us. It doesn’t wash.
Posted by EssentialMum
Can we 'fix' DOCs?
22/10/2008 22:38
Rise in deaths of 'at risk' children (The Australian, Caroline Overington | October 16, 2008).
‘MORE than 150 children who died in NSW last year came from families that were known to the Department of Community Services. The figure, a quarter of all child deaths in the state, represents a 40 per cent increase on the previous year in the number of so-called "reviewable" deaths.’
‘Fix DOCs’ we hear people shriek.
But you can’t fix a problem at the macro level. So you can’t just ‘fix DOCs’.
To solve problems, you need to be very specific about the problems. You need to be honest and open about what causes them. You need to address them quite specifically. But you need to understand how fixing the problem in the middle will impact all the others surrounding it. It is essential that everyone who plays a role agrees on what the problems are and wants to solve them.
So if more children ‘at risk’ died in 2008 than in the previous year, why?
Let’s state the obvious - children were left in a home environment that was dangerous to their life or to their health. The system that is charged with making decisions about what is best for them didn’t act, couldn’t act, couldn’t monitor, or simply couldn’t solve the problems.
Here are some of the questions we think need to be asked:
There is a lot riding on the outcomes of the Wood Commission. Let’s hope that at the first level there has been a very honest assessment of what the problems are that need to be solved.
Posted by EssentialMum
‘MORE than 150 children who died in NSW last year came from families that were known to the Department of Community Services. The figure, a quarter of all child deaths in the state, represents a 40 per cent increase on the previous year in the number of so-called "reviewable" deaths.’
‘Fix DOCs’ we hear people shriek.
But you can’t fix a problem at the macro level. So you can’t just ‘fix DOCs’.
To solve problems, you need to be very specific about the problems. You need to be honest and open about what causes them. You need to address them quite specifically. But you need to understand how fixing the problem in the middle will impact all the others surrounding it. It is essential that everyone who plays a role agrees on what the problems are and wants to solve them.
So if more children ‘at risk’ died in 2008 than in the previous year, why?
Let’s state the obvious - children were left in a home environment that was dangerous to their life or to their health. The system that is charged with making decisions about what is best for them didn’t act, couldn’t act, couldn’t monitor, or simply couldn’t solve the problems.
Here are some of the questions we think need to be asked:
- At what point does the child’s right to a safe, healthy, stable life become more important then staying with their birth parents? Are there government or agency policies that influence these decisions?
- What is the risk to the child and its development if the ‘recovery or rehabilitation’ of a birth parent is slow or troubled by setbacks? Will the child’s life and development be compromised in either the short or the long term by not moving them?
- Do workers feel they have the autonomy to make a call regarding the child’s circumstances? Are they equipped to make the call? Are they supported by the system in making that call? Is the system prepared to deal with calls that may be premature?
- What if the headline we were reading reported an increase in the number of children removed from their birth families? Would we be comfortable with that?
- Are the civil liberties of birth parents over-riding the best interests of the child?
- What resources are available to the birth parents to help them cope with life, family and future? How willing and capable are the birth parents of using those resources?
- Is a system in place that can monitor birth parents’ progress and keep watch on the health and safety of the child? Can the system do this frequently enough to adequately monitor the child? If not, what is the risk to the child?
There is a lot riding on the outcomes of the Wood Commission. Let’s hope that at the first level there has been a very honest assessment of what the problems are that need to be solved.
Posted by EssentialMum
Guarantees in foster care?
09/10/2008 23:51
An article in The Australian (Thursday Oct 2, 2008) ‘Potential carers put off fostering’ (Overington and Trup) reviewed some of the confidential submissions to the Wood Royal Commission. It is well written article.
The first paragraph states ‘Tens of thousands of affluent, educated and responsible couples are ready to take the nation’s abused and neglected children into their care, if only they could be guaranteed that the children would be allowed to stay’.
What an absolute tragedy.
There are tens of thousands of couples that might have missed out on what may be the most rewarding journey of their life? And, more importantly, there are thousands of children who might have found a life with wonderful parents?
Will better education and communication change the perspective of some of those potential carers? Maybe the ‘system’ needs to make a call earlier for some children and place them in a ‘permanent’ home as soon as possible?
We took the journey. These statistics hit home because the littlest statistic is very real to us.
The fact is, you don’t get many guarantees with foster care.
These children are not adopted – you don’t get to take them in and be left alone. You deal with birth families and workers, with the legal construct of fostering. The children themselves may often have issues.
But you can work towards some certainty, before you foster:
Is there a long-term order for the child? Would you be taking them on long-term? Does this mean until the age of 18 or of ‘maturity’?
What are the birth family circumstances? Is a birth parent working towards getting the children back in a realistic and meaningful way?
What’s the agency’s long term goal? Are they aiming for restitution or permanency planning for the child? What do they see your role as?
Is the placement long term and will the agency support that?
So to all those prospective foster parents - you want guarantees the child is with you to stay? Then get in there and fight for them. Take them in, care for them, love them, bond with them, become their parent. Then you won’t need guarantees, you’ll make them. You’ll face anyone who thinks moving this child might be an option with steely eyed determination. For you are their parent. And for the first time in their lives, these children have an adult to advocate for them. Not just mouth the words, but really do it. With love and care and something at stake.
You have to decide whether you are fostering for you, or for them?
Posted by EssentialMum
The first paragraph states ‘Tens of thousands of affluent, educated and responsible couples are ready to take the nation’s abused and neglected children into their care, if only they could be guaranteed that the children would be allowed to stay’.
What an absolute tragedy.
There are tens of thousands of couples that might have missed out on what may be the most rewarding journey of their life? And, more importantly, there are thousands of children who might have found a life with wonderful parents?
Will better education and communication change the perspective of some of those potential carers? Maybe the ‘system’ needs to make a call earlier for some children and place them in a ‘permanent’ home as soon as possible?
We took the journey. These statistics hit home because the littlest statistic is very real to us.
