children in care
The influence of birth family
Yet another story in the weekend press that examined one premise – whether children convicted of murder can ever live normal lives – and ended up being another tale of tragedy about a child in care.
Kate Legge in The Weekend Australian Magazine (March 27-28 2010, p 17) recounts ‘The story of S’, convicted at 13 of murder, sent to jail but with his anonymity intact. She charts his journey, from care at the age of 6, to rehabilitation efforts in jail, which led to his release and a relationship, parenthood and a steady job. But he was open to the influence of an associate of his family, and embezzled substantially. While on trial he had a relationship with a minor, and is now in jail.
The details are not contained in the article, but S’s background is distressingly familiar. The article states that he was ‘surrendered to a patchwork of residential placements’ and that during a 2 year period ‘he absconded from state care 26 times’. That’s at least every month.
Legge’s last paragraph concludes that despite the rehab efforts, the counselling, the positive prospects he had proven he could create and capitalise on, he ‘couldn’t in the end withstand the primordial tug of a family that had given him up at such a tender age’.
Well, how on earth could he? When no significant family relationship ever took its place when he was a child? When no one taught him how to think, deal or act with his birth family?
If he’d never experienced a positive parental relationship or formed an enduring relationship with one significant adult, then of course his birth parents remain a force to be reckoned with. As Bernie Geary, Victoria’s Child Safety Commission notes, ‘you can’t transplant empathy into a kid who has grown up with a lack of it, as well as poor role models’.
Geary states that is why they need a champion. We would suggest that is why they need a ‘parent’.
Our experience, supported by the advice of experienced workers, is that coming to grips with birth family and their individual circumstances is make or break stuff for most children in care.
Children need an explanation of the circumstances of their being in care, and this must become deeper and more detailed as they mature. Critically, this has to provide a context for them in which to deal with their birth parents. Using S’s case, he was still open to pressure and intimidation from members of his birth family. No one taught him how to deal with those, and perhaps he had no one to turn to for advice?
There is overwhelming evidence that children need a significant positive relationship that is either parental in nature or very close to it. As carers we become substitute parents, and we should never be accused of overstepping that line. By anyone.
We still read anecdotes online of carers feeling like they are under siege from workers and lawyers in the system. Too many carers have to convince a sceptical ‘system’ that they really are able to take on that relationship for the children, not because they have an agenda (desperate to have children, want to adopt, in it for the money).
We couldn’t help but read the article with that sinking feeling. The feeling that the system worked desperately hard to patch up this child. It threw all its skill and best efforts at him, and he showed he could rise to the challenge. The system tried to teach him empathy, and responsibility. But it was too late.
The system let him down when he was 6. He should have learned empathy and responsibility at the knee of someone who cared about him. He is another example of a child who went into foster care drift. His story is made all the more tragic because for a time, it appeared he was going to defy all the statistics.
Kate Legge in The Weekend Australian Magazine (March 27-28 2010, p 17) recounts ‘The story of S’, convicted at 13 of murder, sent to jail but with his anonymity intact. She charts his journey, from care at the age of 6, to rehabilitation efforts in jail, which led to his release and a relationship, parenthood and a steady job. But he was open to the influence of an associate of his family, and embezzled substantially. While on trial he had a relationship with a minor, and is now in jail.
The details are not contained in the article, but S’s background is distressingly familiar. The article states that he was ‘surrendered to a patchwork of residential placements’ and that during a 2 year period ‘he absconded from state care 26 times’. That’s at least every month.
Legge’s last paragraph concludes that despite the rehab efforts, the counselling, the positive prospects he had proven he could create and capitalise on, he ‘couldn’t in the end withstand the primordial tug of a family that had given him up at such a tender age’.
Well, how on earth could he? When no significant family relationship ever took its place when he was a child? When no one taught him how to think, deal or act with his birth family?
If he’d never experienced a positive parental relationship or formed an enduring relationship with one significant adult, then of course his birth parents remain a force to be reckoned with. As Bernie Geary, Victoria’s Child Safety Commission notes, ‘you can’t transplant empathy into a kid who has grown up with a lack of it, as well as poor role models’.
Geary states that is why they need a champion. We would suggest that is why they need a ‘parent’.
Our experience, supported by the advice of experienced workers, is that coming to grips with birth family and their individual circumstances is make or break stuff for most children in care.
Children need an explanation of the circumstances of their being in care, and this must become deeper and more detailed as they mature. Critically, this has to provide a context for them in which to deal with their birth parents. Using S’s case, he was still open to pressure and intimidation from members of his birth family. No one taught him how to deal with those, and perhaps he had no one to turn to for advice?
There is overwhelming evidence that children need a significant positive relationship that is either parental in nature or very close to it. As carers we become substitute parents, and we should never be accused of overstepping that line. By anyone.
We still read anecdotes online of carers feeling like they are under siege from workers and lawyers in the system. Too many carers have to convince a sceptical ‘system’ that they really are able to take on that relationship for the children, not because they have an agenda (desperate to have children, want to adopt, in it for the money).
We couldn’t help but read the article with that sinking feeling. The feeling that the system worked desperately hard to patch up this child. It threw all its skill and best efforts at him, and he showed he could rise to the challenge. The system tried to teach him empathy, and responsibility. But it was too late.
The system let him down when he was 6. He should have learned empathy and responsibility at the knee of someone who cared about him. He is another example of a child who went into foster care drift. His story is made all the more tragic because for a time, it appeared he was going to defy all the statistics.
|
Lift your game carers
Just so you know we are quite prepared to have a go at anyone, we bring you our latest opinion.
It’s time for carers to set a standard.
When a consultation paper has just been released in relation to National Standards for Out of Home Care, we wonder whether carers need to step up and set more of those standards themselves, by their actions.
Here’s one. A simple one really.
We’ve welcomed a number of foster children into our home over the years. Foster children who have been in other foster care placements. Not one has arrived with nice clothes, well cared for and loved toys, packaged in a decent bag.
We are inspired by the work Backpacks for Aussie Kids are doing. They aim to fill backpacks and nappy bags with essential and personal items for children going into foster and kinship care.
So here’s the rule we’d like to see carers adopt:
Foster carers will not send children in care to another placement with their belongings in plastic bags.
And no, those blue, red and white striped bags, from Kmart or Target, don’t cut it either.
How do you begin to show a child they are worth anything, when dropping their belongings into a plastic bag is acceptable? You might try and convince us that the child, if they are young enough, is oblivious to it.
That’s not the point.
It’s all about care and respect.
Care and respect for the child. Care about their belongings. Care about the small number of toys, items and clothing that, in some circumstances, make up this child’s life. Respect that, no matter how young they are, belongings are important.
Carers, go buy a decent bag, or demand one from your worker. You get an allowance each fortnight. Use it.
Just in case you wondered, the move this child will make from you to their next placement is always significant. They will listen and watch and take their cues in a way we adults have long lost. Treat them with respect, and treat their belongings with respect too.
It’s time for carers to set a standard.
When a consultation paper has just been released in relation to National Standards for Out of Home Care, we wonder whether carers need to step up and set more of those standards themselves, by their actions.
Here’s one. A simple one really.
We’ve welcomed a number of foster children into our home over the years. Foster children who have been in other foster care placements. Not one has arrived with nice clothes, well cared for and loved toys, packaged in a decent bag.
We are inspired by the work Backpacks for Aussie Kids are doing. They aim to fill backpacks and nappy bags with essential and personal items for children going into foster and kinship care.
So here’s the rule we’d like to see carers adopt:
Foster carers will not send children in care to another placement with their belongings in plastic bags.
And no, those blue, red and white striped bags, from Kmart or Target, don’t cut it either.
How do you begin to show a child they are worth anything, when dropping their belongings into a plastic bag is acceptable? You might try and convince us that the child, if they are young enough, is oblivious to it.
That’s not the point.
It’s all about care and respect.
Care and respect for the child. Care about their belongings. Care about the small number of toys, items and clothing that, in some circumstances, make up this child’s life. Respect that, no matter how young they are, belongings are important.
Carers, go buy a decent bag, or demand one from your worker. You get an allowance each fortnight. Use it.
Just in case you wondered, the move this child will make from you to their next placement is always significant. They will listen and watch and take their cues in a way we adults have long lost. Treat them with respect, and treat their belongings with respect too.
Can a foster parent ‘over-advocate’ for their foster child?
We follow a number of online forums and this came up over at www.fostercarecentral.com. A carer posted that they’d been told they ‘over-advocated’ for their foster child.
Over-advocate? That seems to be legal-speak creeping into the child services area. We are sure we could find some plain english expressions that are much clearer and, quite frankly, a whole lot more honest.
‘An advocate is someone who speaks on behalf of another person, especially in a legal context. … Implicit in the concept is the notion that the represented lacks the knowledge, skill, ability, or standing to speak for themselves.’ (Wikipedia)
So let’s be honest and decipher what that term might mean. As a foster parent, you attend case conferences, and talk with social workers on behalf of your foster child. Depending on their age or their circumstances they might lack the knowledge, skill, ability, maturity or capability to speak on their own behalf.
Can a carer ‘over-speak’, or ‘over-represent’? Are we saying more than we should?
We’d love to hear an honest debate on this one. We’d like to ask the social workers whether they are saying that we aren’t educated or qualified or experienced enough to make a contribution to the discussion about the child’s needs?
Or are they saying that we simply don’t have the right to contribute? Is our role to provide a home and care but leave the decision making to the ‘system’?
Sadly, this sounds like a turf war.
