Question:

If you got paid well to take in a child that needed a home, would you?

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

If you got paid well to take in a child that needed a home, would you?

 Tags:

   Report
Answer The Question I've Same Question Too

20 ANSWERS

Sort By: Date  |  Rating

  1. I'm sure some people would, but you cannot buy love.

    cw


  2. What is your problem?!  You are asking questions that are insane.  People that would take a child because of money are people who should NOT be doing it.  This is what is currently wrong with the foster system.  Do you know how many foster kids are being abused physically and sexually by foster parents?!  These are the type of people who take a kid because they want to get money from the government.

  3. IT shouldn't be about the money!!!

    Money can't make you love a child, it has to come from within.

    No, I wouldn't do it.

  4. No. Not for money. I would take any child in that needed a home free of charge. As I have done in the past.

  5. Maybe in a couple of years.  I'm not responsible enough to be a parent now, so money really isn't the only objection (though, believe me, it is one).

    I'd never do it just for the money, it wouldn't be fair for the kid, and I'd resent him or her for being in my life if (s)he was just a paycheck to me.  The money would only be a factor if it made the difference between "capable of paying for kid expenses" and "not capable of paying for kid expenses."

  6. no!!


  7. I would no matter what the pay.

  8. i would no matter what the pay  

  9. As long as the mental and financial burden wouldn't affect my family, I would do so in a heartbeat. As the old saying goes,saving a life is like saving the world.

  10. Yes, defiantly. It's hard to find money to raise our own children so having that extra income would help a lot. There might be more foster parents out there if they got the money for all their expenses.

  11. No. Taking care of a child in return for money isn't right.

  12. Look, two issues here.

    1)  Foster parents already get paid to care for children.  But the payment is horrible.  In the US, we spend more money on animals in shelters than we do on foster children.  The average payment for a child in foster care is $10-$20 per day.  Foster parents who are "good" and well trained in parenting abused and neglected children deserve more money.  No doubt about it.  

    2)  BUT BUT BUT, the system already has too many crappy foster parents.  And those crappy foster parents should not get another dime and should NOT be allowed to be foster parents.  Some people still do it for the money.  If you take in 4 kids, you are talking about $800-$1200 a month.  Some people use that as their income.  WRONG!  And this is the problem.  

    So, it is a conflicting issue.  Good parents deserve more $$, bad parents need to be stopped from being foster parents.

    Also, giving more money should impose more requirements for training and education for the foster parents.  Training in and about child development, trauma theory, parenting technique for traumatized children, etc.

    The idea of improving the pay without increasing the standards of foster parents, is a nightmare.  Think of all the "bad" parents that will come to foster......Ugh.

  13. Paid well? First of all, if you are doing it for the money, you are doing it for the WRONG reason. A child (a homeless child, any child for that matter) needs a stable, nuturing home environment, someone loving and caring that has a genuine interest and WANTS him/her there, NOT because if "how well you are getting paid for it"

  14. AKA, foster care? No.

  15. HAVE YOU BEEN ASKED TO TAKE CARE OF A CHILD OR ARE YOU JUST CONSIDERING DOING FOSTER CARE. EMAIL ME I WOULD LOVE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS SUBJECT.

    LOVE,

    MICHELLE

  16. No. My daughter isn't old enough for me to have time for her and a foster child. Unless the foster child was one of my nieces or nephews I would have to say no, not yet. It wouldn't be fair to the foster child.

  17. That's called foster care.  I wouldn't do it for the money because they don't pay that well.  I'd take the child in my home because that is what the child needs.

  18. no, but I'd accept subsidy payments to more effectively raise a child. If you're properly parenting your foster children, you spend about twice as much as the stipend they give you on the child.

  19. No, but a lot of people would and they wouldn't necessarily be good parents at all.  Taking care of kids for profit is not a good thing.

    I'm already taking care of two who need a home and I don't get a cent.  It isn't about the money. At least, it shouldn't be.

  20. I think that if the state is going to be paying people to take in surrendered children, they should also be paying all of the mothers and fathers who are surrendering due to poverty who could otherwise parent if they had more $$.

    I'll open my home to children in the future regardless of if I get paid or not. But adoption is out of the question.
You're reading: If you got paid well to take in a child that needed a home, would you?

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 20 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.
Register Now