children
Who is watching out for the children?
29/07/2009 23:41 Filed in: general
Today, two ‘popular’ entertainers carried out a stunt, whereby a 14 year old girl was brought by her mother to their studio, hooked up to a lie detector, and quizzed on air by the radio hosts about her sexual history. The media coverage states that her mother, who attended, wanted to know whether her daughter had taken drugs or was sexually active.
While anyone with some standards has probably had a meltdown, those of us a bit closer to children at risk sighed. There are so many things wrong with this stunt, not the least of which is the ‘me, I didn’t do anything wrong’ online explanation from one of the entertainers (we’re not even going to link to any of the coverage, sorry).
‘What did you expect!’ you might ask?
Well, we expect that society will look out for children.
The girl was 14 years of age. In our country that is underage. So let’s see where the buck should have stopped.
We think it highly unlikely that the child was able to fully understand what she was getting herself into, and the full implications of what might occur. There’s informed consent and we doubt she had it. But maybe she wanted to go ahead?
So we think it was highly inappropriate for the mother to either coerce, acquiesce to or simply allow her underage daughter to be questioned on air about her sexual history. So mother hasn’t the best judgment?
We think is highly inappropriate for a commercial radio station to provide a forum for a careless parent to expose her underage child to such an experience.
Was there no adult there who questioned whether this was in the child’s best interests?
What is sad beyond belief is that not one adult considered the segment (because of the girl's age and the line of questioning) to be exploitative, damaging and negligent. Or if they did, they were prepared to compromise that for ratings and revenue.
When adults absolve themselves of responsibility for children, when commercial enterprises throw out standards in the pursuit of revenue, and when ignorant egotists rule the airwaves, the victims are the kids.
And sadly, this pattern of failure after failure is all too common. The question is not ‘who is responsible?’ It’s ‘who is going to take responsibility?’
While anyone with some standards has probably had a meltdown, those of us a bit closer to children at risk sighed. There are so many things wrong with this stunt, not the least of which is the ‘me, I didn’t do anything wrong’ online explanation from one of the entertainers (we’re not even going to link to any of the coverage, sorry).
‘What did you expect!’ you might ask?
Well, we expect that society will look out for children.
The girl was 14 years of age. In our country that is underage. So let’s see where the buck should have stopped.
We think it highly unlikely that the child was able to fully understand what she was getting herself into, and the full implications of what might occur. There’s informed consent and we doubt she had it. But maybe she wanted to go ahead?
So we think it was highly inappropriate for the mother to either coerce, acquiesce to or simply allow her underage daughter to be questioned on air about her sexual history. So mother hasn’t the best judgment?
We think is highly inappropriate for a commercial radio station to provide a forum for a careless parent to expose her underage child to such an experience.
Was there no adult there who questioned whether this was in the child’s best interests?
What is sad beyond belief is that not one adult considered the segment (because of the girl's age and the line of questioning) to be exploitative, damaging and negligent. Or if they did, they were prepared to compromise that for ratings and revenue.
When adults absolve themselves of responsibility for children, when commercial enterprises throw out standards in the pursuit of revenue, and when ignorant egotists rule the airwaves, the victims are the kids.
And sadly, this pattern of failure after failure is all too common. The question is not ‘who is responsible?’ It’s ‘who is going to take responsibility?’
|
Too fat to adopt?
This UK couple has been told they cannot adopt because the husband is classed as ‘morbidly obese’. This is tricky territory, so we will tread carefully.
The husband acknowledges he is ‘too fat’. The local authority states ‘The council's adoption service has a legal responsibility to ensure that children are placed with adopters who are able to provide the best possible lifelong care’.
We get to play both sides of the debate on this blog. So here they are.
There are many parents who are obese, who smoke, who drink, who do recreational drugs. In most of those instances they are not denied the right to parent their birth children.
So on the face of it, are we applying a double standard to prospective adoptive or foster parents who may not be ‘perfect’?
On the other hand, there are a number of parents out there whose alcohol or drug habits have spiralled out of control, or who have mental health and other issues. They have had their children removed from their care for the children’s safety. Those children have already suffered loss in their lives.
In adoption with a new family, the children deserve to know that the family they are placed with has the capacity to look after them for the long term.
We have seen the effect of multiple moves on children. Some never recover. The Camper has given us her heart, her love and her trust. We know, quite simply, that to break that now would change her life forever.
So if we put the child first, which is a theme of this site, then this couple needs to minimise any risk to their health.
Adoptive or long term foster parents need to be as healthy and strong as they can be, not because the authority says so, but because some small child – who is going to give them his or her heart and trust - deserves it.
We would suggest that it is the same standard that should apply to ANY parent by the way. Raising children is a tiring, strenuous, whole-hearted activity. We find physical health to be key in handling the workload and the stress. It helps us parent better by being able to share physical activity with our children.
So our advice to this couple? Improve your health. There is a child out there who needs you, but they do need you for the long term. You might not have met them yet but you owe it to them already.
Posted by EssentialMum
The husband acknowledges he is ‘too fat’. The local authority states ‘The council's adoption service has a legal responsibility to ensure that children are placed with adopters who are able to provide the best possible lifelong care’.
We get to play both sides of the debate on this blog. So here they are.
There are many parents who are obese, who smoke, who drink, who do recreational drugs. In most of those instances they are not denied the right to parent their birth children.
So on the face of it, are we applying a double standard to prospective adoptive or foster parents who may not be ‘perfect’?
On the other hand, there are a number of parents out there whose alcohol or drug habits have spiralled out of control, or who have mental health and other issues. They have had their children removed from their care for the children’s safety. Those children have already suffered loss in their lives.
In adoption with a new family, the children deserve to know that the family they are placed with has the capacity to look after them for the long term.
We have seen the effect of multiple moves on children. Some never recover. The Camper has given us her heart, her love and her trust. We know, quite simply, that to break that now would change her life forever.
So if we put the child first, which is a theme of this site, then this couple needs to minimise any risk to their health.
Adoptive or long term foster parents need to be as healthy and strong as they can be, not because the authority says so, but because some small child – who is going to give them his or her heart and trust - deserves it.
We would suggest that it is the same standard that should apply to ANY parent by the way. Raising children is a tiring, strenuous, whole-hearted activity. We find physical health to be key in handling the workload and the stress. It helps us parent better by being able to share physical activity with our children.
So our advice to this couple? Improve your health. There is a child out there who needs you, but they do need you for the long term. You might not have met them yet but you owe it to them already.
Posted by EssentialMum
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