If the social welfare profession is so precious that outspoken foster parents cause grief, then we really need an overhaul. Business deals with outspoken, opinionated customers and shareholders all the time. We judge their contribution according to their talents, but we don’t – and can’t – prevent them from having their say.
We’ve had workers who spent a great deal of energy telling us, with diminishing degrees of politeness, to shut up and get back in our box. We had a role to play, designated by the system, and they were thoroughly annoyed that we didn’t stick to the script.
But interestingly, it’s our willingness to step outside ‘our role’ that sees us maintaining contact with children formerly in our care, long after they have become adults. It’s why we stepped up to help them ‘age out’ of foster care (emotionally, financially and with life skills), when the system, previous carers, and all those passionate social workers had left the scene.
If we applied some innovative thinking to the issue, then maybe the passion with which carers might speak on behalf of a child is a good thing? Business has long recognised that divergent viewpoints and passionate debate, if managed well, drive much better results.
So it gets down to frontline training. In all fairness we believe social workers have a large range of stakeholders to deal with – from authorities, to birth families, to agencies, to carers and beyond. But there are other professions that deal with such a range. The ability to manage people is not taught at university (and if anyone tells you it was, or is, they are lying). It is learned on the job, over many years, and requires both an interest in people and a willingness to be self-aware. Too often the fundamental skill that underpins both of those elements – listening – is absent.
So, listen up. We’ll over-advocate for a child in care as long as we can breathe.
(If you are a carer about to provide care, you might like to print these bullet points out, amend or add to them to reflect what you think you bring to the placements, and give them to your worker.)
And if doing any of that is a challenge, we suggest a great deal more training is needed. We’re happy to assist.
Over-advocate? That seems to be legal-speak creeping into the child services area. We are sure we could find some plain english expressions that are much clearer and, quite frankly, a whole lot more honest.
‘An advocate is someone who speaks on behalf of another person, especially in a legal context. … Implicit in the concept is the notion that the represented lacks the knowledge, skill, ability, or standing to speak for themselves.’ (Wikipedia)
So let’s be honest and decipher what that term might mean. As a foster parent, you attend case conferences, and talk with social workers on behalf of your foster child. Depending on their age or their circumstances they might lack the knowledge, skill, ability, maturity or capability to speak on their own behalf.
Can a carer ‘over-speak’, or ‘over-represent’? Are we saying more than we should?
We’d love to hear an honest debate on this one. We’d like to ask the social workers whether they are saying that we aren’t educated or qualified or experienced enough to make a contribution to the discussion about the child’s needs?
Or are they saying that we simply don’t have the right to contribute? Is our role to provide a home and care but leave the decision making to the ‘system’?
Sadly, this sounds like a turf war.
If the social welfare profession is so precious that outspoken foster parents cause grief, then we really need an overhaul. Business deals with outspoken, opinionated customers and shareholders all the time. We judge their contribution according to their talents, but we don’t – and can’t – prevent them from having their say.
We’ve had workers who spent a great deal of energy telling us, with diminishing degrees of politeness, to shut up and get back in our box. We had a role to play, designated by the system, and they were thoroughly annoyed that we didn’t stick to the script.
But interestingly, it’s our willingness to step outside ‘our role’ that sees us maintaining contact with children formerly in our care, long after they have become adults. It’s why we stepped up to help them ‘age out’ of foster care (emotionally, financially and with life skills), when the system, previous carers, and all those passionate social workers had left the scene.
If we applied some innovative thinking to the issue, then maybe the passion with which carers might speak on behalf of a child is a good thing? Business has long recognised that divergent viewpoints and passionate debate, if managed well, drive much better results.
So it gets down to frontline training. In all fairness we believe social workers have a large range of stakeholders to deal with – from authorities, to birth families, to agencies, to carers and beyond. But there are other professions that deal with such a range. The ability to manage people is not taught at university (and if anyone tells you it was, or is, they are lying). It is learned on the job, over many years, and requires both an interest in people and a willingness to be self-aware. Too often the fundamental skill that underpins both of those elements – listening – is absent.
So, listen up. We’ll over-advocate for a child in care as long as we can breathe.
(If you are a carer about to provide care, you might like to print these bullet points out, amend or add to them to reflect what you think you bring to the placements, and give them to your worker.)
- We will challenge you on decisions, and we will give you our well thought out opinion on what we see the child going through.
- We will raise issues and suggest decisions that need to be made for you to give us feedback on.
- We will tell you politely if we think you are wrong, and we will become less polite if you ignore us.
- We will expect you to be skilled enough to see the love/compassion we have for this child and understand the depth of our care for the child.
- As time goes by we will expect you to be skilled enough to see the love this child has for us, or the reliance they place on us, and take that into account.
- We don’t accept there is any ‘mark’ to overstep so we will have no tolerance for you complaining, overtly or covertly, about us doing that.
- We will expect that you, as the professional you hold yourself out to be, will be able to assess us and judge us and manage us and collaborate with us.
And if doing any of that is a challenge, we suggest a great deal more training is needed. We’re happy to assist.
How foster children respond to stress
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.
Details on children kept from foster carers
‘Thousands of foster carers are welcoming children into their homes without being given the full facts about the children’s past, including whether they were victims of abuse’.
We put the link to this Times Online (UK) article on Twitter, and quickly got a response:
11:25pm, Sep 17 from Web
feeling this first hand
The report came from Fostering Network, which represents 43,000 carers in Britain. A couple of court rulings had opened the door for local authorities to be sued if they didn’t meet their duty of care to foster families.
The statistics were blunt – more than 51% of carers in the UK say that they have been given inadequate information about a child in their care, which has put themselves, their own children and even the foster child at risk. A full 30% weren’t told about the child’s medical requirements, 50% were not informed about a history of abuse, and 75% said that they were not made aware of the child’s general behaviour.
This is not an uncommon problem. In the early years it may be critical to understanding the child’s behaviour and health, and as they get older it may be essential to help them understand their past and their birth family.
When the turnover of workers is high (average we’ve heard for DoCS in Oz is about a year, and even in private agencies it runs at about 2 years), and if a child has moved placements a great deal, who on earth has any history for this child?
Oh, that’s right, the system does. (Btw, this is why life story work, however you may do that, is critical for these kids. More on that later.)
So what’s the problem with getting the right information to carers? The case file on a child who comes into your care may:
Why can’t carers see the child’s files, you might ask? We actually don’t think that’s a good idea. There are privacy issues relating to information in there about people other than the child. Carers need to retain some objectivity about birth parents and families. You need a good relationship with them for the child’s sake, and reading what might be a troubled history, that you will make a judgement on, might actually stop you doing that.
What needs to happen is for the files to be reproduced for the carers, with all the facts relevant to the child, but with none of the other stuff.
When the general consensus seems to be that many of our workers are overloaded, it’s not surprising that paperwork isn’t their first priority.
The people to do, what would essentially be a ‘sifting’ job, need to understand privacy, and they need to understand which facts are relevant to the child’s history. So why not find some lawyers, or social workers, who want to work part time? Get them in, make them sign a confidentiality agreement, and get them at it.
We think some rigour needs to be directed at solving these problems. Outsourcing a task is common in business, provided risk and privacy is managed well.
And as the survey shows, there is real risk to the foster family and the child if information is not forthcoming. ‘Flying blind’ can be fun sometimes, but not for a foster carer struggling to understand, manage and care for a small person.
We put the link to this Times Online (UK) article on Twitter, and quickly got a response:
11:25pm, Sep 17 from Web
feeling this first hand
The report came from Fostering Network, which represents 43,000 carers in Britain. A couple of court rulings had opened the door for local authorities to be sued if they didn’t meet their duty of care to foster families.
The statistics were blunt – more than 51% of carers in the UK say that they have been given inadequate information about a child in their care, which has put themselves, their own children and even the foster child at risk. A full 30% weren’t told about the child’s medical requirements, 50% were not informed about a history of abuse, and 75% said that they were not made aware of the child’s general behaviour.
This is not an uncommon problem. In the early years it may be critical to understanding the child’s behaviour and health, and as they get older it may be essential to help them understand their past and their birth family.
When the turnover of workers is high (average we’ve heard for DoCS in Oz is about a year, and even in private agencies it runs at about 2 years), and if a child has moved placements a great deal, who on earth has any history for this child?
Oh, that’s right, the system does. (Btw, this is why life story work, however you may do that, is critical for these kids. More on that later.)
So what’s the problem with getting the right information to carers? The case file on a child who comes into your care may:
- Be very large
- Contain information that is not relevant to the child in your care (for example information about birth family)
- Contain highly sensitive, prejudicial or private information about someone other than your foster child,
- Be very large – oh, we said that.
Why can’t carers see the child’s files, you might ask? We actually don’t think that’s a good idea. There are privacy issues relating to information in there about people other than the child. Carers need to retain some objectivity about birth parents and families. You need a good relationship with them for the child’s sake, and reading what might be a troubled history, that you will make a judgement on, might actually stop you doing that.
What needs to happen is for the files to be reproduced for the carers, with all the facts relevant to the child, but with none of the other stuff.
When the general consensus seems to be that many of our workers are overloaded, it’s not surprising that paperwork isn’t their first priority.
The people to do, what would essentially be a ‘sifting’ job, need to understand privacy, and they need to understand which facts are relevant to the child’s history. So why not find some lawyers, or social workers, who want to work part time? Get them in, make them sign a confidentiality agreement, and get them at it.