The fact is, you don’t get many guarantees with foster care.
These children are not adopted – you don’t get to take them in and be left alone. You deal with birth families and workers, with the legal construct of fostering. The children themselves may often have issues.
But you can work towards some certainty, before you foster:
Is there a long-term order for the child? Would you be taking them on long-term? Does this mean until the age of 18 or of ‘maturity’?
What are the birth family circumstances? Is a birth parent working towards getting the children back in a realistic and meaningful way?
What’s the agency’s long term goal? Are they aiming for restitution or permanency planning for the child? What do they see your role as?
Is the placement long term and will the agency support that?
So to all those prospective foster parents - you want guarantees the child is with you to stay? Then get in there and fight for them. Take them in, care for them, love them, bond with them, become their parent. Then you won’t need guarantees, you’ll make them. You’ll face anyone who thinks moving this child might be an option with steely eyed determination. For you are their parent. And for the first time in their lives, these children have an adult to advocate for them. Not just mouth the words, but really do it. With love and care and something at stake.
You have to decide whether you are fostering for you, or for them?
Posted by EssentialMum
Do agencies keep carer lists up to date?
29/09/2008 22:53
We had a phone call recently. A very pleasant young person identified herself as a new case worker with a particular private agency.
We were invited to a social event at the agency, despite the fact that it is a fair while since we’ve had any dealings with that agency.
When we mentioned this, the worker laughed and advised that she must have had an ‘old’ list.
We were surprised.
Does the agency maintain a ‘current’ list of carers? How often is that updated? Who is accountable for updating it? Are files in the agency marked ‘current’ and ‘past’? How do they manage privacy for ‘closed’ files that they no longer have any accountability for? Can any new worker access any closed file?
Oversights do happen. But we are not inclined to give this agency the benefit of the doubt. It is, sadly, representative of the lack of attention to detail from them.
Harsh words? Maybe. We have been known to take a service provider to task for poor service, failure to follow through, or sloppy work. Fine when we are battling over our mobile bill.
But we expect better. We are dealing with a person. How will a child in care feel, many years on, when they read the case conference notes and see the errors? These children are entitled to expect every adult who has been given a role in their life by ‘the system’ to take the utmost care – of them, of their information, of their feelings.
Poor form indeed.
Posted by EssentialMum.
We were invited to a social event at the agency, despite the fact that it is a fair while since we’ve had any dealings with that agency.
When we mentioned this, the worker laughed and advised that she must have had an ‘old’ list.
We were surprised.
Does the agency maintain a ‘current’ list of carers? How often is that updated? Who is accountable for updating it? Are files in the agency marked ‘current’ and ‘past’? How do they manage privacy for ‘closed’ files that they no longer have any accountability for? Can any new worker access any closed file?
Oversights do happen. But we are not inclined to give this agency the benefit of the doubt. It is, sadly, representative of the lack of attention to detail from them.
Harsh words? Maybe. We have been known to take a service provider to task for poor service, failure to follow through, or sloppy work. Fine when we are battling over our mobile bill.
But we expect better. We are dealing with a person. How will a child in care feel, many years on, when they read the case conference notes and see the errors? These children are entitled to expect every adult who has been given a role in their life by ‘the system’ to take the utmost care – of them, of their information, of their feelings.
Poor form indeed.
Posted by EssentialMum.
Questions to ask a prospective foster agency
24/09/2008 00:17
People often ask us for advice on which agency they should approach. Does it matter?
Well, yes, it does.
Agency and carer should be well matched, just like carer and child.
Over 40 years and a number of agencies, we’ve experienced:
Escalating conflict as the worker is stretched beyond their capability, experience or comfort zone. Carers discovering the non-negotiable policies of an agency many years into the placement. Hidden agendas. Workers creating a false expectation for birth parents about the placement, and the long term possibilities for the child. Workers compromising the relationship or interaction between carers and birth family members. Workers insisting on a designated ‘role’ in the foster child’s life without consideration of the carers’ wishes. Workers being completely unavailable. Lack of trust in the carer’s intentions or approach. Lack of negotiation between all parties in creating a case plan for the child.
Of course these are one sided, and many workers could give you a list of carer behaviours that defy belief. But our aim here is to facilitate successful placements for the children, and informed carers are key to that.
If we were to foster again, we'd ask some specific questions. These directly relate to the day-to-day part of the placement. They may sound negative, or too forthright. Like any relationship, everyone expects the best, but it’s the detail and the mismatched expectations that cause the problems.
Here is the list of questions we'd ask an agency:
Posted by EssentialMum
Well, yes, it does.
Agency and carer should be well matched, just like carer and child.
Over 40 years and a number of agencies, we’ve experienced:
Escalating conflict as the worker is stretched beyond their capability, experience or comfort zone. Carers discovering the non-negotiable policies of an agency many years into the placement. Hidden agendas. Workers creating a false expectation for birth parents about the placement, and the long term possibilities for the child. Workers compromising the relationship or interaction between carers and birth family members. Workers insisting on a designated ‘role’ in the foster child’s life without consideration of the carers’ wishes. Workers being completely unavailable. Lack of trust in the carer’s intentions or approach. Lack of negotiation between all parties in creating a case plan for the child.
Of course these are one sided, and many workers could give you a list of carer behaviours that defy belief. But our aim here is to facilitate successful placements for the children, and informed carers are key to that.
If we were to foster again, we'd ask some specific questions. These directly relate to the day-to-day part of the placement. They may sound negative, or too forthright. Like any relationship, everyone expects the best, but it’s the detail and the mismatched expectations that cause the problems.
Here is the list of questions we'd ask an agency:
- What is the agency’s policy in relation to birth family contact? Is the agency working towards restitution of foster child and birth family? Does the agency want to re-establish a relationship between child and birth parent? Or is the agency aiming to maintain contact between child and birth family?
