Question about foster care?

Question

I've been reading a lot about foster care here, and have taken the classes where I live. I know it needs reform, obviously. I live in one of the states with the highest monthly stipend, and even so they are desperately short of foster or adoptive homes.

I see that many people say better screening is needed to weed out more parents. I do agree with that. But how can the state increase the number of people interested, so they have more to choose from?

Where I live, they are so short of space, children are put in group homes, hotels short term, and in some cases a wing of a nursing home.

Answer 1

Screen better and pay more.  We spend more money on animals in shelters per day than we do on foster children.  Children cost money and usually good foster parents wind up spending thier own money to raise the children.  This is a large deterinent to many people who want to help, but simply can't afford it.

Also, the children NEED BETTER SERVICES.  Children in foster care need mental health services, medical services, etc so that they can deal with their issues without "acting them out" and getting bounced from home to home.  Some people are just not willing to deal with the acting out behaviors.  Providing the children the outlets they need to heal will help with placement.

Also, the potential parents NEED BETTER TRAINING, in how to deal with some of the acting out and behaviors that foster children will have.  Giving the parents better insight will allow them to be better prepared.

Workers NEED TO BE HONEST about the kids and the history of the child.  So, when they match for a home, the parent's aren't surprised that the child may be acting out and re-living what the child went thru.  So many times, the parents are not informed of what the child went thru.  Give the facts and let the parents know.

There are so many things that can be done, but the government DOES NOT CARE.  These kids are "throw-aways."  But guess what?  They wind up in the prisons, on the street homeless and collecting services for the rest of their lives.  If intervention started early on, we would save money in the long run.

Answer 2

In our state (Connecticut) the Department of Children and Families holds seminars at local schools.  My kids have come home with flyers about upcoming seminars for prospective foster families.  I think that this makes people more aware of how many children there are who need safe and loving homes.

Answer 3

I agree with much of what Looney Tunes wrote.  To me though, it isn't that anyone sees the children as "throw aways" at least not those in policy making positions.

There just is only so much money in the budget.  If we opt to spend our resources inadvertently dropping  bombs on  children in other countries, there simply isn't money left for raising them here.  I know that is a gross simplification, but that's how I see it.   We need to REWRITE the PRIORITY list if things are ever going to change.

I also believe that prior to removing children, the SAME amount of money and resources that would go to support foster care placement (EXCEPT in cases of ABUSE or a criminal level of neglect)  should be used to assist the child's parent (s).   It has always been ironic to me that when we "changed welfare" as we know it, the outcome was to send mom to work, let her children go without appropriate supervision and nurture while she was there, AND if the situation got bad enough and little Johnny started breaking into houses after school-- well at THAT point, put him into either foster care or the juvenile justice system.  AND pay far MORE money to SUPPORT that!  

Often people have children who in this sort of an economy really AREN'T ready to provide.  Responsible, mature people, with good incomes, often LIMIT their family size, in ways irresponsible young people who are barely making their rent, don't.  That doesn't mean that it is best for the children they have to be uprooted, disrupted and put into foster care, or the juvenile justice system though.  Lets PUT some resources into keeping families that ARE together, KEPT together.  It is more economical, usually best for the children, and ultimately if you can stabilize a family situation by giving them added CONDITIONED economic supports, over time they will become more able to manage on their own.  

Conditioned?  YES.  Condition the resources on being sober, working at least part time, or getting vocational training or education.  If they stop doing their part, making the desired efforts, meeting set goals they've agreed to,  THEN remove the children--not before.

Answer 4

I was adopted at 5 yrs old and in & out of foster hms.I adopted a child through social services .. I got him at 3 ms. he was born pssitive for meth. & had withdraws for 1 yr. he had speech problems & could not communicate with us & tell us when he was hungry or thirsy so at the time he was attending a school for children with disabilities , there were speech therapists, social workers, child advocates,& physical therapists in my home quit offten.. they taught my 3 yr old at time sign language to teach him since he tryed to do everything she did. The Dr. Said he had CP and his left side of his body was very stiff he could not sit by himself  for about 11/2 yrs old. anyways he also had very bad tempur tantrums and would try t hurt himself by picking at his  , pulling of skbs to bleed or head butting .. he had a very lg head caused frm the drugs ... well with alot of love and patience  he is a healthy 6 yr old boy who can run talk and do all the normal thingschildren do his age..  the Adoption process was very hard cause I they did a backgrund check, evey part of your past ,future, they wanted to know my life history but it was all worth it cause when w4eout he calles me  momso for anyone whos a foster parent need to go for it .. orientIO