adoption
National Adoption Awareness Week
27/11/2009 00:02 Filed in: placement | EssentialMum
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):
([Happy Camper + 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 the Camper:
‘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’.
([Happy Camper + 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 the Camper:
- ‘The system’ made the decision and gave the Camper certainty about her home.
- We have a Camper able to concentrate on living, and learning, and loving, rather than managing changing living circumstances.
- Because we see birth family members, there is no mystery for the Camper about her whole family.
- The Camper can deal with all the continuing uncertainty of birth family from the safety net of a loving family.
- We are actively working with the Camper to help her understand and accept why she lives with us. That’s not an impossible task by the way. It never should be.
- The Camper is not drifting. She’s 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 in care need a pushy parent
‘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 private agency. Like a seat at the table in decisions about Happy Camper, and an evaluation of whether their ‘one size fitted all’ policy really applied to our Camper. 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 didn’t accept that and transferred to another agency.
‘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 a child in care, who has been with us longer than with anyone else. The system made a call when she was quite tiny. It recognized that she needed the warm, secure care of good parents. And so the love, warmth and security has overwhelmed any conscious memories of the earlier unsettled times. This is now her ‘real’ life. Importantly, her reality is stability, attachment, trust, and expectation.
‘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 private agency. Like a seat at the table in decisions about Happy Camper, and an evaluation of whether their ‘one size fitted all’ policy really applied to our Camper. 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 didn’t accept that and transferred to another agency.
‘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 a child in care, who has been with us longer than with anyone else. The system made a call when she was quite tiny. It recognized that she needed the warm, secure care of good parents. And so the love, warmth and security has overwhelmed any conscious memories of the earlier unsettled times. This is now her ‘real’ life. Importantly, her reality is stability, attachment, trust, and expectation.
‘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.
Too fat to adopt?
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
Questions to ask a prospective foster agency
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
Why become a foster carer?
07/06/2008 01:12 Filed in: general | EssentialMum
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 (we sometimes bore friends and family rigid, and we’re pleased to report that Happy Camper shows all the signs of continuing this tradition), 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 had grown up with a foster sister, 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 (we sometimes bore friends and family rigid, and we’re pleased to report that Happy Camper shows all the signs of continuing this tradition), 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 had grown up with a foster sister, 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