- What is the agency’s policy in relation to the foster child’s relationship with their birth family? Who attends access? What are the policies in relation to what the child should call birth and foster parents? What locations are used for access (agency offices, play centres)? How flexible is this? Do the workers always attend access? At what point might the worker not attend access?
- What is the agency’s schedule for visits and follow up (phone, email) with carers? How often will these occur? What happens if the carers can’t accommodate the schedule? Will this change over time and what will cause it to change?
- Clearly describe the social worker’s role. What are the service levels carers are entitled to expect from all parties? [Service levels are a business concept where the standard of service and the approach are set out and guaranteed. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services has service levels. It makes interesting reading.]
- How often do agency workers change? How long is the foster child likely to have a relationship with one worker for? How will the transition to a new worker be handled?
- What do you see the carer’s role to be? How much input will the carer have in developing the case plan for the child?
- Who can carers talk to if they are unhappy with a worker’s approach, performance or policies? What is the process they follow and what is likely to occur? What are the options?
- Does the agency recognise that at some point the carer has the most up to date knowledge of the child? What weight is the agency prepared to give that?
- At what age does the agency recognise the child’s ability to state what they want?
- What is the agency’s policy in relation to adoption by the foster family? Will it consider it on its merits or is the agency opposed to it in principal? What limitations does the agency place on it (child’s age, parents’ situation)?
Posted by EssentialMum
Don't look now: your relationship is not working
18/09/2008 11:43
We had a great conversation recently with our social worker. It was around upcoming activities, holiday birth family contact and arrangements. What made it so great?
We exchanged views with the worker on a couple of issues. We listened to them, they listened to us, and we agreed on an approach that we were both happy with. Importantly, we both agreed that the child’s requirements were the most important ones. With such a clear agreement about the priority, coming to a solution was easy.
Sounds simple really. But it isn’t always.
We’ve experienced worker/carer meltdown. After several harmonious years, we were assigned a new worker who wanted to change the world, change our lives, and start ‘all over again’. We put our views to the the worker. They were never given a hearing. We outlined what part of the proposed changes we couldn't accommodate. We were told we simply had to. Suddenly issues that never rose before become deal-breakers. The agency and its workers had no room for a differing point of view.
So what are your options? We can’t advise specifically, but here’s what we’ve seen.
Often a carer will try to put up with it because they are concerned that the child in care might become caught in the middle. Or they are concerned that any rising tension in dealing with a worker may flow over to the child. Often a carer, faced daily with numerous challenges in caring for the child, will simply roll with it. Too often a carer has no point of reference (or no time to chase a point of reference) to say ‘Is this really acceptable?’
The risk of going with it is that ‘bad situations’ don’t hold steady. They usually become worse. New issues give rise to new levels of conflict and irritation that build.
You need to work out where the relationship will end up.
Can you roll with it and manage around it? Can you stay calm and detached after contact with the worker? Can you manage the worker’s approach (or the agency’s policies) and still be happy with the outcome for your foster child?
If the answer to any of those is no, we’d suggest you act. Explain clearly to the worker your position. Call a meeting with their manager to discuss your perspective. Give it a go and work through suggested actions to resolve it. But if it still doesn’t work, don’t be afraid to take it higher.
Posted by EssentialMum
We exchanged views with the worker on a couple of issues. We listened to them, they listened to us, and we agreed on an approach that we were both happy with. Importantly, we both agreed that the child’s requirements were the most important ones. With such a clear agreement about the priority, coming to a solution was easy.
Sounds simple really. But it isn’t always.
We’ve experienced worker/carer meltdown. After several harmonious years, we were assigned a new worker who wanted to change the world, change our lives, and start ‘all over again’. We put our views to the the worker. They were never given a hearing. We outlined what part of the proposed changes we couldn't accommodate. We were told we simply had to. Suddenly issues that never rose before become deal-breakers. The agency and its workers had no room for a differing point of view.
So what are your options? We can’t advise specifically, but here’s what we’ve seen.
Often a carer will try to put up with it because they are concerned that the child in care might become caught in the middle. Or they are concerned that any rising tension in dealing with a worker may flow over to the child. Often a carer, faced daily with numerous challenges in caring for the child, will simply roll with it. Too often a carer has no point of reference (or no time to chase a point of reference) to say ‘Is this really acceptable?’
The risk of going with it is that ‘bad situations’ don’t hold steady. They usually become worse. New issues give rise to new levels of conflict and irritation that build.
You need to work out where the relationship will end up.
Can you roll with it and manage around it? Can you stay calm and detached after contact with the worker? Can you manage the worker’s approach (or the agency’s policies) and still be happy with the outcome for your foster child?
If the answer to any of those is no, we’d suggest you act. Explain clearly to the worker your position. Call a meeting with their manager to discuss your perspective. Give it a go and work through suggested actions to resolve it. But if it still doesn’t work, don’t be afraid to take it higher.
Posted by EssentialMum
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
When do we connect the dots .................?
25/07/2008 22:51
EssentialMum offloaded a car last year. She filled out her paperwork for the RTA transferring registration.
So - stay with me here - how interesting to receive an E-Toll statement this week, containing recent toll charges for the offloaded vehicle. Not high. Just wrong.
The E-Toll statement has the RTA logo on the top left corner, as well as the Roads and Traffic Authority business name and ABN (Australian Business Number). The links to the web for further information take the user to the RTA site. One could assume they were part of the RTA in fact. Couldn’t one?
EssentialMum rang the Operations Centre, and politely enquired as to why charges were still coming through for the offloaded car. The very polite and helpful staffer told us that the charges occurred when a tag didn’t work – so they would confirm the car registration and manually charge whichever E-Toll account had that car rego listed on it.
So one part of the RTA that processes a transfer in registration of a vehicle has no way of informing another part of the RTA of the change in ownership. In this age of connectivity, you’ve got to be kidding!
It’s a good day when we learn something – even if it is how to manage our E-Toll account. But it struck a chord with us.
This is what child welfare services struggle with.
