changes
Children's sense of time
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
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?
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 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.
'Shared parenting' in foster care?
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
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
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.
Do foster children always become troubled teens?
‘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?
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
We have a new dog and we don’t know anything about her
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
'This is what you signed up for'
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