We think some rigour needs to be directed at solving these problems. Outsourcing a task is common in business, provided risk and privacy is managed well.
And as the survey shows, there is real risk to the foster family and the child if information is not forthcoming. ‘Flying blind’ can be fun sometimes, but not for a foster carer struggling to understand, manage and care for a small person.
65 Australian children per 1000 are living in out of home care
We don’t often see statistics in Australia about children in care. This came across our RSS feed the other week from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
As at 30 June 2008 in Australia, there were 31,116 children living in out of home care (OOHC). That’s 6.5% per 1,000, or 65 children per 1000.
One third were aged 10-14 years, one third aged 5-9 years, 25% were aged under 5 years, and 14% were aged 15-17 years.
This rate and number has more than doubled since 1997 (from 11,600 to the current number). The increase is a result of more children commencing OOHC than are being discharged from it each year. The increased duration of OOHC placements also reflects the increasing complexity in family situations.
Common family situations are low family income, parental substance abuse, mental health issues and family violence.
The majority of children - 95% - aged 0-14 were in home based care. That is split into foster care (48%) and kinship care (45%). A smaller proportion were in residential care (5%), and they were generally older children over the age of 10 years.
During 2007-08, there were 317,526 reports of suspected child-abuse and neglect made to authorities. These figures appear to indicate that the reporting of abuse has increased. Of that number, 194,937 concerned the same children. There were a total of 148,824 finalised investigations recorded in Australia (an increase of 8% on the 2005-06 year).
Pretty sobering figures, don’t you think?
As at 30 June 2008 in Australia, there were 31,116 children living in out of home care (OOHC). That’s 6.5% per 1,000, or 65 children per 1000.
One third were aged 10-14 years, one third aged 5-9 years, 25% were aged under 5 years, and 14% were aged 15-17 years.
This rate and number has more than doubled since 1997 (from 11,600 to the current number). The increase is a result of more children commencing OOHC than are being discharged from it each year. The increased duration of OOHC placements also reflects the increasing complexity in family situations.
Common family situations are low family income, parental substance abuse, mental health issues and family violence.
The majority of children - 95% - aged 0-14 were in home based care. That is split into foster care (48%) and kinship care (45%). A smaller proportion were in residential care (5%), and they were generally older children over the age of 10 years.
During 2007-08, there were 317,526 reports of suspected child-abuse and neglect made to authorities. These figures appear to indicate that the reporting of abuse has increased. Of that number, 194,937 concerned the same children. There were a total of 148,824 finalised investigations recorded in Australia (an increase of 8% on the 2005-06 year).
Pretty sobering figures, don’t you think?
It takes courage to be a foster carer
Every so often in life it is worth getting back to basics, isn’t it? We talk about many things on this blog to try and cover as much useful information as we can. But we’ve recently been talking to some new carers, and we know other carers who are about to take a placement, so we thought it might be timely to go back to the beginning for a moment.
Dear New Foster Carers,
Congratulations on your courage. Has anyone said that to you lately? You’ve stepped out to help someone else, in the most personal way possible. You are putting yourself and your family on the front line, giving not just money, or even just time, but yourselves and your relationships and your home.
We hope that your training, and/or your life experience, will have prepared you for what you are experiencing. But don’t be surprised if, as a first time carer, you are stressed, because that’s the most natural reaction in the world.
No matter how well prepared or supported you might be, the first weeks of a placement can be difficult. Foster care can often be described as degrees of difficulty to be honest. But the first weeks, before you start to understand the child, can be positively exhausting.
It takes time. Yes, we know that is the platitude to end all platitudes, but it is true. Don’t judge anything by those first weeks.
Why? Because the child you have just welcomed into your home, with hope and love, may well be dazed, and confused, and untrusting. (We could add many more adjectives here like angry, or scared, or blasé, but it might go on a bit….). He doesn’t know you, and you don’t know him. And depending on his life experience, many of the things that you might take for granted in a child of his age may be missing completely. He may never have learned a lot of the basics. Like how to go shopping with you, how to stay by your side, how to happily come home from the park, how to share with other children. He may never have learned to eat properly. He may not even know how to cuddle. He may not enjoy bedtime or know how to settle himself. He may not have had anyone to teach it to him, you see.
(You can write that paragraph again with age appropriate characteristics, right up until teenage years, by the way. The last sentence will often remain the same.)
So it’s really important for you to remember that now is not the time to be reticent, or noble (‘I can cope. Really I can. Yes, I can.’) You deserve support and answers and advice, so ask for them. Every child in care is unique, and has very different experiences that will have impacted him in different ways. Don’t be afraid of stepping on toes or worry that you will be seen as demanding. The workers are there to support you and this placement.
And we hope that at some stage soon, there will come one experience with this child that will warm your heart, make you feel that it’s all worthwhile. That’s often all it takes to keep you going.
You’ve started a journey. It took courage to start it, and it will take courage to continue it. Keep going. A child will benefit from your courage.
Dear New Foster Carers,
Congratulations on your courage. Has anyone said that to you lately? You’ve stepped out to help someone else, in the most personal way possible. You are putting yourself and your family on the front line, giving not just money, or even just time, but yourselves and your relationships and your home.
We hope that your training, and/or your life experience, will have prepared you for what you are experiencing. But don’t be surprised if, as a first time carer, you are stressed, because that’s the most natural reaction in the world.
No matter how well prepared or supported you might be, the first weeks of a placement can be difficult. Foster care can often be described as degrees of difficulty to be honest. But the first weeks, before you start to understand the child, can be positively exhausting.
It takes time. Yes, we know that is the platitude to end all platitudes, but it is true. Don’t judge anything by those first weeks.
Why? Because the child you have just welcomed into your home, with hope and love, may well be dazed, and confused, and untrusting. (We could add many more adjectives here like angry, or scared, or blasé, but it might go on a bit….). He doesn’t know you, and you don’t know him. And depending on his life experience, many of the things that you might take for granted in a child of his age may be missing completely. He may never have learned a lot of the basics. Like how to go shopping with you, how to stay by your side, how to happily come home from the park, how to share with other children. He may never have learned to eat properly. He may not even know how to cuddle. He may not enjoy bedtime or know how to settle himself. He may not have had anyone to teach it to him, you see.
(You can write that paragraph again with age appropriate characteristics, right up until teenage years, by the way. The last sentence will often remain the same.)
So it’s really important for you to remember that now is not the time to be reticent, or noble (‘I can cope. Really I can. Yes, I can.’) You deserve support and answers and advice, so ask for them. Every child in care is unique, and has very different experiences that will have impacted him in different ways. Don’t be afraid of stepping on toes or worry that you will be seen as demanding. The workers are there to support you and this placement.
And we hope that at some stage soon, there will come one experience with this child that will warm your heart, make you feel that it’s all worthwhile. That’s often all it takes to keep you going.
You’ve started a journey. It took courage to start it, and it will take courage to continue it. Keep going. A child will benefit from your courage.
Developmental issues for young children in foster care
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 have done. 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 have done. 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.
Humans are very poor judges
‘The most fundamental problem with child protection in Australia is a philosophical one… the source of the problem is the erroneous assumption that because the protagonists in child abuse are people…the solution lies with other more socially competent people who are employed to make judicious decisions about risk and provide wise advice on parenting.’
This paragraph is from the article by James Barber published in the SMH.
If we had to summarise the article in one word (and we are not known for our brevity), we’d say it was on specialisation. It’s about making use of more specialised skills and methods in judging families and children at risk. Just as medicine has moved to make use of science over ‘practice wisdom’, Barber suggests that children’s services must follow suit.
The issue is whether humans can really detach themselves from their own prejudices and experiences to make objective decisions about other humans?
We’d all like to think we can. But whether we can or not, the other way of looking at the issue is to ask ‘are there now better ways to review information and make decisions about children and families at risk?’
It would be a brave person who said no.
Barber advocates for Evidence Based Practice, which suspends the human judgment in judging humans, and ‘which is about the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of the best available evidence in making decisions about the care of individual clients’.
He mentions recent research in North America. It has proven that mathematicians and actuaries, making use of bucket loads of data in a way that one person simply cannot, are actually able to make better decisions about families at risk than social workers.
Considering that the way most people manage the daily onslaught of work and life challenges is to find the ‘norm’ or pull everything towards the average, it seems entirely reasonable to us that more technology, science and skill is required to handle some of the critical calls in children’s services.
And if the out of home care system is only going to be more distributed to the private agencies, as per the Wood Royal Commission recommendations, more rigour, science and common standards are essential.
It sounds funny to consider that certain parts of the children’s services model need to lose the human element, but after mulling over this for a week we think it does.
This paragraph is from the article by James Barber published in the SMH.
If we had to summarise the article in one word (and we are not known for our brevity), we’d say it was on specialisation. It’s about making use of more specialised skills and methods in judging families and children at risk. Just as medicine has moved to make use of science over ‘practice wisdom’, Barber suggests that children’s services must follow suit.
The issue is whether humans can really detach themselves from their own prejudices and experiences to make objective decisions about other humans?
We’d all like to think we can. But whether we can or not, the other way of looking at the issue is to ask ‘are there now better ways to review information and make decisions about children and families at risk?’
It would be a brave person who said no.
Barber advocates for Evidence Based Practice, which suspends the human judgment in judging humans, and ‘which is about the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of the best available evidence in making decisions about the care of individual clients’.
He mentions recent research in North America. It has proven that mathematicians and actuaries, making use of bucket loads of data in a way that one person simply cannot, are actually able to make better decisions about families at risk than social workers.
