msjones Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 The heartbreaking RAD thread has me thinking. Do good orphanages exist? Would they be better than multiple placement disruptions that so many foster kids have to cope with? Would kids living long-term in a single well-staffed, well-supervised orphanage have more opportunity to bond with care-givers and one another? I worked for several summers at a Mexican orphanage as a summer intern. The place had its problems, to be sure, but the staff was consistent and caring. There was very little staff turnover -- it was a good job for the women who worked there, and most of them truly cared about the kids. The children shared rooms with the same children for years -- they had real friends and a place they called home year after year. Again, I know there were real problems, and it didn't come close to being ideal for those kids, but... ...that would have to be better than multiple foster-care placements. Or would it? What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmilyK Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I have been thinking about this too. I was going to start a similar thread (so hope you don't mind me jumping into yours). If the parents who are enlightening us in the other thread have policy ideas, I would be very interested. -- Should the policy/preference of reunification in foster care be reduced/eliminated? -- What are the systemic causes that lead RAD to be created, or covered up? What differences in the foster/adoption/parental rights situation could help? -- I assume that most social workers didn't go into the adoption field with an intention of harming people, so what are the pressures / system issues that cause them cover this up, or not give timely assistance? I so appreciate the education I'm getting here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msjones Posted January 29, 2012 Author Share Posted January 29, 2012 I just remember knowing that many of the kids at 'my' orphanage considered it their home. They had a home. Foster kids with placement after placement have no home, no family, nothing and no one to depend on long term. I can't imagine the agony those kids are in. It seems to me that group homes/orphanages must be preferable to foster care in many cases. I'm hoping to hear some other viewpoints... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msjones Posted January 29, 2012 Author Share Posted January 29, 2012 Hmmm...I thought there would be an interest in this discussion given the energy on the RAD thread. Maybe I didn't phrase the title well. One bump, and then I'll let it go... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fairfarmhand Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I am interested too!! Anyone out there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teachin'Mine Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I think that any loving, caring, nurturing environment is better than one without love, without care and with neglect. This can be either in an orphanage or in a foster care situation for both circumstances. I think with regards to overseas adoptions especially, there needs to be vast improvements in most of the orphanages and the training of the staff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Lulu* Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I think that a good orphanage would be better than a bad foster placement or a string of marginal ones. Even still, with the goal being family re-unification, I can see damage being done going between the orphanage and the bio-family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jujsky Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I've also thought about this. I think a decent orphanage would be better than a typical foster-care situation. Children need stability. A place to call home, friends, a consistent routine, and fairly consistent care-takers would offer that better than a system where a child is constantly shuffled around and is afraid to set down roots. This is not in any way meant to be insulting towards foster parents -- especially the ones here on this board. Many foster parents truly care about the children. I know there are foster parents/former foster parents here who wanted to adopt the children in their care, but it fell through. I think the system is at fault. A big part of the problem, in my opinion, is going above and beyond to reunite children with their biological family members. Someone posed the question on this thread. They need to do something to streamline the process. I think parents deserve a chance to get their children back. A chance. One. They can do what they need to do to get their life on track, get their kids back (along with a big dose of family counseling because there will probably be anxiety, separation, and abandonment issues after that) and that's it. If they mess up again, the lose their kids. If having their kids taken away from them once isn't enough to scare them straight, nothing is. It's not fair to the kids, who are the victims in all this. I do think when possible children should be placed with extended family or close family friends, but yes -- either permanent custody with someone, or a decent orphanage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I did not read the RAD thread, but I have a few thoughts on this based on my observations and experience. First, usually a family situation is better than an orphanage situation, because of the opportunity for the child to develop a bond with a specific individual caregiver. Even if the bond is later broken (as a foster child is turned over to adoptive parents, or whatever), it is better than having the child never develop such a bond at all. On the other hand, I believe there are some kids - particularly some older kids who have had difficult childhoods - who cannot succeed in a family structure. I wish the folks in charge of placement knew how to assess this before placing kids in adoptive situations, because frankly, there are too many situations where the adoption is a disaster for everyone involved. But they are still the minority of cases, even with older kids, so I would not want to discourage older child