life skills
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.
|
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?
Developmental issues for young children in foster care
10/08/2009 22:08
If you follow us on Twitter you will have seen us highlight this article from the American Academy of Pediatrics a week or so ago. It’s called Developmental Issues for Young Children in Foster Care, and while it was published in November 2000, it is as relevant today as it was then.
We’d recommend you read it. Really. If you are a carer, or about to become a carer, read it.
It’s one of the most complete analyses of some of the early development issues faced by children in care in their early years. It’s an academic article, so you’ll find the language, well, academic. Don’t be put off. There are so many relevant points in it we were nodding at nearly every paragraph.
We found much of our foster care training focused on the high level issues you and your foster child will face. It wasn’t until we were in charge of a small person who had so much to make up, that we realised we needed a lot more information on how to accelerate learning and development, if that was indeed possible, and how to deal with the real day to day issues around attachment.
We think this article is so useful that over the next few posts we’re going to highlight some of the key aspects of it. Now we are not child psychologists. But we’ve faced so many of these issues with the Camper, that it’s not academic to us anymore.
Early brain and child development
Let’s paraphrase the article: brain growth and development are most active in the early years of life – that’s when personality traits, learning processes, and coping with stress and emotions are established and then become permanent for children.
For children who have little stimulation, or who deal with child abuse or family violence, this development may either stall or be impaired.
What is needed to let children develop their cognitive (perception, memory, judgment and reasoning), language and socialisation skills is stimulation and nurturing. So as a carer, you might find you need to do more than just attend to the physical needs of this child. While the system has hopefully prevented it happening further, you need to repair.
You may need to take on some serious activity and stimulation. We did. When faced with a child failing to thrive we planned each day to cover many experiences. Among other things we sang, played, ran, hopped, jumped, swam, did kindy gym, talked endlessly and explained everything, played with words, mimicked one another, played with water and sand, played upside down, cuddled animals - both real and soft, chose and cherished special comfort toys, and read stories every single day. There were lots of social experiences too, visits to parks and playgrounds, shopping centres and coffee shops, family and friends’ homes. And there were lots of cuddles, and giggles, and routine.
You need to make sure you talk to all the resources at your disposal – workers, paediatricians, health services and others – to work out what may be needed for your foster child, and in fact what is possible.
But we can tell you we are in awe of what a child is able to achieve. And the more you can invest in them, the better chance they’ll have.
We’d recommend you read it. Really. If you are a carer, or about to become a carer, read it.
It’s one of the most complete analyses of some of the early development issues faced by children in care in their early years. It’s an academic article, so you’ll find the language, well, academic. Don’t be put off. There are so many relevant points in it we were nodding at nearly every paragraph.
We found much of our foster care training focused on the high level issues you and your foster child will face. It wasn’t until we were in charge of a small person who had so much to make up, that we realised we needed a lot more information on how to accelerate learning and development, if that was indeed possible, and how to deal with the real day to day issues around attachment.
We think this article is so useful that over the next few posts we’re going to highlight some of the key aspects of it. Now we are not child psychologists. But we’ve faced so many of these issues with the Camper, that it’s not academic to us anymore.
Early brain and child development
Let’s paraphrase the article: brain growth and development are most active in the early years of life – that’s when personality traits, learning processes, and coping with stress and emotions are established and then become permanent for children.
For children who have little stimulation, or who deal with child abuse or family violence, this development may either stall or be impaired.
What is needed to let children develop their cognitive (perception, memory, judgment and reasoning), language and socialisation skills is stimulation and nurturing. So as a carer, you might find you need to do more than just attend to the physical needs of this child. While the system has hopefully prevented it happening further, you need to repair.
You may need to take on some serious activity and stimulation. We did. When faced with a child failing to thrive we planned each day to cover many experiences. Among other things we sang, played, ran, hopped, jumped, swam, did kindy gym, talked endlessly and explained everything, played with words, mimicked one another, played with water and sand, played upside down, cuddled animals - both real and soft, chose and cherished special comfort toys, and read stories every single day. There were lots of social experiences too, visits to parks and playgrounds, shopping centres and coffee shops, family and friends’ homes. And there were lots of cuddles, and giggles, and routine.
You need to make sure you talk to all the resources at your disposal – workers, paediatricians, health services and others – to work out what may be needed for your foster child, and in fact what is possible.
But we can tell you we are in awe of what a child is able to achieve. And the more you can invest in them, the better chance they’ll have.
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.
The Camper is with us now until she decides otherwise (she has told us that she’s never moving out by the way). She sees her birth family and this knowledge of her history is good. But we’ve seen her deal with stress about her birth family. She has suffered acute stress after contact visits. She suffers stress about what she thinks her birth family expect of her at contact visits. It’s not what the usual under-10 brigade has to deal with, and so we balance two approaches with her: a cheerful sense of robustness about it all (‘oh, you’ll be fine!’), and an acutely tuned awareness of how she really feels. So we are actively addressing the Camper’s stress. If we want her to trust us and have confidence that we can make it right for her, we need to be able to influence it.