No one joins the dots, and in those circumstances it is often a child’s life at risk, not a few dollars on a toll charge. In child welfare it is not just within an organisation, but across all parties charged with some responsibility for children’s welfare and safety.
How hard could it be to create a networked database, accessible by all required parties, to track case plans, incidents, issues and care plans for children at risk? Of course there are privacy issues. Corporations have been managing customer privacy issues for years.
Can you imagine the information flow if a case worker, a doctor, a teacher, a police officer, a community health worker, a foster parent, even a birth parent could communicate online? About a child. One can only dream.
Posted by EssentialMum
So - stay with me here - how interesting to receive an E-Toll statement this week, containing recent toll charges for the offloaded vehicle. Not high. Just wrong.
The E-Toll statement has the RTA logo on the top left corner, as well as the Roads and Traffic Authority business name and ABN (Australian Business Number). The links to the web for further information take the user to the RTA site. One could assume they were part of the RTA in fact. Couldn’t one?
EssentialMum rang the Operations Centre, and politely enquired as to why charges were still coming through for the offloaded car. The very polite and helpful staffer told us that the charges occurred when a tag didn’t work – so they would confirm the car registration and manually charge whichever E-Toll account had that car rego listed on it.
So one part of the RTA that processes a transfer in registration of a vehicle has no way of informing another part of the RTA of the change in ownership. In this age of connectivity, you’ve got to be kidding!
It’s a good day when we learn something – even if it is how to manage our E-Toll account. But it struck a chord with us.
This is what child welfare services struggle with.
No one joins the dots, and in those circumstances it is often a child’s life at risk, not a few dollars on a toll charge. In child welfare it is not just within an organisation, but across all parties charged with some responsibility for children’s welfare and safety.
How hard could it be to create a networked database, accessible by all required parties, to track case plans, incidents, issues and care plans for children at risk? Of course there are privacy issues. Corporations have been managing customer privacy issues for years.
Can you imagine the information flow if a case worker, a doctor, a teacher, a police officer, a community health worker, a foster parent, even a birth parent could communicate online? About a child. One can only dream.
Posted by EssentialMum
Children don’t go into limbo while the adults sort themselves out
07/07/2008 01:07
Kate de Brito’s blog at news.com.au had an interesting topic. This week’s post was ‘Should I report my sister to child services?’ (If you click through don't be surprised to find some fairly blunt posts and comments on all manner of subjects).
The person who submitted the question – which was whether she should notify the authorities about her sister’s home situation - outlined what is essentially a scenario of children at risk, and asked for advice. There was plenty.
Many contributors were simply stunned. Given what is reported on the news most weeks that's surprising, but there you go. Many thought a good home clean-up/talking to/scare for mother was needed. Most of those missed the complexity of the situation and mother’s state of mental health and, we think, the reality that we are dealing with people here. And there were some well-reasoned and thoughtful responses.
The piece the readers had the least information on was what the family had done or was doing. There were a number of comments about what the family should do in such circumstances. That’s not an easy one to answer.
But surprise - the bogeyman was the authorities. While Kate recommended an initial approach to find out options, and a contributor pointed out that there is quite a process that the authorities follow before any decisions are made, many contributors put notifying the authorities as a last resort.
We can understand why many people assume the worst – of the system and the authorities. We can see why people feel that once they launch this juggernaut they will have no input and no control. A systematic approach, by its very nature, often works to exclude those who don’t understand it, or don’t have the skills the system requires to deal with it.
We have argued with social workers and stood our ground when we have a different view of what’s proposed for a child in care. Some workers made it clear that they thought we were being uncooperative because we dared to disagree with them. We believe we were doing our job and treating our child like the individual they are. It takes courage and smarts and tenacity to hold the line.
As a carer, you can feel torn by all these viewpoints. We think there is a guiding principle that helps. It’s certainly helped us work out what really matters.
Put the child first
Usually stated by all parties but not always done. We’ve heard a complacent ‘we advocate for the child’ from a worker. What the worker had conveniently forgotten was that she advocated for the child within the well prescribed, bog standard framework of the agency. And the agency had its own agenda. Funnily enough, some of that bog standard framework was in conflict with DOCS' approach.
So what’s the point?
There’s a point where the child’s needs outweigh those of the birth parent. Many of the posts on Kate de Brito’s blog advocated assistance for the mother. Absolutely. But make sure the children are OK while that process is going on.
Because children don’t go into limbo while the adults sort themselves out.
Posted by EssentialMum
The person who submitted the question – which was whether she should notify the authorities about her sister’s home situation - outlined what is essentially a scenario of children at risk, and asked for advice. There was plenty.
Many contributors were simply stunned. Given what is reported on the news most weeks that's surprising, but there you go. Many thought a good home clean-up/talking to/scare for mother was needed. Most of those missed the complexity of the situation and mother’s state of mental health and, we think, the reality that we are dealing with people here. And there were some well-reasoned and thoughtful responses.
The piece the readers had the least information on was what the family had done or was doing. There were a number of comments about what the family should do in such circumstances. That’s not an easy one to answer.
But surprise - the bogeyman was the authorities. While Kate recommended an initial approach to find out options, and a contributor pointed out that there is quite a process that the authorities follow before any decisions are made, many contributors put notifying the authorities as a last resort.
We can understand why many people assume the worst – of the system and the authorities. We can see why people feel that once they launch this juggernaut they will have no input and no control. A systematic approach, by its very nature, often works to exclude those who don’t understand it, or don’t have the skills the system requires to deal with it.
We have argued with social workers and stood our ground when we have a different view of what’s proposed for a child in care. Some workers made it clear that they thought we were being uncooperative because we dared to disagree with them. We believe we were doing our job and treating our child like the individual they are. It takes courage and smarts and tenacity to hold the line.
As a carer, you can feel torn by all these viewpoints. We think there is a guiding principle that helps. It’s certainly helped us work out what really matters.