adoptions in general. I also feel that our government agencies need to do a much better job of supporting adoptive parents. Someone needs to make sure they have access to the resources they need to cope with their reality - whether it's counseling, respite, meds, whatever. I've read about cases where adoptions have been disrupted and the child has been adopted by another family, which has been successful. I could see how it would be hard to figure out who can and who can't function in a family. Are there orphanages? We don't call them orphanages, but I've worked (as a volunteer) with an organization that helps kids in this kind of situation. The organization works with kids in families, has a residential treatment center, places kids with specially trained foster parents, arranges adoptions, offers respite, and has group homes for older kids who are not good candidates for family placements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celticmom Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I believe that there used to be orphanages in our country and I would imagine that there were some very well-run ones. I would also imagine that there were some that were as bad or maybe even worse than some of the ones overseas now. I suspect that the bad ones got the press so to speak and that is why "something else" was developed and that "something else" is the foster system of today. I suspect that a good orphanage and a good foster placement in a system where the children did not get moved around would have more things in common than many people would suspect. I wonder if the ideal situation wouldn't be to have both options available since some children might thrive in one and not the other and vice versa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plucky Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I don't think our current system is even qualified to meet the needs of these children. I know of some good foster families, and I am a licensed foster parent. I've also seen some foster families that aren't so good. The system is really more about money and not about helping the kids. I mean they say they are about the kids, but it comes down to the bottom line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emzhengjiu Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 A good orphanage would be better than bad foster care, but an orphanage still is an institution. There wouldn't be one person with whom the child could bond with any sense of permanence. That's also true about most foster placements as well. I thought about becoming a foster parent, but decided against it. Too much risk for my family. When my girls are adults, I would like to try. I've wondered if foster parents were paid an actual salary and expected to be more professional if that would make a difference. Social workers and everyone else who comes in contact with these children are paid. I worry about the children aging out of the system. I know that in many states, foster children are entitled to some continued help, but they have no family foundation. It breaks my heart, but I don't know how to make a difference. Ann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela H in Texas Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 A big part of the problem, in my opinion, is going above and beyond to reunite children with their biological family members. I agree. There are too many chances. How many cases (family based as well as kids in kinship or foster care) should a family be able to have against them? How many years should it continue? How many times should kids be shuffled around? And then there are issues even with the services offered. Seriously? If a mother of average intelligence needs someone to come in daily to take care of her second child (typical kid for the most part), then.....If a mother cannot learn, in six months, to keep a MINIMALLY clean house with the help of a housekeeper to teach her, then....How much money should the state pay for family services? For how long? For how many cases? As for orphanages vs group homes vs foster care? Well, fact is that a family-type home would be best for most kids IF they were good places. Then there are some kids who would do better in a LARGE family or institution situation. I think permanency is the main issue though. Give families services. If they don't get it done, then let the kids have a chance at a family QUICKLY. I'm not sure what to do about foster homes though. Seriously, we have SO many rules as well as checks and balances. We get in trouble for doing time out wrong or having bar soap in the bathroom. Seriously, what else can they do to us? And many of us "wash out" quickly anyway. Seriously, our MAIN reason for not wanting to continue even long enough to get another kid or set of kids as we'd LIKE is because of all the crud. I just cannot continue to spend so much time and energy on regulations when my kids need me. If it were about the kids? We'd be just fine. But it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msjones Posted January 30, 2012 Author Share Posted January 30, 2012 A good orphanage would be better than bad foster care, but an orphanage still is an institution. There wouldn't be one person with whom the child could bond with any sense of permanence. That's also true about most foster placements as well. I thought about becoming a foster parent, but decided against it. Too much risk for my family. When my girls are adults, I would like to try. I've wondered if foster parents were paid an actual salary and expected to be more professional if that would make a difference. Social workers and everyone else who comes in contact with these children are paid. I worry about the children aging out of the system. I know that in many states, foster children are entitled to some continued help, but they have no family foundation. It breaks my heart, but I don't know how to make a difference. Ann The orphanage where I worked did have long-term staff who provided stable relationships for the kids. (For example, the cook was a lovely, warm-hearted woman who always had open arms and a listening ear. Also, the dorm moms were very available. There was one adult in the dorm per