Luckily we can. As the Camper works through this it has reinforced for her that:
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.
The Camper is with us now until she decides otherwise (she has told us that she’s never moving out by the way). She sees her birth family and this knowledge of her history is good. But we’ve seen her deal with stress about her birth family. She has suffered acute stress after contact visits. She suffers stress about what she thinks her birth family expect of her at contact visits. It’s not what the usual under-10 brigade has to deal with, and so we balance two approaches with her: a cheerful sense of robustness about it all (‘oh, you’ll be fine!’), and an acutely tuned awareness of how she really feels. So we are actively addressing the Camper’s stress. If we want her to trust us and have confidence that we can make it right for her, we need to be able to influence it.
Luckily we can. As the Camper works through this it has reinforced for her that:
- We are her family, we love her and we will help her work through this.
- We know her best and she can talk to us about it.
- She gets a say, and she can influence the outcome.
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!’
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?
When Happy Camper came to live with us, self-control was an alien concept. She was completely impulsive, fearful of change and dreadfully upset when any experience she was enjoying ended.
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 Camper is well and truly working out how to make situations work for her. She’s often thinking through all the elements of recognition, reward and gratification and shuffling them around to see what suits her.
We like that sense of robustness and, to be frank, self-interest. There is plenty of time to teach her to put others first (and we have started that journey), but given her background, we’re happy to see her learn to put herself first. She missed that bit. She was too busy just struggling to survive.
So how did we start her on this path? Firstly, we showed her how loving parents nurture their children. We showed her how we could put her first above everything. She learned how it felt to have every need catered for. We hope, and we think, that she’s learned that she deserves it.
Second, even when she was tiny we offered her both a reason to do what we wanted her to do, and an understanding of the consequences. It took time and it took energy, and sometimes it was clearly beyond her understanding and will power. But she began to learn how everything is connected, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and that her actions trigger different outcomes.
We’re proud of how far the Camper has come.
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?
When Happy Camper came to live with us, self-control was an alien concept. She was completely impulsive, fearful of change and dreadfully upset when any experience she was enjoying ended.
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 Camper is well and truly working out how to make situations work for her. She’s often thinking through all the elements of recognition, reward and gratification and shuffling them around to see what suits her.
We like that sense of robustness and, to be frank, self-interest. There is plenty of time to teach her to put others first (and we have started that journey), but given her background, we’re happy to see her learn to put herself first. She missed that bit. She was too busy just struggling to survive.
So how did we start her on this path? Firstly, we showed her how loving parents nurture their children. We showed her how we could put her first above everything. She learned how it felt to have every need catered for. We hope, and we think, that she’s learned that she deserves it.
Second, even when she was tiny we offered her both a reason to do what we wanted her to do, and an understanding of the consequences. It took time and it took energy, and sometimes it was clearly beyond her understanding and will power. But she began to learn how everything is connected, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and that her actions trigger different outcomes.
We’re proud of how far the Camper has come.
Teaching a child to make a decision
15/04/2009 21:50
We don’t presume to tell anyone how to make decisions, although there’s plenty of room in the business world for more practice.
We talked in our last post about teaching the Camper to have an opinion, and how having an opinion is pretty fundamental to making a decision.
We’re good at decisions. We’ve had lots of practice, and we are never short of an opinion on anything, funnily enough. But our willingness to take the lead was a source of tension with the private agency. We kept tripping over ‘the line’ drawn by the ‘experts’, and they weren’t giving up territory to anyone. You could argue that they thought they were doing their job. But we think they needed to learn the lesson we’ve just taught the Camper.
We recently gave the Camper real life experience at making a decision. It was in relation to an event that happens every single day of her life. Her approach was to see how she felt just before the event each day, and we had to adjust our responses to accommodate her.
Now we can tell you that even though the event itself was minor and mundane, the Camper’s capriciousness about it began to take its toll. And if we pushed on through and thwarted her - that is, we made the decision for her - we’d get one of the meltdowns that parents can only shudder at.
‘She wanted routine’ you might mutter. You’re right, she did. But she’s a forthright little character and just imposing a routine on her wasn’t working. We tried that.
So we taught her to make the decision.
We explained why it was important to us and the workings of the family that mundane, routine things ran smoothly.
We explained why it was important to her growth and capability.
We explained how important cooperation was in our family.
We explained clearly what we wanted from her.
We told her she needed to make a decision about what she was going to do each day.
We discussed her options with her.
We gave her a weekend to think and talk about it, before making her final choice.
We explained that her final choice would be it for a set period of time.
