responsibility
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.
|
Agencies' neglect fatal for Ebony
There are a few circumstances in life where one mistake can be fatal. But in most cases, adults are usually involved. Adults choose to put themselves at risk.
Small children don’t choose to put themselves at risk.
Not in relation to the fundamentals – like love, family, care, learning. They rely on adults to protect them. They rely first on their parents. And our child protection system is set up to monitor, and manage, when parents fail. We expect it to work. But if the parents fail, and then the system fails, a child can die.
So what an absolute tragedy to read about a child in New South Wales who starved to death while in the care of her parents. No child should go through what Ebony went through. If ‘the system’ is the last line of defence, then it’s a huge responsibility for the people who work in ‘the system’.
We know when software fails. We know when a company fails. We know when some appliance fails. Do we know when a parent fails? You don’t just get a blue computer screen. In many cases it is not just one event that makes it obvious you have a #parentfail.
But when the risk of not acting is a child’s life, you may ask why on earth someone didn’t do something?
One of the newspaper reports stated that DoCs had ‘failed to convince the Children's Court to remove Ebony and her two older sisters from their parents, despite the fact Ebony's younger sister had been removed’. So the ‘system’ had a ‘fail’ at what appears in hindsight to have been the right course of action? Why?
The Ombudsman concluded that Ebony’s case "illustrates very clearly what can go wrong for children when agencies fail to work effectively, fail to work together and fail to take shared responsibility for the care and protection of children".
No kidding.
Small children don’t choose to put themselves at risk.
Not in relation to the fundamentals – like love, family, care, learning. They rely on adults to protect them. They rely first on their parents. And our child protection system is set up to monitor, and manage, when parents fail. We expect it to work. But if the parents fail, and then the system fails, a child can die.
So what an absolute tragedy to read about a child in New South Wales who starved to death while in the care of her parents. No child should go through what Ebony went through. If ‘the system’ is the last line of defence, then it’s a huge responsibility for the people who work in ‘the system’.
We know when software fails. We know when a company fails. We know when some appliance fails. Do we know when a parent fails? You don’t just get a blue computer screen. In many cases it is not just one event that makes it obvious you have a #parentfail.
But when the risk of not acting is a child’s life, you may ask why on earth someone didn’t do something?
- Is it because the online forums are full of condemnation at the apparent ease with which we remove children from biological parents who don’t care properly for them?
- Is it because we hear from children who have been in care that they have never managed to deal with, or been given the support to cope with, being removed from their birth parents?
- Is it because psychologists have studies that tell us that even a poor biological family is better than removing a child from them?
- Is it because the ideology favours family support and keeping a family together, no matter what?
- Is it because none of the ‘systems’ or agencies that look out for a child in NSW are linked?
- Is it because no one is able to see the complete picture?
- Is it because worker turnover meant there was never one worker with the family history?
- Is it because the processes in the main organisation charged with the responsibilities for children at risk simply don’t work?
One of the newspaper reports stated that DoCs had ‘failed to convince the Children's Court to remove Ebony and her two older sisters from their parents, despite the fact Ebony's younger sister had been removed’. So the ‘system’ had a ‘fail’ at what appears in hindsight to have been the right course of action? Why?
The Ombudsman concluded that Ebony’s case "illustrates very clearly what can go wrong for children when agencies fail to work effectively, fail to work together and fail to take shared responsibility for the care and protection of children".
No kidding.
- Agencies failing to work effectively means process improvement is required.
- Agencies failing to work together means no links (technical or personal), no reason to share and no habit of collaboration. Links need to be built and people need to be trained in collaborating. Having worked with social workers who didn’t even like collaborating with us, we suspect there’s a cultural issue to address in some sectors as well.
- Shared responsibility? That means all of us. Courts, system and community. This isn’t just a DoCS problem.
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?’
Who should assess whether families are at risk?
Every so often a very provocative article comes across our desk.
There are very frank conversations that should happen in relation to children’s services, but we’re not sure they happen very often, if at all.
So it’s refreshing to see a completely different viewpoint offered, especially by someone with relevant experience.
This article is quite challenging. Here James Barber suggests that there are people better qualified than social workers to assess families most at risk.
We’ll write more about it soon.
There are very frank conversations that should happen in relation to children’s services, but we’re not sure they happen very often, if at all.
So it’s refreshing to see a completely different viewpoint offered, especially by someone with relevant experience.
This article is quite challenging. Here James Barber suggests that there are people better qualified than social workers to assess families most at risk.
We’ll write more about it soon.
'Shattered father failed by DoCS system'
OK, we’d like to warn anyone who has been more than an occasional reader of this blog to hold on. Because we are about to stand up for DoCS. Bet you never saw that coming, heh?
We regularly hold social work agencies and workers up to scrutiny for poor policy, poor performance, and poor people management. But we try to balance our rants with some constructive suggestions about what the preferred approach should be. And as we are foster parents in the system, we are actively putting our money where our mouth is. We’ve earned our right to have a say and it is an informed one. Right?