Put the child first
Usually stated by all parties but not always done. We’ve heard a complacent ‘we advocate for the child’ from a worker. What the worker had conveniently forgotten was that she advocated for the child within the well prescribed, bog standard framework of the agency. And the agency had its own agenda. Funnily enough, some of that bog standard framework was in conflict with DOCS' approach.
So what’s the point?
There’s a point where the child’s needs outweigh those of the birth parent. Many of the posts on Kate de Brito’s blog advocated assistance for the mother. Absolutely. But make sure the children are OK while that process is going on.
Because children don’t go into limbo while the adults sort themselves out.
Posted by EssentialMum
We have a new dog and we don’t know anything about her
01/07/2008 20:37
Dogs don't live as long as we do. Some deserve to live longer than they do, given how loving, and loyal, and friendly, and funny they are. If you are going to be a dog owner for life then you have to learn say farewell to old friends and welcome new ones.
After losing a terrific dog last year we have adopted a new dog. She's two - while we love puppies there are always some lovely older dogs looking for a home. Our male dog came to us at 14 months, bonded beautifully and has been a loving pal for 8 years now.
Our new pup came via a friend. And when she arrived, we realised:
So we’ve developed our understanding of this little dog over the last months. Happy Camper has been delighted to find a real little playmate. Fine for a dog.
So how 'disappointing' (you can insert your own adjective here depending on your viewpoint) to tell you that the experience was pretty much the same with Happy Camper. Despite all the networks and information amassed on these children and their families and their circumstances, we knew next to nothing when she came. We had three visits with the previous carers as part of the handover and asked as many questions as we could in the allotted time, but how do you cover a child's life in a couple of hours?
Here’s how your placement might often commence:
You don't waste time, at that point, making an issue of it.
You start from where you are. You build the child’s life again from the ground up, and as they get older you increase the information about their family and her past.
But it would be good if all those who work with us, care for us and help us, remember that often we have to dive in, terrain unknown, and sort it out as we go along. That takes guts, and skill, and tenacity, and strength.
More information is a blessing. Thanks.
Posted by EssentialMum
After losing a terrific dog last year we have adopted a new dog. She's two - while we love puppies there are always some lovely older dogs looking for a home. Our male dog came to us at 14 months, bonded beautifully and has been a loving pal for 8 years now.
Our new pup came via a friend. And when she arrived, we realised:
- We had no detail about where she lived before.
- We had no information about her previous family, other than that she’d been used to children.
- We had no detail about her day-to-day life, her habits, and her routines.
- We didn’t know what food she liked, what treats were special.
- We had no special toy for her.
- We had no understanding of her experiences – what she was used to, what she handled well, what she was unsettled by.
So we’ve developed our understanding of this little dog over the last months. Happy Camper has been delighted to find a real little playmate. Fine for a dog.
You know where we are going with this one ... don't you?
So how 'disappointing' (you can insert your own adjective here depending on your viewpoint) to tell you that the experience was pretty much the same with Happy Camper. Despite all the networks and information amassed on these children and their families and their circumstances, we knew next to nothing when she came. We had three visits with the previous carers as part of the handover and asked as many questions as we could in the allotted time, but how do you cover a child's life in a couple of hours?
Here’s how your placement might often commence:
- You have the barest detail on the child’s day to day routine.
- You have very few photos of the child.
- You have no ‘when you were small’ stories.
- You have no toys. Often lots of McDonalds giveaways but not one special comfort toy.
- Clothing is poor or non-existent. We’ve seen short term carers view clothes as a communal resource - kept for the next child they care for.
You don't waste time, at that point, making an issue of it.
You start from where you are. You build the child’s life again from the ground up, and as they get older you increase the information about their family and her past.
But it would be good if all those who work with us, care for us and help us, remember that often we have to dive in, terrain unknown, and sort it out as we go along. That takes guts, and skill, and tenacity, and strength.
More information is a blessing. Thanks.
Posted by EssentialMum
Getting access right
16/06/2008 22:07
With school holidays just around the corner, our thoughts and plans, now that Happy Camper is at school, turn to access.
It can be more difficult when children in care are tiny. If their behaviour after a visit shows how deep the impact of the visit was for them, it is even tougher when you can’t discuss it with them.
Access covers so many different circumstances that 'what works' will be vastly different for us all. So here are some things we’ve learned:
Align the venue or activity with your foster child's natural inclination. If they are physical, get outdoors. It sounds really obvious, but it's amazing how you can end up at a venue that suits no one. We’ve spent visits at a council library. Birth family members were completely at sea with the concept of interacting with a child through reading, our active child was constrained by the environment (don't run, be quiet).
Now we meet at a park, or a pool, with lots of space and activities that allow a child to let off steam. If it’s a more natural environment for the child then birth family will see the real child - tears when something doesn't go right, physical courage that sees them climb to the top of the monkey bars. Birth families need to know the real child, and you can help them here.
We've seen an improvement in how our small one deals with access as a result and the whole effect is much more natural.
So have a say. Offer your view to the social workers about access. You know the child best.
Posted by EssentialMum
Happy Camper enjoys seeing birth family members. Now Happy Camper is much more articulate it is easier to discuss how she feels about the visits and what she likes.
It can be more difficult when children in care are tiny. If their behaviour after a visit shows how deep the impact of the visit was for them, it is even tougher when you can’t discuss it with them.
Access covers so many different circumstances that 'what works' will be vastly different for us all. So here are some things we’ve learned:
Align the venue or activity with your foster child's natural inclination. If they are physical, get outdoors. It sounds really obvious, but it's amazing how you can end up at a venue that suits no one. We’ve spent visits at a council library. Birth family members were completely at sea with the concept of interacting with a child through reading, our active child was constrained by the environment (don't run, be quiet).
Now we meet at a park, or a pool, with lots of space and activities that allow a child to let off steam. If it’s a more natural environment for the child then birth family will see the real child - tears when something doesn't go right, physical courage that sees them climb to the top of the monkey bars. Birth families need to know the real child, and you can help them here.