And just to make sure the point got across, we chose an extra-curricular activity, described how she relied on our cooperation to get her there, and explained that her willingness to cooperate each day would directly influence our cooperation. We didn’t threaten to stop the activity completely, but the risk for her was constant interruptions to it.
Bingo. While the preparation took a week or so, behaviour changed overnight. No kidding. And it’s stuck.
What’s happened of course is that the activity has become a habit. The Camper no longer spends any time ‘thinking’ about it, she just does it. We knew that, and Happy Camper has learned it. She’s learned some self-discipline. And we think we’ve started to teach her an important life lesson about expending her energy and emotion on the things that really matter. Gold stars all round.
Oh, and the lesson for the agency workers? If it’s a good placement, focus on the important stuff, and trust us to make some good decisions for the child.
We talked in our last post about teaching the Camper to have an opinion, and how having an opinion is pretty fundamental to making a decision.
We’re good at decisions. We’ve had lots of practice, and we are never short of an opinion on anything, funnily enough. But our willingness to take the lead was a source of tension with the private agency. We kept tripping over ‘the line’ drawn by the ‘experts’, and they weren’t giving up territory to anyone. You could argue that they thought they were doing their job. But we think they needed to learn the lesson we’ve just taught the Camper.
We recently gave the Camper real life experience at making a decision. It was in relation to an event that happens every single day of her life. Her approach was to see how she felt just before the event each day, and we had to adjust our responses to accommodate her.
Now we can tell you that even though the event itself was minor and mundane, the Camper’s capriciousness about it began to take its toll. And if we pushed on through and thwarted her - that is, we made the decision for her - we’d get one of the meltdowns that parents can only shudder at.
‘She wanted routine’ you might mutter. You’re right, she did. But she’s a forthright little character and just imposing a routine on her wasn’t working. We tried that.
So we taught her to make the decision.
We explained why it was important to us and the workings of the family that mundane, routine things ran smoothly.
We explained why it was important to her growth and capability.
We explained how important cooperation was in our family.
We explained clearly what we wanted from her.
We told her she needed to make a decision about what she was going to do each day.
We discussed her options with her.
We gave her a weekend to think and talk about it, before making her final choice.
We explained that her final choice would be it for a set period of time.
And just to make sure the point got across, we chose an extra-curricular activity, described how she relied on our cooperation to get her there, and explained that her willingness to cooperate each day would directly influence our cooperation. We didn’t threaten to stop the activity completely, but the risk for her was constant interruptions to it.
Bingo. While the preparation took a week or so, behaviour changed overnight. No kidding. And it’s stuck.
What’s happened of course is that the activity has become a habit. The Camper no longer spends any time ‘thinking’ about it, she just does it. We knew that, and Happy Camper has learned it. She’s learned some self-discipline. And we think we’ve started to teach her an important life lesson about expending her energy and emotion on the things that really matter. Gold stars all round.
Oh, and the lesson for the agency workers? If it’s a good placement, focus on the important stuff, and trust us to make some good decisions for the child.
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.
Happy Camper had been bounced around the system for some years before she landed with us. She had been emotionally abandoned and that was obvious from the minute we met her. Her physical needs hadn’t been well looked after either, but they were relatively easier to fix. We threw every ounce of care, love and attention into making her feel that we were her family, that we were here to stay. As her level of understanding has grown, we’ve explained that she will get a say in anything that happens now.
But some workers viewed our level of passion and commitment with nothing less than suspicion. They worked hard to redevelop the bond between the Camper and birth family, and increase her reliance on the social worker. So when the Camper was coming to grips with the fact that no one in her birth family was able to take care of her, and hadn’t, and she desperately wanted to believe she was finally somewhere safe, she had a worker telling her quite forcefully through actions and words that it was all about birth family. We could see the confusion and distrust in her eyes.
We know carers who foster with that particular agency, and the agenda (restitution with birth families) hasn’t changed. 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. We’re working on the Camper being a success story as well.
So what characterises these two 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.
Happy Camper had been bounced around the system for some years before she landed with us. She had been emotionally abandoned and that was obvious from the minute we met her. Her physical needs hadn’t been well looked after either, but they were relatively easier to fix. We threw every ounce of care, love and attention into making her feel that we were her family, that we were here to stay. As her level of understanding has grown, we’ve explained that she will get a say in anything that happens now.
But some workers viewed our level of passion and commitment with nothing less than suspicion. They worked hard to redevelop the bond between the Camper and birth family, and increase her reliance on the social worker. So when the Camper was coming to grips with the fact that no one in her birth family was able to take care of her, and hadn’t, and she desperately wanted to believe she was finally somewhere safe, she had a worker telling her quite forcefully through actions and words that it was all about birth family. We could see the confusion and distrust in her eyes.
We know carers who foster with that particular agency, and the agenda (restitution with birth families) hasn’t changed. 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. We’re working on the Camper being a success story as well.
So what characterises these two 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