Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Considering all the wide ranges of beliefs and non-beliefs, should our children's foster system be more centralized? I'am certain there are tons of wonderful foster parents around the world but (foster) children have little to no say and are expected to be grateful for receiving the basics: food, shelter and clothing. Homes are more than food and shelter, people/homes hold beliefs.
Is it right to subject vulnerable children to various beliefs? Should there be state centralized locations to handle the dislocated children?
I've been through the system and I vote for centralized locations.
Considering all the wide ranges of beliefs and non-beliefs, should our children's foster system be more centralized? I'am certain there are tons of wonderful foster parents around the world but (foster) children have little to no say and are expected to be grateful for receiving the basics: food, shelter and clothing. Homes are more than food and shelter, people/homes hold beliefs.
Is it right to subject vulnerable children to various beliefs? Should there be state centralized locations to handle the dislocated children?
I've been through the system and I vote for centralized locations.
How would this be any better from the child's point of view in an institution? They still would have little to no say, recieve the basics and be expected to be grateful for it. I think the foster system is in serious need of help, there are a lot of problems, but I am not sure the history of institutionalized orphanages and the like warrant a return to that system either...
As far as discriminating on a belief basis, I am not convinced that is a really good reason for state control. There should be some basic health and safety standards, and religion should not get a pass on these. Other than that, stable, loving homes should be the priority...
How would this be any better from the child's point of view in an institution? They still would have little to no say, recieve the basics and be expected to be grateful for it. I think the foster system is in serious need of help, there are a lot of problems, but I am not sure the history of institutionalized orphanages and the like warrant a return to that system either...
As far as discriminating on a belief basis, I am not convinced that is a really good reason for state control. There should be some basic health and safety standards, and religion should not get a pass on these. Other than that, stable, loving homes should be the priority...
-NoCapo
Thanks NoCapo for the reply. How could (the home's) religion/beliefs not get a pass?
We did short term foster parenting for 6 years and about 20 kids. Do not ever think we were ever asked about our religion or lack of religion. Several of the children came from extremely relgious homes and the families never asked us either. No idea of what religious beliefs the rest of the kids or their parents held. These were all children with one or two parents but for various reasons were separated from their families for a period of time. Children need families not state run homes. For the kids in our care being safe was very important, a group home would not have been the best place for most of them. My spouse did work at a group home during and after we were foster parents as well.
Thanks NoCapo for the reply. How could (the home's) religion/beliefs not get a pass?
Basically, if your beliefs contradict a safe supportive environment, then children should not be placed there. For example, I would think that being part of groups like the Children of God (or whatever it is that they are called now) which encouraged underage sexual contact and religious prostitution should be a huge red flag.
It is a judgement call on the part of the child protective services. Quite frankly I think in many cases they are not doing an adequate job, but even as an atheist who is pretty strongly against religious indoctrination, I don't think we should place children in institutions because the available foster family are Baptists, or Catholics, or gay, or the wrong race, or whatever. In general the criteria should be a stable, attentive, non-abusive home situation. Who or what they pray to before dinner is the least of anyone's worries.
Edit: readin back, I see that I may have missed your point. By not getting a pass, I mean that if the rule is no drugs or paraphenalia in the house, you don't get a pass becasue you have a weed card, or becasue you are a Rasta. If the rule is no corporal punishment, you don't get to break the rule because your church teaches that it is appropriate.
Thanks for the replies.
Undoubtedly, the (American) foster home system is archaic. Any advanced civilization knows our individual homes are too diverse to continue with the current practices for housing displaced children.
If I were militant about some cause or another, and my family had some sort of incident involving child welfare, I certainly would not want my child going into a home that nurtured a militant opposing view of what I (family) stood for or against.
Children and the elderly have very little voice in our society, perhaps this is the reason no attention is paid to constructing regional-centralized, "secular-like", domiciles for displaced children.
Not all displaced children want/desire "loving" homes. In fact, many know when they hear that phrase: run for the hills!
Thanks for the replies.
Undoubtedly, the (American) foster home system is archaic.
An odd way to put it, since centralized institutions (orphanages, poorhouses, asylums,etc...) were the norm long before the foster home concept. The idea of housing displaced children with actual families is a relatively recent idea, and it cam about in reaction to the problems of a centralized system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
If I were militant about some cause or another, and my family had some sort of incident involving child welfare, I certainly would not want my child going into a home that nurtured a militant opposing view of what I (family) stood for or against.
I think this is part of where I disagree. If the state finds sufficient reason to think that a child must be removed from his or her family, why should the state be required to perpetuate the "militant views" of the family? If a parent wished to retain control of his or her child's education and development, the simplest method is to avoid abusing or neglecting your child in such a way that the government is forced to remove them! If a parent cannot do that, I am not sure that their desired for their children should carry much weight at all...
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
Children and the elderly have very little voice in our society, perhaps this is the reason no attention is paid to constructing regional-centralized, "secular-like", domiciles for displaced children.
Which again I find odd, considering that in both cases the historic trend has been away from institutionalized care, because we as a society find it ineffective, and often abusive and demeaning. This is why you see a shift from nursing home style care to independant living or small group facilities for the elderly, and a move away from orphanages toward foster care for children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
Not all displaced children want/desire "loving" homes. In fact, many know when they hear that phrase: run for the hills!
Now this seem to indicate, combined with your previous post, that you have some personal experience that is driving your position. Maybe talking about what you see as the problems of foster care or your experiences would shed a bit more light on exactly what you feel would be fix by a move back toward institutionalization?
Now this seem to indicate, combined with your previous post, that you have some personal experience that is driving your position. Maybe talking about what you see as the problems of foster care or your experiences would shed a bit more light on exactly what you feel would be fix by a move back toward institutionalization?
-NoCapo
Institutionalizing should be neutral ground, not punishment.
Institutionalizing should be neutral ground, not punishment.
Ok... I guess I don't understand why a foster family cannot be neutral ground, and why institutionalizing children, which has a whole host of issues, is preferable?
I get that there are some pretty severe issues with the foster care system (abuse, neglect, or even just incompatibility between the host family and the child), but what is it that you see so intrinsically wrong with the foster care idea that you would return to state run orphanages? Not only do you have the same issues, you have no attempt to provide a family structure, and a situation where abuse and bad behavior between the children themselves can become a huge issue, just as it is in juvenile detention facilities or even prison. I just don't understand why you believe it would be better...
-NoCapo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