So we’ve been watching this week’s vitriol from the great uninformed about DoCS’ performance in relation to the 12 year old mum to be. If you follow us on Twitter (@fostercarer) then you’ll have seen some tweets (and if you don’t follow us on Twitter, give it a go. Pithy is good and we are at our pithiest there…)
Here’s the most recent, in depth (and we use that term loosely) article on the subject from The Daily Telegraph. It’s titled Shattered father failed by rotten DoCS system. That’s an award winning headline.
All fingers, including those of anyone who can type a comment on a news website, are pointing to DoCS as having failed the expectant child. Despite an order awarding custody to the mother, who was clearly not fit to care for the child or provide a safe home (so who made THAT decision?), when the non-custodial father raised his concerns to DoCS about the child’s welfare, they didn’t remove the child.
In work and life we believe you should cop it on the chin when you deserve it. But our sense of fairness is feeling a bit confronted.
Even Community Services Minister Linda Burney seems to have waved goodbye to the horse as it bolted past her out the gate, and has given up trying to provide any cogent explanation as to what really happened in DoCS when one of these cases hits the headlines.
So we applauded just a bit when we saw this piece from Tory Maguire on The Punch, entitled Blaming Government for rotten parents.
She writes: ‘Blaming the authorities has become the default position for so many people who don’t think the ultimate responsibility for the care of children lies with their parents.’
Spot on. We’re not sure who appointed DoCS as the only defence for children in this state, but they seem to be expected to pick up the pieces when it all goes pear-shaped no matter what the previous circumstances. If they were resourced, and structured to do just that, then we’d be leading the calls for accountability. The problem with all this is that slowly, relentlessly, we are accepting the idea that DoCS is ultimately and finally responsible. Not the parents. Not the community. Not the police or the legal system. Not the other support systems like schools and the medical profession.
Maguire points out that ‘there were children in greater danger than this little girl’ that took the available resources.
Do you know, at some point that could have been our foster child? We have a child in care because the decision was made that her birth family couldn’t care for her properly. She was at serious risk of immediate harm and enduring hardship, and a worker mobilised the system to remove her and initiated the decision to keep her safe. Her case was, in an over-taxed system, given priority.
So here’s a quiet round of applause for all the dedicated DoCS workers who make the right decisions. Credit where credit is due. It’s a shame that the positive stories don’t sell newspapers, isn’t it.
We regularly hold social work agencies and workers up to scrutiny for poor policy, poor performance, and poor people management. But we try to balance our rants with some constructive suggestions about what the preferred approach should be. And as we are foster parents in the system, we are actively putting our money where our mouth is. We’ve earned our right to have a say and it is an informed one. Right?
So we’ve been watching this week’s vitriol from the great uninformed about DoCS’ performance in relation to the 12 year old mum to be. If you follow us on Twitter (@fostercarer) then you’ll have seen some tweets (and if you don’t follow us on Twitter, give it a go. Pithy is good and we are at our pithiest there…)
Here’s the most recent, in depth (and we use that term loosely) article on the subject from The Daily Telegraph. It’s titled Shattered father failed by rotten DoCS system. That’s an award winning headline.
All fingers, including those of anyone who can type a comment on a news website, are pointing to DoCS as having failed the expectant child. Despite an order awarding custody to the mother, who was clearly not fit to care for the child or provide a safe home (so who made THAT decision?), when the non-custodial father raised his concerns to DoCS about the child’s welfare, they didn’t remove the child.
In work and life we believe you should cop it on the chin when you deserve it. But our sense of fairness is feeling a bit confronted.
Even Community Services Minister Linda Burney seems to have waved goodbye to the horse as it bolted past her out the gate, and has given up trying to provide any cogent explanation as to what really happened in DoCS when one of these cases hits the headlines.
So we applauded just a bit when we saw this piece from Tory Maguire on The Punch, entitled Blaming Government for rotten parents.
She writes: ‘Blaming the authorities has become the default position for so many people who don’t think the ultimate responsibility for the care of children lies with their parents.’
Spot on. We’re not sure who appointed DoCS as the only defence for children in this state, but they seem to be expected to pick up the pieces when it all goes pear-shaped no matter what the previous circumstances. If they were resourced, and structured to do just that, then we’d be leading the calls for accountability. The problem with all this is that slowly, relentlessly, we are accepting the idea that DoCS is ultimately and finally responsible. Not the parents. Not the community. Not the police or the legal system. Not the other support systems like schools and the medical profession.
Maguire points out that ‘there were children in greater danger than this little girl’ that took the available resources.
Do you know, at some point that could have been our foster child? We have a child in care because the decision was made that her birth family couldn’t care for her properly. She was at serious risk of immediate harm and enduring hardship, and a worker mobilised the system to remove her and initiated the decision to keep her safe. Her case was, in an over-taxed system, given priority.
So here’s a quiet round of applause for all the dedicated DoCS workers who make the right decisions. Credit where credit is due. It’s a shame that the positive stories don’t sell newspapers, isn’t it.