about 12 kids -- not ideal at all, but steady, and mostly warm and available.) Obviously, this was nothing like having the love of a parent of one's own, but I do think the kids were bonded with some staff members, and also with each other. They did have something like sibling relationships. I think of multiple foster care placements :(, and think the 'institution' had more to offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrissiK Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 We have adopted our children from the foster care system. They were all young. Our two youngest are still foster kids, technically. In one year they've had 3 placements. We are their third and last. Personally, the only way you would get a "well-run orphanage" the way was described, is if it were privately run. I have been in this system for 8 years now. The child-welfare system is corrupt and that is the problem. The level of corruption varies from county to county, some more and some less. We are now working with a different county with this adoption and they are more pro- adoption then the one we've worked with before. If the govt. started orphanages, they'd probably be worse than what we have now. We sponsor orphans in Africa through BSF and from what we've seen, those are very nice places. Then again, they are privately run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenncslp Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I think it's just a very broken system right now. Children really need to have one or two caregivers to form a secure bond with for attachment purposes. Orphanages would make this very difficult, and the issues arising from any type of institution can be numerous. However, there are so many problems with the foster care system, such as: -Way too many chances for reunification. -Social workers that have way too many kids on their caseload -Social workers that have very little knowledge of child development, attachment issues and RAD -Crazy rules and regulations that prohibit great families from becoming foster parents (seriously, the amount of hoops that you must jump through is astounding) -Very little in terms of resources for issues that arise. -etc., etc.,... I guess in my ideal world, especially as a Christian, I wish the "church" would step up, and start taking "...look after orphans and widows in distress...." really seriously. There is so much that needs to be done. Jenn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerPoppy Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I'm not sure what to do about foster homes though. Seriously, we have SO many rules as well as checks and balances. We get in trouble for doing time out wrong or having bar soap in the bathroom. Seriously, what else can they do to us? And many of us "wash out" quickly anyway. Seriously, our MAIN reason for not wanting to continue even long enough to get another kid or set of kids as we'd LIKE is because of all the crud. I just cannot continue to spend so much time and energy on regulations when my kids need me. If it were about the kids? We'd be just fine. But it isn't. Sorry to be a bit off topic, but... For a long time, I've had in the back of my mind and heart that I'd like to be a foster parent someday. I have loved raising my daughter, and I'm the type of person who really enjoys sharing life with a child. I feel I have a lot to offer. But, I am not the kind of person who is willing to compromise my (I believe) well-developed common sense for the sake of hoop-jumping and silly regulations. There has to be some room to parent that particular child in that particular moment in a reasonable way, without worrying you're doing something "wrong". There has to be room to choose bar soap over liquid soap. Are you serious about the soap thing? What could possibly be the issue with bar soap? Anyway, I'm a bit sad to think that my indignant nature and belief that I can make good parenting decisions--at least as good as some letter-of-the-law i-dotting, t-crossing, legalistic rule maker--would prevent my going down this road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perogi Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I think it's just a very broken system right now. Children really need to have one or two caregivers to form a secure bond with for attachment purposes. Orphanages would make this very difficult, and the issues arising from any type of institution can be numerous. However, there are so many problems with the foster care system, such as: -Way too many chances for reunification. -Social workers that have way too many kids on their caseload -Social workers that have very little knowledge of child development, attachment issues and RAD -Crazy rules and regulations that prohibit great families from becoming foster parents (seriously, the amount of hoops that you must jump through is astounding) -Very little in terms of resources for issues that arise. -etc., etc.,... I guess in my ideal world, especially as a Christian, I wish the "church" would step up, and start taking "...look after orphans and widows in distress...." really seriously. There is so much that needs to be done. Jenn :iagree::iagree::iagree: There are so many broken parts of the system (speaking as a [Canadian] foster parent). I don't think an orphanage is the answer (spoken as someone who has worked in a group home for long-term foster kids and with a spouse who manages two residential programs for adults with developmental disabilities). An institution is an institution. It would still be a N. American institution following the same system. There would still be people coming and going (kids and staff) and an emphasis on reunification. It may be true that in some places there are long term committed staff but typically there is not enough money to pay staff what they are worth and there ends up being more turnover than consistency. Even if someone stayed for many years they would only be ther 40 hours per week! I wholeheartedly agree that 'the church' has a responsibility here that it is not living up to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virg Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 My family (sisters and cousins) have