Considering that the way most people manage the daily onslaught of work and life challenges is to find the ‘norm’ or pull everything towards the average, it seems entirely reasonable to us that more technology, science and skill is required to handle some of the critical calls in children’s services.
And if the out of home care system is only going to be more distributed to the private agencies, as per the Wood Royal Commission recommendations, more rigour, science and common standards are essential.
It sounds funny to consider that certain parts of the children’s services model need to lose the human element, but after mulling over this for a week we think it does.
A child's right to privacy
As foster carers who have a front row seat on how the system should work better, we’d like to inject a note of caution in response to The Australian’s editorial A Dangerous Secrecy (11/06/09).
It was part of the Oz’s reporting on eight children taken into care.
The editorial comments that ‘It is not abused and neglected children who are damaged by publicity, it is the people who hurt them’.
We don’t have a problem with publicity as long as it gets something fixed. We don’t have a problem with freer constraints on reporting matters of public interest, as long as it is done very, very carefully. We’ve asked before whether more information from skilful journos may be in order (see our previous post Reporting more detail on children in care?)
But a child in care has the right to grow up with the privacy the rest of us enjoy. They have enough issues to deal with in relation to who they are and where they came from. They do not need details of their lives spread out for all in their community to read, and remember.
You may face this privacy issue quite regularly in your role as carer. There are instances where adults who find out you are carers launch into twenty questions. Their motives vary.
What happened? they’ll ask.
What are the circumstances with birth family?
Sometimes people even try to be helpful: Were there drugs or mental health or violence or neglect or abandonment or health or developmental delay or behaviour issues?
So what do you say? You may feel cornered, and you may try to stumble through some explanation.
Here’s what we would say, with a smile: ‘Oh, we’re not at liberty to go into any of that with anyone outside the child’s immediate family’. If pushed, we will elaborate further with: ‘All of that information is private to the child’. And if we think a further explanation might make them think twice about being quite so intrusive next time, we might finish with: ‘The child does not deserve to have the details of their private life shared with anyone other than their immediate family’. Keep smiling while you say it, you’d be surprised how that diffuses things.
These children aren’t public property. And we need to be careful not to use them as such, even if our intention is to try to fix the system.
It was part of the Oz’s reporting on eight children taken into care.
The editorial comments that ‘It is not abused and neglected children who are damaged by publicity, it is the people who hurt them’.
We don’t have a problem with publicity as long as it gets something fixed. We don’t have a problem with freer constraints on reporting matters of public interest, as long as it is done very, very carefully. We’ve asked before whether more information from skilful journos may be in order (see our previous post Reporting more detail on children in care?)
But a child in care has the right to grow up with the privacy the rest of us enjoy. They have enough issues to deal with in relation to who they are and where they came from. They do not need details of their lives spread out for all in their community to read, and remember.
You may face this privacy issue quite regularly in your role as carer. There are instances where adults who find out you are carers launch into twenty questions. Their motives vary.
What happened? they’ll ask.
What are the circumstances with birth family?
Sometimes people even try to be helpful: Were there drugs or mental health or violence or neglect or abandonment or health or developmental delay or behaviour issues?
So what do you say? You may feel cornered, and you may try to stumble through some explanation.
Here’s what we would say, with a smile: ‘Oh, we’re not at liberty to go into any of that with anyone outside the child’s immediate family’. If pushed, we will elaborate further with: ‘All of that information is private to the child’. And if we think a further explanation might make them think twice about being quite so intrusive next time, we might finish with: ‘The child does not deserve to have the details of their private life shared with anyone other than their immediate family’. Keep smiling while you say it, you’d be surprised how that diffuses things.
These children aren’t public property. And we need to be careful not to use them as such, even if our intention is to try to fix the system.
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.
How do you become a foster carer?
Our blog is about helping you understand all the things that the manuals and the agencies and the blurbs don’t tell you. So we won’t reproduce all the decent information already available from government and non-government agencies – but we will link to it.
If you are thinking about becoming a foster carer, here are our reminders as you go through the process.
Think about your circumstances…
A foster child will probably come to you with issues, depending on their age. You need to be able to give them time and attention. You may need to make up huge deficits in every aspect of their health, education, socialisation, emotional growth. Can you do it? Is your family committed with you in doing this? Do you have the time? Do you have the emotional and intellectual energy?
Why do you want to do it?
There are no right reasons, but we’ve written before about making sure that you know what you want or need out of it. It can be tough, and let’s be blunt, if you are doing it to meet some need of yours, then you may be disappointed. We fostered because we wanted to make a difference. We wanted to break the self-perpetuating cycle of dysfunction that exists in some families. We know carers who came to fostering when they were unable to have their own biological children. We know other carers who have been very successful at everything they have done in family and career and want to give something back. The assessment process will quiz you on your motivation, so spend some time thinking it through. The more honest you are with yourself about it the better.
Who will help you?
Make sure you have a good support network available. This is no time to be gung-ho. You will need support ranging from a sympathetic ear, to constructive advice, to actual physical assistance. If you are already a parent then you may have this in place. But remember that these children have additional needs. To give them what they need and want means a very intense relationship. You need people looking out for you.
Research
Our blog is Australian, so the resources we will point you to are Australian. But there are equivalent organisations around the world.
There is plenty of information available online from both the Department of Community Services (NSW and other Australian states), and Non-Government Foster care agencies.
To get you started, visit the DOCS website.
General information on fostering
Types of care
What to expect
Non-government agencies provide foster care services and recruit carers. You will be able to click through to their websites for more information.
Note that the links are sometimes to ‘Out-of-home care’, which is another name for foster care.
There are differences in approach, support, structure and process between DOCS and the private agencies. We’ve experienced both over many years, and have made some suggestions on our site before. You need to make sure you know what to expect from the agency. They can over-service you, under-support you, have policies that say one thing on paper and mean something else in practice, and may have vastly differing levels of skills and experience in their workers. You may not be able to avoid the issues but it helps if you know what you are getting into. Just as child and you should be a good match, so too should you and the agency.
If you are thinking about becoming a foster carer, here are our reminders as you go through the process.
Think about your circumstances…
A foster child will probably come to you with issues, depending on their age. You need to be able to give them time and attention. You may need to make up huge deficits in every aspect of their health, education, socialisation, emotional growth. Can you do it? Is your family committed with you in doing this? Do you have the time? Do you have the emotional and intellectual energy?
Why do you want to do it?
There are no right reasons, but we’ve written before about making sure that you know what you want or need out of it. It can be tough, and let’s be blunt, if you are doing it to meet some need of yours, then you may be disappointed. We fostered because we wanted to make a difference. We wanted to break the self-perpetuating cycle of dysfunction that exists in some families. We know carers who came to fostering when they were unable to have their own biological children. We know other carers who have been very successful at everything they have done in family and career and want to give something back. The assessment process will quiz you on your motivation, so spend some time thinking it through. The more honest you are with yourself about it the better.
Who will help you?
Make sure you have a good support network available. This is no time to be gung-ho. You will need support ranging from a sympathetic ear, to constructive advice, to actual physical assistance. If you are already a parent then you may have this in place. But remember that these children have additional needs. To give them what they need and want means a very intense relationship. You need people looking out for you.
Research
Our blog is Australian, so the resources we will point you to are Australian. But there are equivalent organisations around the world.
There is plenty of information available online from both the Department of Community Services (NSW and other Australian states), and Non-Government Foster care agencies.
To get you started, visit the DOCS website.
General information on fostering
Types of care
What to expect
Non-government agencies provide foster care services and recruit carers. You will be able to click through to their websites for more information.
Note that the links are sometimes to ‘Out-of-home care’, which is another name for foster care.
There are differences in approach, support, structure and process between DOCS and the private agencies. We’ve experienced both over many years, and have made some suggestions on our site before. You need to make sure you know what to expect from the agency. They can over-service you, under-support you, have policies that say one thing on paper and mean something else in practice, and may have vastly differing levels of skills and experience in their workers. You may not be able to avoid the issues but it helps if you know what you are getting into. Just as child and you should be a good match, so too should you and the agency.
Reporting more detail on children in care?
This came from Caroline Overington (#overingtonc) via Twitter. The full article is called The girl in the window, and recounts, in quite astonishing detail, the story of a 9 year old Florida girl.
She was so neglected and abused in her birth family that she now suffers developmental delay of the most extreme, fundamental kind. She has been adopted by a family who are trying to mend what they can. The article discloses a great deal of personal information about the child and her birth family, and a lot of detail on what the child experienced.
It should be compulsory reading for anyone who thinks they have an informed opinion on children’s services.
So, why can’t Overington and other responsible journos report this type of story, at this level of detail, in Australia?
Should we be able to report this type of story at this level of detail?
How can you work to a solution when no one is able to openly discuss the problem?
Can you educate all the people involved when the facts remain hidden?
Can you bring struggling parents to some degree of self-awareness if they never hear other stories they might identify with?
Can you report at this level of detail and still protect people’s privacy, particularly the children’s?
Perhaps it is time for a new approach.
Just today it was reported that ’Australian health and welfare agencies … formed a taskforce to combat increasing numbers of child abuse and neglect, which reached 55,000 cases last year’.
With notifications for alleged child abuse and neglect almost tripling in Australia between 1999 and 2007, the problem isn’t being solved by existing methods.
So maybe the time has come to give some committed, experienced, responsible journos the green light to start reporting.
Is it too easy to consider it ‘someone else’s problem’ if we don’t get too close to it?
When do we listen to the children?