We've seen an improvement in how our small one deals with access as a result and the whole effect is much more natural.
So have a say. Offer your view to the social workers about access. You know the child best.
Posted by EssentialMum
Find the humour
11/06/2008 00:11
Happy Camper has no constraints in telling anyone anything. Anything. So we’ve learned to take that into account. It means we are mindful of the level of detail we provide her in relation to some matters.
The current topic is age, and we’ve had a bit of fun with this one. Happy Camper knows exactly how old she is, and tells everyone. For a long time EssentialMum has fobbed her off in response to any age queries with the answer that EssentialMum is 22.
Well, it had to happen. Here’s how the conversation went one afternoon after school:
Happy Camper: Mum, how old are you?
EssentialMum: Old.
Happy Camper: I know, but how old?
EssentialMum: 22.
Happy Camper: My teacher thinks you might be a bit older than that.
EssentialMum: Does she now?
Happy Camper, (thoughtfully): Mmmn. And she knows everything.
EssentialMum: Look, it’s raining. Isn’t that interesting…..
Afterwards, we had a wonderful laugh. And later still, we shared that laughter with her teacher.
So, a couple of reminders worth noting for us:
Find the humour.
You’ll need it, so make sure you take time to treasure the funny things. Make a note of them - write them down. They become a great part of life story work – we have a file called ‘Laughter’ which contains all the funny comments and incidents that have given us a laugh along the way. They also provide us with some reminders for the ‘when you were little’ conversations that children love. And they are sometimes like a small breath of fresh sustaining air when times are tough.
Build the child’s story according to the child’s age.
A wise worker told us that the explanation to a child in care of their birth and childhood was one that would develop and deepen over time – as they grow the level of detail and explanation would increase. We’ve found that works. Children are often, surprisingly, happy with the basics.
So we bow to the inevitable and know that very soon, Happy Camper will learn exactly how old EssentialMum is.
Posted by EssentialMum
The current topic is age, and we’ve had a bit of fun with this one. Happy Camper knows exactly how old she is, and tells everyone. For a long time EssentialMum has fobbed her off in response to any age queries with the answer that EssentialMum is 22.
Well, it had to happen. Here’s how the conversation went one afternoon after school:
Happy Camper: Mum, how old are you?
EssentialMum: Old.
Happy Camper: I know, but how old?
EssentialMum: 22.
Happy Camper: My teacher thinks you might be a bit older than that.
EssentialMum: Does she now?
Happy Camper, (thoughtfully): Mmmn. And she knows everything.
EssentialMum: Look, it’s raining. Isn’t that interesting…..
Afterwards, we had a wonderful laugh. And later still, we shared that laughter with her teacher.
So, a couple of reminders worth noting for us:
Find the humour.
You’ll need it, so make sure you take time to treasure the funny things. Make a note of them - write them down. They become a great part of life story work – we have a file called ‘Laughter’ which contains all the funny comments and incidents that have given us a laugh along the way. They also provide us with some reminders for the ‘when you were little’ conversations that children love. And they are sometimes like a small breath of fresh sustaining air when times are tough.
Build the child’s story according to the child’s age.
A wise worker told us that the explanation to a child in care of their birth and childhood was one that would develop and deepen over time – as they grow the level of detail and explanation would increase. We’ve found that works. Children are often, surprisingly, happy with the basics.
So we bow to the inevitable and know that very soon, Happy Camper will learn exactly how old EssentialMum is.
Posted by EssentialMum
Why become a foster carer?
07/06/2008 01:12
Everyone has different reasons for becoming a carer. Dorothy is, with encouragement from her support network, baring her soul on this journey. It’s a privilege to read her very honest thoughts. As there are so many different types of care, we can’t even begin to catalogue them.
We wanted to make a difference at the most personal level. Donating to charities is important; the well-structured ones do wonderful work. But there had to be something more personal, which took more of our time, our skill and our commitment.
We were respite carers for some time. Working full time, it seemed sensible to provide weekend care for a little one and help the existing parent-child relationship along. We had some good times, and both mother and babe seemed to benefit from the contact.
But as we dropped the little babe back each time, the thought that grew was how we could make a difference that stuck? Sustenance was good – in this instance it helped a mum maintain her relationship with her babies. We wanted to do more. We wanted to give more.
It seemed that long term, full time care was the answer.
We are people who DO. We talk lots and at length but we also really like to DO.
To us the ultimate contribution was changing a child’s life. We could help one little person work his or her way through the circumstances of their birth and family, to be a happy, healthy, confident – insert all adjectives here – member of the world. We might be able to set this child on a path of self-discovery and achievement, secure in the knowledge that they are loved and treasured. You can tell we’re optimists too, can’t you?
EssentialMum has a long family history of experience in foster care, so the concept of fostering was known and understood. All that was good about it and frankly, all that was bad too. For child and family. So all the starry eyed aspirations had a firm grounding in reality. That’s why we thought of fostering rather than adoption. We knew it was valuable.
It’s been difficult, and challenging, and simply wonderful. Happy Camper is now such a part of our lives that we don’t think of her in any other terms than permanent presence. We’re committed to this relationship. And Happy Camper knows it.
Posted by EssentialMum
We wanted to make a difference at the most personal level. Donating to charities is important; the well-structured ones do wonderful work. But there had to be something more personal, which took more of our time, our skill and our commitment.
We were respite carers for some time. Working full time, it seemed sensible to provide weekend care for a little one and help the existing parent-child relationship along. We had some good times, and both mother and babe seemed to benefit from the contact.
But as we dropped the little babe back each time, the thought that grew was how we could make a difference that stuck? Sustenance was good – in this instance it helped a mum maintain her relationship with her babies. We wanted to do more. We wanted to give more.
It seemed that long term, full time care was the answer.
We are people who DO. We talk lots and at length but we also really like to DO.