adopted from overseas from excellent Christian orphanages in Vietnam, S Korea and India. None of the seven have RAD, almost all are closing in on or are adults. My two step children do have RAD after CPS refused to step in over and over. I think a loving, caring orphanage IS better than many foster home situations. The children in foster homes are often moved frequently. In many overseas orphanages the same women work there their whole lives. The children become very attached to particular care givers and they do have a home and lots of friends with steady schooling. When the adoptions were done we were able to send videos, pictures and presents before going to pick up the children. They all came as well-adjusted children. The youngest 16 months and the oldest 9 years old at adoption. ETA: I am not sure that an orphanage in the US would work the same as it can overseas and would have the same beneficial effects Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perogi Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Sorry to be a bit off topic, but... For a long time, I've had in the back of my mind and heart that I'd like to be a foster parent someday. I have loved raising my daughter, and I'm the type of person who really enjoys sharing life with a child. I feel I have a lot to offer. But, I am not the kind of person who is willing to compromise my (I believe) well-developed common sense for the sake of hoop-jumping and silly regulations. There has to be some room to parent that particular child in that particular moment in a reasonable way, without worrying you're doing something "wrong". There has to be room to choose bar soap over liquid soap. Are you serious about the soap thing? What could possibly be the issue with bar soap? Anyway, I'm a bit sad to think that my indignant nature and belief that I can make good parenting decisions--at least as good as some letter-of-the-law i-dotting, t-crossing, legalistic rule maker--would prevent my going down this road. I don't know where you are in Canada (I'm in Ontario) but generally speaking the hoops that have to be jumped through aren't insurmountable. It may not be ideal, and you may not agree with everything, but don't let that turn you off fostering. It may take some compromise but at the end of the day you will have made a difference, bar soap or none (I have no idea what that is about - not a hoop I've had to jump through). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Governess Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Before we left dd5's orphanage to travel home, her nanny wanted a moment with her. She took her to a quiet place, talked to her, hugged her, and cried. I knew then that things would be ok, because she had really been loved. Every adopted baby should be sent off with this kind of goodbye. There are non-profits that are dedicated to improving government-run orphanages by bringing in toys, art supplies, and trained nannies that can hold, feed and bond with these sweet babies. Half the Sky in China is one that comes to mind. This cause is very near and dear to my heart. :grouphug: to all of those children who spent the first part of their life without someone to love them dearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibbygirl Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I guess in my ideal world, especially as a Christian, I wish the "church" would step up, and start taking "...look after orphans and widows in distress...." really seriously. There is so much that needs to be done. :iagree::iagree: Some do, I know mine does a great deal as it is an issue that my pastor is very passionate about, but I agree, not enough is done for these poor kids. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybee Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 My son was in what I consider a "good" orphanage overseas from the age of 1 month to almost 4 years. It was not a perfect scenario--I don't think he got quite enough to eat, though the children looked well-fed, and I saw one of the caretakers quite impatient with a few of the children. The babies did not get enough attention. It was an institutional setting. That said, it was clean, well-run, orderly, and generally a positive atmosphere, from my limited observations. My son has pleasant memories of it, though I think they are somewhat idealized as time has passed. He has adjusted well to family life, but I think his personality is a bit of a diplomat's personality, and he wants things to run smoothly between people. Some of the children who were there have had more trouble settling in well to family life (but I don't know of any serious RAD cases). An institution is not the same as a warm, loving family atmosphere. That said, I think he would have been scarred if he had moved through several foster placements. He felt secure at the orphanage. He knew what to expect. He understood how the system worked. Again, it was a positive atmosphere. As his parent, I prefer what he received from the overseas orphanage to what many U.S. foster children receive from the CPS system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenmama2 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Before we left dd5's orphanage to travel home, her nanny wanted a moment with her. She took her to a quiet place, talked to her, hugged her, and cried. I knew then that things would be ok, because she had really been loved. Every adopted baby should be sent off with this kind of goodbye. There are non-profits that are dedicated to improving government-run orphanages by bringing in toys, art supplies, and trained nannies that can hold, feed and bond with these sweet babies. Half the Sky in China is one that comes to mind. This cause is very near and dear to my heart. :grouphug: to all of those children who spent the first part of their life without someone to love them dearly. This made me cry. OP thanks for this thread. I was pondering similar things after reading a little of the RAD thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela H in Texas Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I just lost my post.... There has to be room to choose bar soap over liquid soap. Are you serious about the