Well done to Jenny Brockie and her team for the Insight program on Kids on Divorce.
While we think it is one of the most thought-provoking shows on the box, sometimes the dive is way too shallow. Just when you think the issue is finally open, the show finishes. And presenting one perspective, while powerful, can leave a viewer wondering what the other ‘side’ is. Some of the comments on the website suggest that there is another perspective.
But Brockie and Co should be giving lessons, for they are doing what too many institutions, and individuals, have failed to do for a long time now.
They are listening.
In Brockie’s case, she asks people what they actually think. And in this episode the kids had a view on divorce and its impact on them.
LISTEN
Where does the system give the secondary players (that would be the minor children) a say? Too often they are deemed too young to know what’s best for them. But their behaviour will often tell you that what is happening to them isn’t good.
LISTEN
And yet no one asks them their view. Or if they are asked there is no follow through. We once counselled a senior corporate executive that IF he asked the question then he needed to SHOW how he was acting on the answers.
LISTEN
Children might know what they want today. And then tomorrow they want something different. That’s the nature of small people. But if you spend enough time with them, you will hear a consistent message.
LISTEN
Too often the system pays lip service to listening, and then marshals all the research to tell the individual why they are wrong. Anyone who’s done at least a year at uni knows that you can make the statistics say just about anything if you try hard enough and ask the right questions.
LISTEN
How about listening to the individual? We need a system that stops dragging people to the average. The most amazing comment we ever heard was from a private agency senior manager who told us that neither the child we were caring for nor we ourselves were unique. Well we’ve got news for you. We are. We’re happy to say that there is no one else EXACTLY the same as us in the world. That makes us unique. You wanted to classify us as average so we would fit the statistics and do as you said.
LISTEN
We watched a worker sit beside a very young child in out of home care, and listen. She asked thoughtful questions, heard the answers, asked some careful and gentle follow up questions. It was done with such care and skill that we were mightily impressed. So if one person in the system can do it, why can’t everyone?
LISTEN
We don’t raise children using statistics and averages. We use our love for the child, our knowledge of the child, and our desire to see the child become the person they deserve to be. It would be nice if the system listened a bit harder to us as well.
While we think it is one of the most thought-provoking shows on the box, sometimes the dive is way too shallow. Just when you think the issue is finally open, the show finishes. And presenting one perspective, while powerful, can leave a viewer wondering what the other ‘side’ is. Some of the comments on the website suggest that there is another perspective.
But Brockie and Co should be giving lessons, for they are doing what too many institutions, and individuals, have failed to do for a long time now.
They are listening.
In Brockie’s case, she asks people what they actually think. And in this episode the kids had a view on divorce and its impact on them.
LISTEN
Where does the system give the secondary players (that would be the minor children) a say? Too often they are deemed too young to know what’s best for them. But their behaviour will often tell you that what is happening to them isn’t good.
LISTEN
And yet no one asks them their view. Or if they are asked there is no follow through. We once counselled a senior corporate executive that IF he asked the question then he needed to SHOW how he was acting on the answers.
LISTEN
Children might know what they want today. And then tomorrow they want something different. That’s the nature of small people. But if you spend enough time with them, you will hear a consistent message.
LISTEN
Too often the system pays lip service to listening, and then marshals all the research to tell the individual why they are wrong. Anyone who’s done at least a year at uni knows that you can make the statistics say just about anything if you try hard enough and ask the right questions.
LISTEN
How about listening to the individual? We need a system that stops dragging people to the average. The most amazing comment we ever heard was from a private agency senior manager who told us that neither the child we were caring for nor we ourselves were unique. Well we’ve got news for you. We are. We’re happy to say that there is no one else EXACTLY the same as us in the world. That makes us unique. You wanted to classify us as average so we would fit the statistics and do as you said.
LISTEN
We watched a worker sit beside a very young child in out of home care, and listen. She asked thoughtful questions, heard the answers, asked some careful and gentle follow up questions. It was done with such care and skill that we were mightily impressed. So if one person in the system can do it, why can’t everyone?
LISTEN
We don’t raise children using statistics and averages. We use our love for the child, our knowledge of the child, and our desire to see the child become the person they deserve to be. It would be nice if the system listened a bit harder to us as well.
'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.
Call for obese kids to be taken into care
Sorry for the slight delay in posting. We’ve had lots of changes in the last couple of weeks, not the least of which has been the start of the school year and settling into a new routine.
While we’re on the subject of weight, we can tell you that on the face of it this article made us choke over our low fat breakfast cereal.
The first paragraph reads ‘SEVERELY obese children should be notified to child protection authorities, and even taken into care, if their parents are unwilling or unable to help them lose weight, experts have argued.’
We get REALLY annoyed at the apparent ease with which some ‘experts’ in child services use the term ‘taken into care’ in relation to children. Really. Annoyed.
Many children don’t get the best care from their parents. They don’t get the right diet, or the right attention, or the right education. Where do you draw the line?
We’re not social workers, and we have some sympathy for them in working out where the line should be. But poor parenting is different to negligent or dangerous parenting. The risk with articles like this is that we all end up talking about taking children off their birth families as if it’s a nice little holiday the child might go on.
Well it isn’t. And it shouldn’t be shanghaied by anyone just to reinforce the seriousness of an issue.
The Camper is currently watching a new dog find its way around our house, yard and life. She’s been involved in the whole process of finding and bringing home the new pup. She is very interested because she knows that at a young age she went through the same dislocation. So it has given us a good opportunity to discuss how a dog, and by extension, a child, might feel, and act, and deal.
We want to send a note to all the ‘experts’ to use the words ‘taken into care’ carefully.
We don’t take those words lightly, because we are at the working end of that decision. We have a child in care, and we know the effort we have had to put in to making her feel secure, the deep seated trauma she suffered in being removed from her birth family, and the complexity of her ongoing relationship with her birth family. We have no doubt the decision was the right one for her but we are glad it wasn’t taken lightly.
Taking a child into care is, and should remain, the ultimate act to secure their future.
To suggest that careless, ill-educated or simply lazy parents should be threatened with it is completely wrong. And it encourages the general public, reading a headline, to discount the real impact of such a decision.
Posted by EssentialMum
While we’re on the subject of weight, we can tell you that on the face of it this article made us choke over our low fat breakfast cereal.
The first paragraph reads ‘SEVERELY obese children should be notified to child protection authorities, and even taken into care, if their parents are unwilling or unable to help them lose weight, experts have argued.’
We get REALLY annoyed at the apparent ease with which some ‘experts’ in child services use the term ‘taken into care’ in relation to children. Really. Annoyed.
Many children don’t get the best care from their parents. They don’t get the right diet, or the right attention, or the right education. Where do you draw the line?
We’re not social workers, and we have some sympathy for them in working out where the line should be. But poor parenting is different to negligent or dangerous parenting. The risk with articles like this is that we all end up talking about taking children off their birth families as if it’s a nice little holiday the child might go on.
Well it isn’t. And it shouldn’t be shanghaied by anyone just to reinforce the seriousness of an issue.
The Camper is currently watching a new dog find its way around our house, yard and life. She’s been involved in the whole process of finding and bringing home the new pup. She is very interested because she knows that at a young age she went through the same dislocation. So it has given us a good opportunity to discuss how a dog, and by extension, a child, might feel, and act, and deal.
We want to send a note to all the ‘experts’ to use the words ‘taken into care’ carefully.
We don’t take those words lightly, because we are at the working end of that decision. We have a child in care, and we know the effort we have had to put in to making her feel secure, the deep seated trauma she suffered in being removed from her birth family, and the complexity of her ongoing relationship with her birth family. We have no doubt the decision was the right one for her but we are glad it wasn’t taken lightly.
Taking a child into care is, and should remain, the ultimate act to secure their future.
To suggest that careless, ill-educated or simply lazy parents should be threatened with it is completely wrong. And it encourages the general public, reading a headline, to discount the real impact of such a decision.
Posted by EssentialMum
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
The Commission Outcomes
Dear Justice Wood, Premier Rees, Minister Burney and all those who will be working through Justice Wood’s recommendations,
It was big commission wasn’t it? 111 recommendations, and a significant part of those is in relation to moving responsibility for sheltering children at risk to the private sector.
Funnily enough, ask any business person and they will tell you that one of the greatest challenges in outsourcing a service is governance – who monitors the system to make sure it works as intended - and accountability. You can’t outsource accountability. So what structure will still be in place in government? I suppose that’s all to be worked out yet.
Our experience has also shown us a very great difference between DOCS workers and private agency workers – in skill, in maturity, in experience. So the uplift required for many agencies will be huge. But you knew that, didn’t you? And the officers from those agencies who presented to the commission were honest and upfront about how well they functioned, and what it would take to enable their agencies to effectively take over from DOCS. Weren’t they?
We’d like to recommend that one of the toolsets you implement, to maintain standards across this distributed agency group, and to give us carers a clearer picture of what we are entitled to expect, are service levels. They won’t solve all the problems but they will provide some clarity. You see, agencies can get pretty autocratic about how they do things, their policies and their processes. They can push an agenda relentlessly. If you are a carer with an opinion and push hard enough back they can even get a bit narky. But you knew that, didn’t you?
So good luck. It’s a shame that more of the submissions to the Commission were not made public. Then I think we’d all have a better understanding of all the issues we are dealing with. It’s not that we don’t trust you, but at present, having heard the agency and DOCS submissions, we’re just feeling a bit one-sided.