To us the ultimate contribution was changing a child’s life. We could help one little person work his or her way through the circumstances of their birth and family, to be a happy, healthy, confident – insert all adjectives here – member of the world. We might be able to set this child on a path of self-discovery and achievement, secure in the knowledge that they are loved and treasured. You can tell we’re optimists too, can’t you?
EssentialMum has a long family history of experience in foster care, so the concept of fostering was known and understood. All that was good about it and frankly, all that was bad too. For child and family. So all the starry eyed aspirations had a firm grounding in reality. That’s why we thought of fostering rather than adoption. We knew it was valuable.
It’s been difficult, and challenging, and simply wonderful. Happy Camper is now such a part of our lives that we don’t think of her in any other terms than permanent presence. We’re committed to this relationship. And Happy Camper knows it.
Posted by EssentialMum
'This is what you signed up for'
02/06/2008 22:10
We heard those words from a private agency social worker, justifying why a number of well-established routines needed to change, two years into the placement.
Nothing else had changed except the worker. Happy Camper had made great progress and settled in well. She still showed a reaction to access visits with birth family, and so every effort was made to normalize those visits for her. That meant EssentialMum came too, a safety blanket for a small child.
What was proposed was a major change:
We explained politely that we didn’t see why there was a need for such a change to the routine, when the existing one served Happy Camper well.
And those words came back to us with quite a deal of frustration from the worker.
‘This is what you signed up for.’
So what did we sign up for? It was obvious that in this circumstance the social worker’s view of it and ours were vastly different.
Did we sign up to care for this child as if she were our own? Yes.
Did we sign up to let social workers dictate, without discussion, how things should be done for this child? No.
In our family, we acknowledge the professional expertise of many people we deal with (we actually have quite a bit of professional expertise ourselves so we respect it in others). But we don't blindly accept it. Bringing our view of what's right and appropriate for this child (living with her means we actually know her REALLY WELL now) is called responsibility.
That's what we signed up for.
This same agency cheerfully gave us a copy of Mary Ann Goodearle's book Everything but the Kids - A Guide to Foster Parenting (for full publishing details see the Resources Tab). One chapter specifically talks about foster parents demanding a seat at the table and taking responsibility for decisions regarding the child, not merely updating a social worker on how the child is reacting and expecting the social worker to make the decision.
Our experience is that, like corporates and firms and government departments, some agencies and workers may talk the talk. But they will find foster parents confronting when they offer an opinion and are prepared to suggest a course of action. You may hear the words 'collaboration' and 'value your opinion'. If you choose to speak up, expressing your opinion may create tension. How you work through that, and whether in fact it can be resolved, is another issue.
Posted by EssentialMum
Nothing else had changed except the worker. Happy Camper had made great progress and settled in well. She still showed a reaction to access visits with birth family, and so every effort was made to normalize those visits for her. That meant EssentialMum came too, a safety blanket for a small child.
What was proposed was a major change:
- A new schedule for far more frequent social worker visits, on a day that suited the social worker but not the foster family.
- A new approach for visits between Happy Camper and her birth family that excluded EssentialMum.
- A more 'significant' role for social worker in Happy Camper's life.
We explained politely that we didn’t see why there was a need for such a change to the routine, when the existing one served Happy Camper well.
And those words came back to us with quite a deal of frustration from the worker.
‘This is what you signed up for.’
So what did we sign up for? It was obvious that in this circumstance the social worker’s view of it and ours were vastly different.
Did we sign up to care for this child as if she were our own? Yes.
Did we sign up to let social workers dictate, without discussion, how things should be done for this child? No.
In our family, we acknowledge the professional expertise of many people we deal with (we actually have quite a bit of professional expertise ourselves so we respect it in others). But we don't blindly accept it. Bringing our view of what's right and appropriate for this child (living with her means we actually know her REALLY WELL now) is called responsibility.
That's what we signed up for.
This same agency cheerfully gave us a copy of Mary Ann Goodearle's book Everything but the Kids - A Guide to Foster Parenting (for full publishing details see the Resources Tab). One chapter specifically talks about foster parents demanding a seat at the table and taking responsibility for decisions regarding the child, not merely updating a social worker on how the child is reacting and expecting the social worker to make the decision.
Our experience is that, like corporates and firms and government departments, some agencies and workers may talk the talk. But they will find foster parents confronting when they offer an opinion and are prepared to suggest a course of action. You may hear the words 'collaboration' and 'value your opinion'. If you choose to speak up, expressing your opinion may create tension. How you work through that, and whether in fact it can be resolved, is another issue.
Posted by EssentialMum
Columnist bites back
27/05/2008 23:05
A Sunday paper columnist recently took on all the city dog owners and their 'surrogate children' (her description). She copped a backlash.
We're dog people, and so our dogs preceded Happy Camper's arrival. It helped that when she came to live with us she was not scared of furry four legged creatures, and we are pleased that Happy Camper's life now encompasses animals. The dogs have played quite a role in the process of her settling into the family, and they continue to help Happy Camper - to laugh, to love, to play, and to care.
Here’s why we have two of the hounds:
For the articles that set it all off, click here.
Posted by EssentialMum
We're dog people, and so our dogs preceded Happy Camper's arrival. It helped that when she came to live with us she was not scared of furry four legged creatures, and we are pleased that Happy Camper's life now encompasses animals. The dogs have played quite a role in the process of her settling into the family, and they continue to help Happy Camper - to laugh, to love, to play, and to care.
Here’s why we have two of the hounds:
- They are trainable. Ours don’t bite, chase children, bark endlessly, or poop or pee where they are not meant to. They also know who is the boss (and that would be EssentialMum).
- They are great companions for Happy Camper. She has learned how to respect another creature, how to be gentle, how to be superior and wield that superiority gently, how to nurture and care for another living creature, how to take responsibility.
- One huge gentle beastie was Happy Camper’s new best friend when she came to live with us. The dog was patient, gentle, loving and fascinated with Happy Camper. She took almost any play Happy Camper dished out (under our supervision), and showed Happy Camper what unconditional love looks like. We’ve done it too of course but the dog had it nailed.