soap thing? What could possibly be the issue with bar soap? There is not a policy about soap. However, if you have bar soap OR soap unlocked, you will be cited if they do an inspection. It seems like A LOT when you first start; but a year later, it isn't too bad. The paperwork is the hardest part. Anyway, I'm glad we did it (see signature!), but I am not a long termer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perogi Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I just lost my post.... There is not a policy about soap. However, if you have bar soap OR soap unlocked, you will be cited if they do an inspection. It seems like A LOT when you first start; but a year later, it isn't too bad. The paperwork is the hardest part. Anyway, I'm glad we did it (see signature!), but I am not a long termer. I'm not even sure I understand the issue with soap? We just had our home safety inspection and the only thing I have to have locked is drugs. Cleaners, knives and razors just have to be up high and out of reach of little ones. I still have my big tub of hand soap and our bar soap under the bathroom sinks. It's so different everywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerPoppy Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I don't know where you are in Canada (I'm in Ontario) but generally speaking the hoops that have to be jumped through aren't insurmountable. It may not be ideal, and you may not agree with everything, but don't let that turn you off fostering. It may take some compromise but at the end of the day you will have made a difference, bar soap or none (I have no idea what that is about - not a hoop I've had to jump through). I'm in Ontario, too. Thanks for the encouragement. :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In2why Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I think the majority of kids with RAD in the foster care system are already unattached before they enter the system, although not always. It is rare for a newborn in good health be taken into care, and the needed trust that their needs will be met by the world was not met. Although moving through the system isn't ideal, if they are cared about and their needs; hunger, warmth, and closeness are met then the child can trust that the next adult will also care for them. If they haven't had that experience when they were totally helpless, then it can't be changed later, but sometimes it can get better, but they have lost their true potential forever. Love isn't ever enough. I don't think either one is better than the other. There are good foster parents and good orphanages. And there are bad ones. I will say that based on our only real comparable, child care, I don't have much trust in our ability as a country to run a good orphanage. We as a country do not value children, or the elderly for that matter, since we can also imagine that they might be run like nursing homes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrissiK Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) A sw gave us a very interesting book called "the Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog: and other stories from a child psychiatrist's notebook" by Bruce Perry. It's a very interesting read. It's all About how children heal from trauma. Anyhow, it seemed like most of the cases in the book had positive outcomes when the child was able to form a healthy relationship with an adult, except for the boy who's mother had some issues and would leave him at home alone for 8-10 hrs. at a time as an infant. This kid turned into a monster, basically and Dr. Perry visited him in prison as a young adolescent and basically held out no hope for him. Even the kid who was literally raised in a kennel (you have to read the book to get the context) was able to live somewhat of a functional life (after they got him out of the kennel and into some help) because he was able to form at least a minimal attachment with his caregiver and somehow that got him through. He was never normal, really, but he wasn't a murderer. Edited January 31, 2012 by KrissiK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottakee Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I dont' have much time now but for one, the cost would be too much for orphanages. Foster parents in our state are paid $14.10 PER DAY for a foster child and that INCLUDES the child's allowance, money for their food, some of their clothing (we get $100 every 6 months extra), transportation, school events, haircuts, and basic room and board. Even if they paid the staff only $10/hour that is $240/day for 1 staff member (let alone benefits, etc.) so that would mean 1 staff for every 17 kids let alone the cost of the building, food, utilities, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I am not sure that there would be the same continuity of staff in a North American institution as in those overseas. It would probably be considered a low-end job here, like daycare. i do think that a system that moves kids from one family to another regularly has pretty much lost the benefit of having them in a family at all. I would suspect the main advantage is that it is cheap for the state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 The foster system would be better if it functioned correctly. But there isn't the supervision available to prevent bad foster situations. There is too much abuse happening to these kids CONTINUING in the foster home. It is heartbreaking that kids are abused in their biological home, then "rescued" into a home only to receive more abuse. That's why I have often wondered if an orphanage situation would be more easily monitored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I wonder about this. We help to support a boy in an orphanage in China. The children live with a dedicated house mother in 'family' groups. They have stability through childhood and support into young adulthood. I haven't visited the orphanage, so I don't know how well it works... Laura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrissiK Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 The foster system would be better if it functioned correctly. But there isn't the supervision available to