Yours faithfully,
EssentialMum
Posted by EssentialMum
It was big commission wasn’t it? 111 recommendations, and a significant part of those is in relation to moving responsibility for sheltering children at risk to the private sector.
Funnily enough, ask any business person and they will tell you that one of the greatest challenges in outsourcing a service is governance – who monitors the system to make sure it works as intended - and accountability. You can’t outsource accountability. So what structure will still be in place in government? I suppose that’s all to be worked out yet.
Our experience has also shown us a very great difference between DOCS workers and private agency workers – in skill, in maturity, in experience. So the uplift required for many agencies will be huge. But you knew that, didn’t you? And the officers from those agencies who presented to the commission were honest and upfront about how well they functioned, and what it would take to enable their agencies to effectively take over from DOCS. Weren’t they?
We’d like to recommend that one of the toolsets you implement, to maintain standards across this distributed agency group, and to give us carers a clearer picture of what we are entitled to expect, are service levels. They won’t solve all the problems but they will provide some clarity. You see, agencies can get pretty autocratic about how they do things, their policies and their processes. They can push an agenda relentlessly. If you are a carer with an opinion and push hard enough back they can even get a bit narky. But you knew that, didn’t you?
So good luck. It’s a shame that more of the submissions to the Commission were not made public. Then I think we’d all have a better understanding of all the issues we are dealing with. It’s not that we don’t trust you, but at present, having heard the agency and DOCS submissions, we’re just feeling a bit one-sided.
Yours faithfully,
EssentialMum
Posted by EssentialMum
'I am a foster child'
How should children in care refer to themselves? How should you introduce them?
We don’t do labels.
So no child in care is ever, ever described to anyone as a foster child or a child in care. They are our child. Generally only those who need to know are told their status. And for anyone who needs to know (doctor, teacher), the basic facts are sufficient and explain all that needs to be said.
Foster care is the child’s legal status. So why should that be what describes them?
We sometimes used to feel like the system gives these children a secret stamp – only visible to it – that said ‘Child in Care’. Different rules apply to ‘normal’ children. This feeling wasn’t helped by the workers’ frequent response, when we disagreed about a particular action, that ‘this is what we do for all our children in care’. One approach suits all? We knew enough other carers to know that wasn’t true.
This issue about labels is really important.
Labels are pejorative. They are loaded with meaning. We have heard of children in out of home care having the term ‘foster child’ flung at them in the school playground in a derisory way.
Come to think of it, maybe the term ‘foster care’ has had its day. What does ‘foster’ mean anyway? Out-of-home care isn’t much better.
Here’s the definition of foster from dictionary.com:
We like number 3 – to care for or cherish.
We made a commitment to bring a child into our family to show them what it means to be cherished. Often they won’t have had that before. Make no mistake – often they have been the centre of attention, and had lots of people spending lots of time reviewing what’s best for them. But they won’t have been cherished. It’s the strength of that individual care that makes a difference to their lives.
We can show children what constant, unchanging love looks like, in all its shapes and colours and circumstances. We can show them how to receive it and give it. Most people take that for granted.
So we provide family care.
Maybe Family Care is the new description. A new family is caring for this child. What do you think?
Posted by EssentialMum
We don’t do labels.
So no child in care is ever, ever described to anyone as a foster child or a child in care. They are our child. Generally only those who need to know are told their status. And for anyone who needs to know (doctor, teacher), the basic facts are sufficient and explain all that needs to be said.
Foster care is the child’s legal status. So why should that be what describes them?
We sometimes used to feel like the system gives these children a secret stamp – only visible to it – that said ‘Child in Care’. Different rules apply to ‘normal’ children. This feeling wasn’t helped by the workers’ frequent response, when we disagreed about a particular action, that ‘this is what we do for all our children in care’. One approach suits all? We knew enough other carers to know that wasn’t true.
This issue about labels is really important.
Labels are pejorative. They are loaded with meaning. We have heard of children in out of home care having the term ‘foster child’ flung at them in the school playground in a derisory way.
Come to think of it, maybe the term ‘foster care’ has had its day. What does ‘foster’ mean anyway? Out-of-home care isn’t much better.
Here’s the definition of foster from dictionary.com:
- to promote the growth or development of; further; encourage, to foster new ideas
- to bring up, raise, or rear as a foster child
- to care for or cherish
- British, to place (a child) in a foster home
We like number 3 – to care for or cherish.
We made a commitment to bring a child into our family to show them what it means to be cherished. Often they won’t have had that before. Make no mistake – often they have been the centre of attention, and had lots of people spending lots of time reviewing what’s best for them. But they won’t have been cherished. It’s the strength of that individual care that makes a difference to their lives.
We can show children what constant, unchanging love looks like, in all its shapes and colours and circumstances. We can show them how to receive it and give it. Most people take that for granted.
So we provide family care.
Maybe Family Care is the new description. A new family is caring for this child. What do you think?
Posted by EssentialMum
Access
Reading our posts, you might suspect that all is sorted in our world. You might not, but in case you do…. We still have our days.
The week after access with birth family can be a challenge.
You might find that something is triggered in your child in care after visits. It might be hard to deal with because it comes from deep inside. The child may not understand it, and as you weren’t there in those early days you may have little chance of unpicking it.
We’ve seen children regress in that post access week. Behaviours will surface that belong to a younger child. Things that they normally take in their stride become major issues.
How do we deal? We don’t play. We move calmly on. We continue with our routines and normal practices. When a child is older, we might give them a look, we might even make a comment. If the child can handle it start the conversation with them about how they are feeling after seeing birth family.
Our single minded trudge through that post-access week (for some years now), is always important to the child, make no mistake. In a life that is probably marked by early change*, they need to learn that there is no change now as a result of seeing birth family. That there is no change with their new foster family. That’s a big step forward.
Posted by EssentialMum
* The kind of change we are referring to is where a child is moved, frequently, from short term carer to short term carer.
The week after access with birth family can be a challenge.
You might find that something is triggered in your child in care after visits. It might be hard to deal with because it comes from deep inside. The child may not understand it, and as you weren’t there in those early days you may have little chance of unpicking it.
We’ve seen children regress in that post access week. Behaviours will surface that belong to a younger child. Things that they normally take in their stride become major issues.
How do we deal? We don’t play. We move calmly on. We continue with our routines and normal practices. When a child is older, we might give them a look, we might even make a comment. If the child can handle it start the conversation with them about how they are feeling after seeing birth family.
Our single minded trudge through that post-access week (for some years now), is always important to the child, make no mistake. In a life that is probably marked by early change*, they need to learn that there is no change now as a result of seeing birth family. That there is no change with their new foster family. That’s a big step forward.
Posted by EssentialMum
* The kind of change we are referring to is where a child is moved, frequently, from short term carer to short term carer.
Can we 'fix' DOCs?
Rise in deaths of 'at risk' children (The Australian, Caroline Overington | October 16, 2008).
‘MORE than 150 children who died in NSW last year came from families that were known to the Department of Community Services. The figure, a quarter of all child deaths in the state, represents a 40 per cent increase on the previous year in the number of so-called "reviewable" deaths.’
‘Fix DOCs’ we hear people shriek.
But you can’t fix a problem at the macro level. So you can’t just ‘fix DOCs’.
To solve problems, you need to be very specific about the problems. You need to be honest and open about what causes them. You need to address them quite specifically. But you need to understand how fixing the problem in the middle will impact all the others surrounding it. It is essential that everyone who plays a role agrees on what the problems are and wants to solve them.
So if more children ‘at risk’ died in 2008 than in the previous year, why?
Let’s state the obvious - children were left in a home environment that was dangerous to their life or to their health. The system that is charged with making decisions about what is best for them didn’t act, couldn’t act, couldn’t monitor, or simply couldn’t solve the problems.
Here are some of the questions we think need to be asked:
There is a lot riding on the outcomes of the Wood Commission. Let’s hope that at the first level there has been a very honest assessment of what the problems are that need to be solved.
Posted by EssentialMum
‘MORE than 150 children who died in NSW last year came from families that were known to the Department of Community Services. The figure, a quarter of all child deaths in the state, represents a 40 per cent increase on the previous year in the number of so-called "reviewable" deaths.’
‘Fix DOCs’ we hear people shriek.
But you can’t fix a problem at the macro level. So you can’t just ‘fix DOCs’.
To solve problems, you need to be very specific about the problems. You need to be honest and open about what causes them. You need to address them quite specifically. But you need to understand how fixing the problem in the middle will impact all the others surrounding it. It is essential that everyone who plays a role agrees on what the problems are and wants to solve them.
So if more children ‘at risk’ died in 2008 than in the previous year, why?
Let’s state the obvious - children were left in a home environment that was dangerous to their life or to their health. The system that is charged with making decisions about what is best for them didn’t act, couldn’t act, couldn’t monitor, or simply couldn’t solve the problems.
Here are some of the questions we think need to be asked:
- At what point does the child’s right to a safe, healthy, stable life become more important then staying with their birth parents? Are there government or agency policies that influence these decisions?
- What is the risk to the child and its development if the ‘recovery or rehabilitation’ of a birth parent is slow or troubled by setbacks? Will the child’s life and development be compromised in either the short or the long term by not moving them?
- Do workers feel they have the autonomy to make a call regarding the child’s circumstances? Are they equipped to make the call? Are they supported by the system in making that call? Is the system prepared to deal with calls that may be premature?
- What if the headline we were reading reported an increase in the number of children removed from their birth families? Would we be comfortable with that?
- Are the civil liberties of birth parents over-riding the best interests of the child?
