Approximately £2,000 to £2,400 per month is what the foster parents lose now they are no longer housing three children in Rotherham. Could this be an underlying reason for their going to press about the decision to remove the children? . This a professional dispute by a new professional workforce, a workforced established by the state for financial reasons more than anything else such as the need for the child to have a stable environment above all else.
Rather than go through the channels available to the foster parents (or their fostering agency) they decided to go to the press. In the best interests of the child? One wonders how did this suburban couple come to talk to the press in the first place? Was it suggested to them by their agency or did they call UKIP? Who suggested they embark on this plan of action and was it for the betterment of the children?
The two foster carers, who are in their late 50s, had previously been foster parents for 7 years, taking on almost a dozen children in that time. I don’t think anyone really fosters for the cash, do they, really?? Have I ever discussed how my family fostered in the 1970s and 1980s Lemn? I don’t think being “suburban” is anything to do with it, or being greedy for cash. I recall how my mother became almost instantly attached to the children we had with us. To be asked to take on 3 children as this Rotherham couple and then have them removed because their political affiliation was deemed somehow suspect would have left the couple feeling bewildered and angry. That that have chosen to blow the whistle on this is entirely understandable, given also that the Council admitted that “there was no issue with the quality of care”.
Dave it was your twitter response to this debacle that made me write this blog. The fostering situation is different now to what it was when your parents fostered, otherwise I wouldn’t have brought your attention to the monetary value of what is now a profession.
Did you know for example that fostering has now replaced childrens homes (now closed) to save money, that fostering is employed now because it’s cheaper above all else? So to answer your question, yes, people do foster for cash. But you won’t hear that narrative nor the one about the childrens homes closing.
I don’t see the significance of payment as a contradiction to good fostering.
75% + now go into foster care; however outcomes of kids from care are no better than they were back in the day. Over represented in prisons and wider criminal justice system, homelessness, NEET (what a terrible term) and any other indicator of social disadvantage you care (no pun intended) to mention. They say move to foster care is in the kids interests – no it isn’t! it is in the states’ economic interests. The evidence is clear, look at the figures, they speak for themselves. The only reason such social injustice as that experienced by kids in care, young adult care leavers and adult care leaver’s persist is because they have no voice, thus allowing the state (the irresponsible parent) to determine the nature of care deemed best for kids in care. Care leavers and those in care are denied ‘safe spaces’ they can really call their own and therefore their ability to mount challenges effectively are curtailed, as their safe spaces are often decision making arenas, policed or occupied by ‘professionals’. Foster care is about saving money and Lemn is correct in suggesting it is a profession. I have seen adverts for foster parents posted but’ councils that offer a ‘career’ in fostering with full training and support. You don’t get that if you’re a single parent struggling on a low income with a lost teenager, instead you get a parenting order from the state -maybe the state itself needs a parenting order – or better still it might do well to just listen!
Well done lemn for stating this. What people do not understand is having such right wing supporting foster parents they could cause unintentional racist harm on the children. Can you imagine when they invite like minded ukip friends over for dinner and the ethnic children will be vulnerable. Ukip feel multiculturlism has failed how can people support failure of a who sector of ethnic group what are they supposed to disappear and suit the majorityllrace? Ethnic children should not be used as a pawn fir ukip political agenda look our membetrs
I have no personal experience of childrens homes or foster parents so my question is, What is the best scenario for children whose birth parents cannot look after them and nor can extended family…What to do?
Lemn seems to be saying that children’s homes should not all be shut down in order to save money, which would imply that a mix of fostering and children’s homes would be preferable to just one or the other. Children’s needs being top priority, not financial factors. As for the story of the couple in Rotheram, bizarre! It all sounds odd, the social services seem to have overreacted and the foster parents likewise. And the kids are shunted around like baggage. What a mess.
If you close down all the homes then how do you do what’s best for kids? You don’t, instead they get what their given. Let’s have a person focused system with placement decisions made on basis of need, not economics. Foster care is good for some and not for others!
BBC web site: …it will be interesting to see whether it has any bearing on political campaigning in the run up to Thursday’s Parliamentary by-election in Rotherham.