prevent bad foster situations. There is too much abuse happening to these kids CONTINUING in the foster home. It is heartbreaking that kids are abused in their biological home, then "rescued" into a home only to receive more abuse. That's why I have often wondered if an orphanage situation would be more easily monitored. It needs to go private sector. Anything the govt. touches is corrupted. We got our first three kids through the county. We were county foster parents. We got almost no supervision. A new sw came to the monthly (loosely speaking) visits. Now we are with a private Christian foster organization. Our sw came weekly for the first month we got the girls. Now he comes bi-weekly. We get plenty of support, help and supervision. The difference is night and day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 It needs to go private sector. Anything the govt. touches is corrupted. We got our first three kids through the county. We were county foster parents. We got almost no supervision. A new sw came to the monthly (loosely speaking) visits. Now we are with a private Christian foster organization. Our sw came weekly for the first month we got the girls. Now he comes bi-weekly. We get plenty of support, help and supervision. The difference is night and day! Yes, because there has never been any mismanagement or systematic abuse in private orphanages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrissiK Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Yes, because there has never been any mismanagement or systematic abuse in private orphanages. I didn't say that there wasn't. In fact several years ago in our area the founders of a private foster agency were jailed on fraud and all sorts of other charges that they were stealing from their company. However, now that I think about it, the good thing about that situation is that they were caught, prosecuted and their funny business was ended. When the government is doing it.... it keeps on happening. Or at least it's a lot more difficult to stop. I spoke with a woman several years ago who was trying to do something about the fraud and corruption in our county's Dept. of SS and everyone involved in trying to blow whistles was effectively shut down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonshineLearner Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I always kinda get bummed when I see the part about "being required to keep in contact with bio family". Not because I'm against bio-family, but I can't imagine how staying in total contact would help bonding. Maybe being open to keep communication and reconnect after parental bonding with the adopting parents is established. In most cases, the parents have some problems, right? I mean.... that's why their kids need to be adopted??!! I have looked at fostering, we've done the classes, and we may very well look at it later, but I can't get the thing about putting my family on the line for others. I mean... the State is SOOOO willing to go after people that "may" be doing wrong, that I'm nervous about false allegations. I know my husband and I are above reproach, but I don't trust the child's history and what might have happened in the past... We have lots of love... lots of patience... and are fairly intelligent :) BUT, I just couldn't take that "last step" after classes.. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela H in Texas Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) But there isn't the supervision available to prevent bad foster situations. Maybe some places. Here: Every month, child's worker comes out unless worker is doing transport for visits then it is more often. Every month, agency worker comes out. It's twice a month if they are level'd up as mine are. Every quarter, there is an unannounced visit by the agency worker. Most weeks, most kids HERE see their worker when they go to see their parents. With all of those, they speak to the child without the foster parents present. The children are asked questions about how they are being treated, what they do, how they are disciplined, etc. Obviously, that isn't fool-proof, but it sure is a lot of opportunity. Every quarter, the recruiter comes out to inspect home. 1/4 of all foster homes will receive a random inspection from the investigations' team who is not part of CPS though they work under the same head. A percentage of those will be unannounced. How much more supervision do you want us to have? I guess someone could move in? In a normal month with two unrelated children, that would be once or twice a week having a visitor. In Jan, April, July, and Oct, you get to add two more for the month. If you have more kids or the children are level'd, you can add more. And even if the kids are related, that just means the visit takes longer. It still is the same amount of time. And we're regularly talking fairly long visits. The last time my worker came out, it was 1½ hours. The time before that, it was 3 hours. This for 4 kids (3 related). Now, I realize it isn't like this everywhere. But I think this is WAY too intrusive. Remember, I'm supposed to be raising these children, not taking time out to talk to someone else every week, sending my kids off to their room with a stranger (because a worker *is* a stranger to ME and they are MY kids if they are in MY home)... Sorry. I *know* that most foster homes aren't run like mine. I *know* many stink royally (and that is an understatement). I *know* that something needs to change. But the only people going to be particularly bothered by even more people in our homes more often are the ones who would prefer to raise the kids instead of earn a paycheck. And that is what it comes down to with all the documentation of EVERY TINY THING and all the visits by Everyone and their brother. If that is what I had to do for MONEY, fine. But I'm doing this for CHILDREN in which case, it is wasting my time. There have been afternoons that I haven't gotten to say two sentences to each of my children, literally. Not many, but some. THAT ISN"T RIGHT! Edited January 31, 2012 by 2J5M9K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momma aimee Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 i don't think you can