- What resources are available to the birth parents to help them cope with life, family and future? How willing and capable are the birth parents of using those resources?
- Is a system in place that can monitor birth parents’ progress and keep watch on the health and safety of the child? Can the system do this frequently enough to adequately monitor the child? If not, what is the risk to the child?
There is a lot riding on the outcomes of the Wood Commission. Let’s hope that at the first level there has been a very honest assessment of what the problems are that need to be solved.
Posted by EssentialMum
Guarantees in foster care?
An article in The Australian (Thursday Oct 2, 2008) ‘Potential carers put off fostering’ (Overington and Trup) reviewed some of the confidential submissions to the Wood Royal Commission. It is well written article.
The first paragraph states ‘Tens of thousands of affluent, educated and responsible couples are ready to take the nation’s abused and neglected children into their care, if only they could be guaranteed that the children would be allowed to stay’.
What an absolute tragedy.
There are tens of thousands of couples that might have missed out on what may be the most rewarding journey of their life? And, more importantly, there are thousands of children who might have found a life with wonderful parents?
Will better education and communication change the perspective of some of those potential carers? Maybe the ‘system’ needs to make a call earlier for some children and place them in a ‘permanent’ home as soon as possible?
We took the journey. These statistics hit home because the littlest statistic is very real to us.
The fact is, you don’t get many guarantees with foster care.
These children are not adopted – you don’t get to take them in and be left alone. You deal with birth families and workers, with the legal construct of fostering. The children themselves may often have issues.
But you can work towards some certainty, before you foster:
Is there a long-term order for the child? Would you be taking them on long-term? Does this mean until the age of 18 or of ‘maturity’?
What are the birth family circumstances? Is a birth parent working towards getting the children back in a realistic and meaningful way?
What’s the agency’s long term goal? Are they aiming for restitution or permanency planning for the child? What do they see your role as?
Is the placement long term and will the agency support that?
So to all those prospective foster parents - you want guarantees the child is with you to stay? Then get in there and fight for them. Take them in, care for them, love them, bond with them, become their parent. Then you won’t need guarantees, you’ll make them. You’ll face anyone who thinks moving this child might be an option with steely eyed determination. For you are their parent. And for the first time in their lives, these children have an adult to advocate for them. Not just mouth the words, but really do it. With love and care and something at stake.
You have to decide whether you are fostering for you, or for them?
Posted by EssentialMum
The first paragraph states ‘Tens of thousands of affluent, educated and responsible couples are ready to take the nation’s abused and neglected children into their care, if only they could be guaranteed that the children would be allowed to stay’.
What an absolute tragedy.
There are tens of thousands of couples that might have missed out on what may be the most rewarding journey of their life? And, more importantly, there are thousands of children who might have found a life with wonderful parents?
Will better education and communication change the perspective of some of those potential carers? Maybe the ‘system’ needs to make a call earlier for some children and place them in a ‘permanent’ home as soon as possible?
We took the journey. These statistics hit home because the littlest statistic is very real to us.
The fact is, you don’t get many guarantees with foster care.
These children are not adopted – you don’t get to take them in and be left alone. You deal with birth families and workers, with the legal construct of fostering. The children themselves may often have issues.
But you can work towards some certainty, before you foster:
Is there a long-term order for the child? Would you be taking them on long-term? Does this mean until the age of 18 or of ‘maturity’?
What are the birth family circumstances? Is a birth parent working towards getting the children back in a realistic and meaningful way?
What’s the agency’s long term goal? Are they aiming for restitution or permanency planning for the child? What do they see your role as?
Is the placement long term and will the agency support that?
So to all those prospective foster parents - you want guarantees the child is with you to stay? Then get in there and fight for them. Take them in, care for them, love them, bond with them, become their parent. Then you won’t need guarantees, you’ll make them. You’ll face anyone who thinks moving this child might be an option with steely eyed determination. For you are their parent. And for the first time in their lives, these children have an adult to advocate for them. Not just mouth the words, but really do it. With love and care and something at stake.
You have to decide whether you are fostering for you, or for them?
Posted by EssentialMum
Do agencies keep carer lists up to date?
We had a phone call recently. A very pleasant young person identified herself as a new case worker with a particular private agency.
We were invited to a social event at the agency, despite the fact that it is a fair while since we’ve had any dealings with that agency.
When we mentioned this, the worker laughed and advised that she must have had an ‘old’ list.
We were surprised.
Does the agency maintain a ‘current’ list of carers? How often is that updated? Who is accountable for updating it? Are files in the agency marked ‘current’ and ‘past’? How do they manage privacy for ‘closed’ files that they no longer have any accountability for? Can any new worker access any closed file?
Oversights do happen. But we are not inclined to give this agency the benefit of the doubt. It is, sadly, representative of the lack of attention to detail from them.
Harsh words? Maybe. We have been known to take a service provider to task for poor service, failure to follow through, or sloppy work. Fine when we are battling over our mobile bill.
But we expect better. We are dealing with a person. How will a child in care feel, many years on, when they read the case conference notes and see the errors? These children are entitled to expect every adult who has been given a role in their life by ‘the system’ to take the utmost care – of them, of their information, of their feelings.
Poor form indeed.
Posted by EssentialMum.
We were invited to a social event at the agency, despite the fact that it is a fair while since we’ve had any dealings with that agency.
When we mentioned this, the worker laughed and advised that she must have had an ‘old’ list.
We were surprised.
Does the agency maintain a ‘current’ list of carers? How often is that updated? Who is accountable for updating it? Are files in the agency marked ‘current’ and ‘past’? How do they manage privacy for ‘closed’ files that they no longer have any accountability for? Can any new worker access any closed file?
Oversights do happen. But we are not inclined to give this agency the benefit of the doubt. It is, sadly, representative of the lack of attention to detail from them.
Harsh words? Maybe. We have been known to take a service provider to task for poor service, failure to follow through, or sloppy work. Fine when we are battling over our mobile bill.
But we expect better. We are dealing with a person. How will a child in care feel, many years on, when they read the case conference notes and see the errors? These children are entitled to expect every adult who has been given a role in their life by ‘the system’ to take the utmost care – of them, of their information, of their feelings.
Poor form indeed.
Posted by EssentialMum.
Which agency should I foster with?
Who should I approach? I’m really interested in fostering, but I’m not sure which agency, public or private, I should go through. What’s the difference?
This came into focus when we caught up with a friend last weekend, who reminded us that she was interested in long term fostering, and wanted our advice on where to start.
Let’s take a big step forward. When you have a child in care, one of the most important aspects of that placement is a real ‘meeting of the minds’ between carer and agency. You may have challenges with the child. The last thing you need is conflict or frustration with the agency that monitors and supports you.
‘Meeting of the minds’ is actually a legal concept that underpins contract law, but we’ve found it works well in business and life. Are your thoughts aligned? Do you want the same thing? Are you working towards the same outcome?
In our experience, the best agency/carer relationships have the following features:
Posted by EssentialMum
This came into focus when we caught up with a friend last weekend, who reminded us that she was interested in long term fostering, and wanted our advice on where to start.
Let’s take a big step forward. When you have a child in care, one of the most important aspects of that placement is a real ‘meeting of the minds’ between carer and agency. You may have challenges with the child. The last thing you need is conflict or frustration with the agency that monitors and supports you.
‘Meeting of the minds’ is actually a legal concept that underpins contract law, but we’ve found it works well in business and life. Are your thoughts aligned? Do you want the same thing? Are you working towards the same outcome?
In our experience, the best agency/carer relationships have the following features:
- An ‘aligned’ vision of what is best for the child. Put simply, you all agree on the basics - of care, access, support etc.
- A fair and open process of deciding what is best for the child. Think about what happens. The carer takes a child in. The child needs to settle, to trust, to learn, maybe even to learn to love. The timeframe varies but most long term carers become the people who know the child best. We live with them. Put our ‘on the ground’ experience with an experienced, thoughtful, objective social worker, provide willingness to discuss an issue and decide an approach together, and the results can be constructive.
- Room for individuality. These children need to be treated as individuals who matter. Too often their needs as an individual have been completely ignored. This is not uncommon in their birth family circumstances, but surprisingly can also occur in short term placements, where the focus might be on their physical needs. So any approaches or policies should be adjusted for the individual child. For example, the policy that ‘Our approach is that children in care call their birth parent “X” ‘ becomes ‘While generally our policy is that children in care call their birth parent “X”, in Y’s case we agree that….’
- Mutual respect. This needs to happen at the individual level. The PERSONAL level. Carers need to be able to respect the social worker assigned to their case, and workers need to respect the capabilities and experience of the carers. All parties need to demonstrate this – in what they say, how they listen to each other.
- Support. Depending on the needs of your child, you may call on the agency for support. They should be there when you need it. With what you need. And on the other hand, they shouldn’t be in your ear every week with demands and actions and policies and plans. Unless that's what you want.
- A willingness to listen. From all parties. This means that a proper conversation is going on.
- Recognition. Some recognition of the child’s progress really makes a carer feel good. More importantly, a ‘good’ placement, and the carers’ part in that, should go to the carers’ credibility. If the child is thriving, learning, growing, loving and happy do you think we might just know what we are doing?
Posted by EssentialMum
When do we connect the dots .................?
EssentialMum offloaded a car last year. She filled out her paperwork for the RTA transferring registration.
So - stay with me here - how interesting to receive an E-Toll statement this week, containing recent toll charges for the offloaded vehicle. Not high. Just wrong.