- Happy Camper enjoys the wonderful feeling of a dog’s coat, a dog’s silky ears between her fingers. She delights in a doggy play bow and a game, tug of war with a toy, and a cuddle with a furry beast. She’s quick to blame a four legged fiend when any unpleasant smell surfaces.
- We have conversations about how puppies come to live in other homes, away from their mums. For us any analogy for Happy Camper that mirrors her circumstances and opens up the conversation in a casual way is really useful. Happy Camper is also starting to learn that dogs don't live as long as we do.
- Our dogs get us out in the fresh air. We walk, we ride our scooter, around the suburb, to the local park, to visit grandparents. We watch the dogs sniff every tree, we take them to off leash areas and watch them play, and we run and kick a ball and fall over in a heap with them. We don't fight for space - we all share it.
For the articles that set it all off, click here.
Posted by EssentialMum
Welcome to fostercarer.com.au
07/01/2008 16:19
Welcome to fostercarer.com.au. For more information about us and why this site exists, please go to the About Us page. But we'll provide a short version here.....
We've been involved in foster care, as a family, for 40 years. Vastly different circumstances, different outcomes, and different experiences. But we've learned a great deal.
Agencies are called on to place children in a caring and safe environment where their family is unable to provide for them, and act as a conduit between government, the children and their families and foster carers. Agencies carry a lot of responsibility and are given a lot of authority. They can either be outstanding in their understanding and support, or add to the foster carer’s burden. We’ve experienced both ends of the scale. We believe that understanding carers’ experience and sharing that constructively with all parties - to enhance the quality of those interactions - can be of benefit to all concerned.
So how will this work? We want to share and so will do that through this site. There is opportunity for you to share as well, either through comments or feedback. We'd love to hear from you.
Posted by EssentialMum
We've been involved in foster care, as a family, for 40 years. Vastly different circumstances, different outcomes, and different experiences. But we've learned a great deal.
We believe there is a useful conversation to be had between carers and carers, and carers and agencies, independently of the children in your care. Over time those conversations may well extend to all aspects of being a foster carer. Many of those conversations happen in person. We think there is an opportunity in this networked world to carry out some of them online.
Agencies are called on to place children in a caring and safe environment where their family is unable to provide for them, and act as a conduit between government, the children and their families and foster carers. Agencies carry a lot of responsibility and are given a lot of authority. They can either be outstanding in their understanding and support, or add to the foster carer’s burden. We’ve experienced both ends of the scale. We believe that understanding carers’ experience and sharing that constructively with all parties - to enhance the quality of those interactions - can be of benefit to all concerned.
So how will this work? We want to share and so will do that through this site. There is opportunity for you to share as well, either through comments or feedback. We'd love to hear from you.
Posted by EssentialMum
Conversations
07/01/2008 16:16
What kind of conversations might we have?
Here are some questions that have come up along our journey. Questions we wanted answers to from other carers or some independent experts.
• What are the options for access and who can be there to support me?
• How flexible can I expect the system to be?
• Who determines the routine? Should my social worker set the rules or is it by mutual agreement?
• What do I do if I don’t agree with the way things are going? Do I have a right of recourse or reply?
• How do I handle childcare?
• How do I sort out financial support?
• What happens if I can’t attend the agency provided support meetings?
• What happens when the best interests of my foster child seem at odds with those of the birth family or vice versa?
• How do you juggle the needs of DoCS and your social worker, while holding down a full time job?
• I feel administration weary, is that normal?
• Of course my social worker needs to check how things are going, but what is a normal level of interaction and oversight?
• Can my broader family and support network help out where needed and who do I need to inform?
• My foster child is starting school, how do I help them communicate their unique family relationships?
• Who needs to know about our foster care arrangements - the school, the dentist, my neighbour?
• What are the arrangements for taking holidays?
• How do I find out about my foster child’s history? Is there medical or other important information that I need to know and how do I get access to that?
• What’s the best approach when my foster child asks questions about their past?
• What records of my foster child’s time with me do I need to keep?
• What are the legal rules and guidelines that I need to know about?
• What are the changes that have impacted the foster care area, such as the amendments to the Adoption Act? What do they mean for my foster child?
• Where do I go for more information?
We hope that as the site - and community – matures, carers will use it to ask questions and seek feedback from others. Grand plan hey?
Posted by EssentialMum
Here are some questions that have come up along our journey. Questions we wanted answers to from other carers or some independent experts.
• What are the options for access and who can be there to support me?
• How flexible can I expect the system to be?
• Who determines the routine? Should my social worker set the rules or is it by mutual agreement?
• What do I do if I don’t agree with the way things are going? Do I have a right of recourse or reply?
• How do I handle childcare?
• How do I sort out financial support?
• What happens if I can’t attend the agency provided support meetings?
• What happens when the best interests of my foster child seem at odds with those of the birth family or vice versa?
• How do you juggle the needs of DoCS and your social worker, while holding down a full time job?
• I feel administration weary, is that normal?
• Of course my social worker needs to check how things are going, but what is a normal level of interaction and oversight?
• Can my broader family and support network help out where needed and who do I need to inform?
• My foster child is starting school, how do I help them communicate their unique family relationships?
• Who needs to know about our foster care arrangements - the school, the dentist, my neighbour?
• What are the arrangements for taking holidays?
• How do I find out about my foster child’s history? Is there medical or other important information that I need to know and how do I get access to that?
• What’s the best approach when my foster child asks questions about their past?
• What records of my foster child’s time with me do I need to keep?
• What are the legal rules and guidelines that I need to know about?
• What are the changes that have impacted the foster care area, such as the amendments to the Adoption Act? What do they mean for my foster child?
• Where do I go for more information?
We hope that as the site - and community – matures, carers will use it to ask questions and seek feedback from others. Grand plan hey?
Posted by EssentialMum