compare. It is just not a simple enough issue. it is sad no matter how you cut it, more of us need to foster and adopt and that is the only real answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela H in Texas Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 As if I didn't complain enough in my last post.... This is what our January schedule looked like. There were a few things missing, I can see; but this is most of it. We had 3 placements and a respite most of the month. The second respite also included driving to another district for her schooling (and hence picking her up there also). Remember also that my littles were all in school from 7-3:30 daily so most appointments are after school; and of course, ALL the caseworker and agency worker visits must be. Just to make it a tad more challenging, both my big kids got jobs this month and without vehicles..... And remember that an appointment may be 30 minutes (like one therapy session for one child) but it is very likely 1, 2, 3 hours long because I have multiple children involved in that appointment. Or it just takes that long even for one kid. On the 10th, for example, I left the house right before 7am, got home at 3:30 and the last visitor left at 7:30. I realize we CHOOSE to do this. I'm not complaining. But when you look at the schedule, picture afterschooling, supper, extra curriculars, park visits, playing in the back yard, doing chores, baths, etc...Do we *really* need more supervision TOO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momma aimee Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 As if I didn't complain enough in my last post.... This is what our January schedule looked like. There were a few things missing, I can see; but this is most of it. We had 3 placements and a respite most of the month. The second respite also included driving to another district for her schooling (and hence picking her up there also). Remember also that my littles were all in school from 7-3:30 daily so most appointments are after school; and of course, ALL the caseworker and agency worker visits must be. Just to make it a tad more challenging, both my big kids got jobs this month and without vehicles..... And remember that an appointment may be 30 minutes (like one therapy session for one child) but it is very likely 1, 2, 3 hours long because I have multiple children involved in that appointment. Or it just takes that long even for one kid. On the 10th, for example, I left the house right before 7am, got home at 3:30 and the last visitor left at 7:30. I realize we CHOOSE to do this. I'm not complaining. But when you look at the schedule, picture afterschooling, supper, extra curriculars, park visits, playing in the back yard, doing chores, baths, etc...Do we *really* need more supervision TOO? you're my hero -- i am chomping at the bit to get moved and get our training done.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Personally, I came to believe while working in children's mental health that children with severe RAD would be much better off in residential care than in family placements. One is not supposed to say that; it is kind of like mental health/adoption heresy that every child get their "forever home" but it just doesn't work out well that way for all kids. It works out VERY well for some older adopted kids. We need to work very hard to distinguish who will do well and who won't. I honestly believe RAD kids are less stressed in group placement because it doesn't push their intimacy buttons as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa in Australia Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Orphanages in countries like Australia were awful, awful places. I am so glad they are all closed down. If one foster parent is bad= children in that placement damaged. one worker in orphanage bad= all children in orphanage damaged. What Australia is trying now is permanent foster placements. the child is placed in temporary care for 2 years and the birth parents have those 2 years to try to get their child back. After those 2 years the child is placed in a permanent forever home ( much like adoption). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottakee Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Personally, I came to believe while working in children's mental health that children with severe RAD would be much better off in residential care than in family placements. One is not supposed to say that; it is kind of like mental health/adoption heresy that every child get their "forever home" but it just doesn't work out well that way for all kids. It works out VERY well for some older adopted kids. We need to work very hard to distinguish who will do well and who won't. I honestly believe RAD kids are less stressed in group placement because it doesn't push their intimacy buttons as much. Sad to say, that in SOME cases, I have to agree with you. Some RAD kids do better in a military school like place or other residential place where they have clear rules and expectations but no need to bond to anyone. The ideal would be a family for all kids but reality is, that isn't going to work for all kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobela Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Sad to say, that in SOME cases, I have to agree with you. Some RAD kids do better in a military school like place or other residential place where they have clear rules and expectations but no need to bond to anyone. The ideal would be a family for all kids but reality is, that isn't going to work for all kids. Yes, that is true, but the question is "how do we prevent RAD?" not all children come into foster care or orphanages with RAD. I really think the girls we tried to adopt had RAD from the multiple moves they went thru - over 14 homes in the first 4 years of their life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 The child-welfare system is corrupt and that is the problem. The level of corruption varies from county to county, some more and some less. I'm curious: what do you mean by corrupt? Money changing hands? Bribes? Laziness? I know what I mean by corrupt, but what do you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.