The E-Toll statement has the RTA logo on the top left corner, as well as the Roads and Traffic Authority business name and ABN (Australian Business Number). The links to the web for further information take the user to the RTA site. One could assume they were part of the RTA in fact. Couldn’t one?
EssentialMum rang the Operations Centre, and politely enquired as to why charges were still coming through for the offloaded car. The very polite and helpful staffer told us that the charges occurred when a tag didn’t work – so they would confirm the car registration and manually charge whichever E-Toll account had that car rego listed on it.
So one part of the RTA that processes a transfer in registration of a vehicle has no way of informing another part of the RTA of the change in ownership. In this age of connectivity, you’ve got to be kidding!
It’s a good day when we learn something – even if it is how to manage our E-Toll account. But it struck a chord with us.
This is what child welfare services struggle with.
No one joins the dots, and in those circumstances it is often a child’s life at risk, not a few dollars on a toll charge. In child welfare it is not just within an organisation, but across all parties charged with some responsibility for children’s welfare and safety.
How hard could it be to create a networked database, accessible by all required parties, to track case plans, incidents, issues and care plans for children at risk? Of course there are privacy issues. Corporations have been managing customer privacy issues for years.
Can you imagine the information flow if a case worker, a doctor, a teacher, a police officer, a community health worker, a foster parent, even a birth parent could communicate online? About a child. One can only dream.
Posted by EssentialMum
So - stay with me here - how interesting to receive an E-Toll statement this week, containing recent toll charges for the offloaded vehicle. Not high. Just wrong.
The E-Toll statement has the RTA logo on the top left corner, as well as the Roads and Traffic Authority business name and ABN (Australian Business Number). The links to the web for further information take the user to the RTA site. One could assume they were part of the RTA in fact. Couldn’t one?
EssentialMum rang the Operations Centre, and politely enquired as to why charges were still coming through for the offloaded car. The very polite and helpful staffer told us that the charges occurred when a tag didn’t work – so they would confirm the car registration and manually charge whichever E-Toll account had that car rego listed on it.
So one part of the RTA that processes a transfer in registration of a vehicle has no way of informing another part of the RTA of the change in ownership. In this age of connectivity, you’ve got to be kidding!
It’s a good day when we learn something – even if it is how to manage our E-Toll account. But it struck a chord with us.
This is what child welfare services struggle with.
No one joins the dots, and in those circumstances it is often a child’s life at risk, not a few dollars on a toll charge. In child welfare it is not just within an organisation, but across all parties charged with some responsibility for children’s welfare and safety.
How hard could it be to create a networked database, accessible by all required parties, to track case plans, incidents, issues and care plans for children at risk? Of course there are privacy issues. Corporations have been managing customer privacy issues for years.
Can you imagine the information flow if a case worker, a doctor, a teacher, a police officer, a community health worker, a foster parent, even a birth parent could communicate online? About a child. One can only dream.
Posted by EssentialMum
Children don’t go into limbo while the adults sort themselves out
Kate de Brito’s blog at news.com.au had an interesting topic. This week’s post was ‘Should I report my sister to child services?’ (If you click through don't be surprised to find some fairly blunt posts and comments on all manner of subjects).
The person who submitted the question – which was whether she should notify the authorities about her sister’s home situation - outlined what is essentially a scenario of children at risk, and asked for advice. There was plenty.
Many contributors were simply stunned. Given what is reported on the news most weeks that's surprising, but there you go. Many thought a good home clean-up/talking to/scare for mother was needed. Most of those missed the complexity of the situation and mother’s state of mental health and, we think, the reality that we are dealing with people here. And there were some well-reasoned and thoughtful responses.
The piece the readers had the least information on was what the family had done or was doing. There were a number of comments about what the family should do in such circumstances. That’s not an easy one to answer.
But surprise - the bogeyman was the authorities. While Kate recommended an initial approach to find out options, and a contributor pointed out that there is quite a process that the authorities follow before any decisions are made, many contributors put notifying the authorities as a last resort.
We can understand why many people assume the worst – of the system and the authorities. We can see why people feel that once they launch this juggernaut they will have no input and no control. A systematic approach, by its very nature, often works to exclude those who don’t understand it, or don’t have the skills the system requires to deal with it.
We have argued with social workers and stood our ground when we have a different view of what’s proposed for a child in care. Some workers made it clear that they thought we were being uncooperative because we dared to disagree with them. We believe we were doing our job and treating our child like the individual they are. It takes courage and smarts and tenacity to hold the line.
As a carer, you can feel torn by all these viewpoints. We think there is a guiding principle that helps. It’s certainly helped us work out what really matters.
Put the child first
Usually stated by all parties but not always done. We’ve heard a complacent ‘we advocate for the child’ from a worker. What the worker had conveniently forgotten was that she advocated for the child within the well prescribed, bog standard framework of the agency. And the agency had its own agenda. Funnily enough, some of that bog standard framework was in conflict with DOCS' approach.
So what’s the point?
There’s a point where the child’s needs outweigh those of the birth parent. Many of the posts on Kate de Brito’s blog advocated assistance for the mother. Absolutely. But make sure the children are OK while that process is going on.
Because children don’t go into limbo while the adults sort themselves out.
Posted by EssentialMum
The person who submitted the question – which was whether she should notify the authorities about her sister’s home situation - outlined what is essentially a scenario of children at risk, and asked for advice. There was plenty.
Many contributors were simply stunned. Given what is reported on the news most weeks that's surprising, but there you go. Many thought a good home clean-up/talking to/scare for mother was needed. Most of those missed the complexity of the situation and mother’s state of mental health and, we think, the reality that we are dealing with people here. And there were some well-reasoned and thoughtful responses.
The piece the readers had the least information on was what the family had done or was doing. There were a number of comments about what the family should do in such circumstances. That’s not an easy one to answer.
But surprise - the bogeyman was the authorities. While Kate recommended an initial approach to find out options, and a contributor pointed out that there is quite a process that the authorities follow before any decisions are made, many contributors put notifying the authorities as a last resort.
We can understand why many people assume the worst – of the system and the authorities. We can see why people feel that once they launch this juggernaut they will have no input and no control. A systematic approach, by its very nature, often works to exclude those who don’t understand it, or don’t have the skills the system requires to deal with it.
We have argued with social workers and stood our ground when we have a different view of what’s proposed for a child in care. Some workers made it clear that they thought we were being uncooperative because we dared to disagree with them. We believe we were doing our job and treating our child like the individual they are. It takes courage and smarts and tenacity to hold the line.
As a carer, you can feel torn by all these viewpoints. We think there is a guiding principle that helps. It’s certainly helped us work out what really matters.
Put the child first
Usually stated by all parties but not always done. We’ve heard a complacent ‘we advocate for the child’ from a worker. What the worker had conveniently forgotten was that she advocated for the child within the well prescribed, bog standard framework of the agency. And the agency had its own agenda. Funnily enough, some of that bog standard framework was in conflict with DOCS' approach.
So what’s the point?
There’s a point where the child’s needs outweigh those of the birth parent. Many of the posts on Kate de Brito’s blog advocated assistance for the mother. Absolutely. But make sure the children are OK while that process is going on.
Because children don’t go into limbo while the adults sort themselves out.
Posted by EssentialMum
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 but we also really like to DO.
To us the ultimate contribution was changing a child’s life. We could help one little person work his or her way through the circumstances of their birth and family, to be a happy, healthy, confident – insert all adjectives here – member of the world. We might be able to set this child on a path of self-discovery and achievement, secure in the knowledge that they are loved and treasured. You can tell we’re optimists too, can’t you?
EssentialMum has a long family history of experience in foster care, so the concept of fostering was known and understood. All that was good about it and frankly, all that was bad too. For child and family. So all the starry eyed aspirations had a firm grounding in reality. That’s why we thought of fostering rather than adoption. We knew it was valuable.
It’s been difficult, and challenging, and simply wonderful. Happy Camper is now such a part of our lives that we don’t think of her in any other terms than permanent presence. We’re committed to this relationship. And Happy Camper knows it.
Posted by EssentialMum
We wanted to make a difference at the most personal level. Donating to charities is important; the well-structured ones do wonderful work. But there had to be something more personal, which took more of our time, our skill and our commitment.
We were respite carers for some time. Working full time, it seemed sensible to provide weekend care for a little one and help the existing parent-child relationship along. We had some good times, and both mother and babe seemed to benefit from the contact.
But as we dropped the little babe back each time, the thought that grew was how we could make a difference that stuck? Sustenance was good – in this instance it helped a mum maintain her relationship with her babies. We wanted to do more. We wanted to give more.
It seemed that long term, full time care was the answer.
We are people who DO. We talk lots and at length but we also really like to DO.
To us the ultimate contribution was changing a child’s life. We could help one little person work his or her way through the circumstances of their birth and family, to be a happy, healthy, confident – insert all adjectives here – member of the world. We might be able to set this child on a path of self-discovery and achievement, secure in the knowledge that they are loved and treasured. You can tell we’re optimists too, can’t you?
EssentialMum has a long family history of experience in foster care, so the concept of fostering was known and understood. All that was good about it and frankly, all that was bad too. For child and family. So all the starry eyed aspirations had a firm grounding in reality. That’s why we thought of fostering rather than adoption. We knew it was valuable.
It’s been difficult, and challenging, and simply wonderful. Happy Camper is now such a part of our lives that we don’t think of her in any other terms than permanent presence. We’re committed to this relationship. And Happy Camper knows it.
Posted by EssentialMum