|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: UKIP membership a bar to fostering
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm not very familiar with UKIP or with this case, but I think it's only natural that before Social Services place a child, in the interview they're having with the prospective parents, they ask if there are any political/religious obstacles that would make them unfit to receive an immigrant/gay/disabled/... child.
If there are, they shouldn't receive a child at all. It isn't Social Services' job to cater for the parents' political/religious preferences.
Of course, this should be asked to people of all political parties and of all religions. Being a member of UKIP by itself shouldn't disqualify people. But it's a question that should be asked, so I'm with Barnabas on this. The allegation of bigotry is ullshit.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Undue suspicion?
I think it's pure bigotry.
I don't agree.
UKIP may have suddenly become all respectable in the eyes of many, but they remain a fringe party with probably more anti-foreign bigotry in its ranks than the Tories.
Rotherham's mistake was not finding out whether in fact the foster parents were racists. That is what makes their reaction so wrong and Orwellian.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But do we know what the social workers did find out? If they did find more information about the foster-parents, they would be bound by law not to release this to anyone, except to a case conference, and obviously any other official enquiry.
No doubt the tabloids are desperate to get more info; let's just hope there are no leaks, for the sake of both parents and children.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
We do have Rotherham's own statement that they had no concern with the foster parents' care, which of course makes Rotherham look even worse.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, that doesn't answer my point - if there is other information about the parents, the social workers are duty bound not to release it, and I assume, the Council likewise.
As I said, the tabloids will be desperate to get hold of this info, if it exists, so let's hope the confidentiality sticks.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
Posted by Beeswax
quote:
If you got an anonymous tip that the parents of a foster child were seen at a pub having a pint would you investigate to make sure the parents weren't alcoholics even if not evidence of drunkenness was reported?
Frankly yes, I don't think that those outside the fostering system realise the degree of openness required by foster carers. I am questioned about my drinking at least once a year before my annual review. In the case above I would be expected to say that I was modelling responsible drinking and I would give approximate times I was in the pub, how much I drank and whether or not the children were with me
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that doesn't answer my point - if there is other information about the parents, the social workers are duty bound not to release it, and I assume, the Council likewise.
As I said, the tabloids will be desperate to get hold of this info, if it exists, so let's hope the confidentiality sticks.
What the council might or might not have found out is irrelevant - unless they were lying when they said they had no concerns with the foster parents' care.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Anyway, in a case which has already attracted legal criticism on ethnic fit, they could hardly afford not to check out suitability. Even if the odds are in practice low, they could hardly afford the assumption that they were zero. Not in a sensitive case.
I think situations like these becomes explicable when one considers the odd legal situation within which social services have to operate. Barnabas62 (who I think is being given a hard go here) mentioned judicial review earlier.
Judicial review is the standard court action for challenging a decision by an officer of the state. It is very unlike a standard court action in that the judge is not supposed to consider the quality of the officer's decision, but merely consider whether it has been legally made. This is because judges - although experts in law - are not experts in town planning, immgration policy, or fostering for example. The theory goes that they should not substitute their own view for that of the town planning officer, immigration officer or child protection officer because they are more likely than those officers to bollox up the whole thing.
In theory therefore, the law provides social services officers with broad powers which they are assumed to be able to exercise competently - with the courts only needing to step in when something has clearly gone wrong. Unless the officer concerned has transgresses the law, he or she is free to exercise the powers of the state.
(I leave aside the extent of child support officers' powers, and the secrecy under which they operate, but I have no doubt that the thought of those powers makes the public shudder when a scandal like this hits the press.)
I suspect that human rights legislation has horrendously complicated judicial review in recent years. In certain areas - immigration for one - but clearly fostering also - human rights can come in at every turn, and every decision can have human rights implications. This means that the difference between legality of an officer's decisions and their quality on the other gets abolished - if a human right is wrongly applied or not applied at all - the decision becomes illegal and the judge is obligated to intervene.
As an aside (and this is certainly an issue for another thread) this is why human rights legislation can cause real problems.
I think this must be pretty tough for social workers. For very obvious reasons, they're not trained in law but social services. Yet because of the legal background against which they operate, they have to try and comprehend the law too. There must be a great temptation to concentrate on making a decision legally rather than well. It would explain why social workers might take refuge in standard procedures etc regardless of outcome (was was the case in Haringey) or might make a knee-jerk response because of previous judicial criticism (as was the case here).
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Undue suspicion?
I think it's pure bigotry.
I don't agree.
UKIP may have suddenly become all respectable in the eyes of many, but they remain a fringe party with probably more anti-foreign bigotry in its ranks than the Tories.
Rotherham's mistake was not finding out whether in fact the foster parents were racists. That is what makes their reaction so wrong and Orwellian.
Close to my position on this. I'm just not sure I'd classify a prejudice about immigrants as racism. I am pretty sure that the immigration policy attracts anti-foreign bigotry to the ranks but I'd classify the policy itself as nationalistic, rather than anti-foreign bigotry.
Assumption of immigrant prejudice is wrong. Checking to make sure there isn't such a prejudice just looks like proper precautionary supervision by a supervisor with a clear duty of care. Particularly in these circumstances.
But I don't think there's any resolution of that particular debating impasse here.
[Edited to add, because of cross post]
Thanks for your understanding, Cod.
[ 27. November 2012, 08:35: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
If the children are facing xenophobic attitudes from schoolmates and society around them, the foster parents' ability to support them might be compromised by their membership of UKIP. UKIP posters in people's windows at election time would be a very obvious part of the hostile environment within which the children would need support, and coming home to a house with its own UKIP poster, for instance, would probably feel very undermining.
There's the rest of the family to think about, too - grandparents, uncles and aunts, and the other children, natural or fostered, of the foster parents. We haven't a clue, rightly, about those dynamics. But I can see that there could be reasons to think UKIP membership was a problem even though there was no evidence of racist behaviour. Sometimes it's about who you line up with.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
hatless
I think there might be the sort of difficulties you describe, both for the children and for any concerned family members. But I doubt whether they are insuperable.
If there is a good and open relationship with the supervising social worker (and the child's social worker if the two are different ) then good practical arrangements can be made for the sake of the child.
In the case I mentioned previously (evangelical foster carers looking after a Muslim child) there were very good and very practical discussions over "in yer face" stuff.
IME also, Chief of Sinners is right about the openness required of foster carers. The willingness of foster carers to do what's best in a specific placement seems to be a normal part of the role. "What's best" often needs quite a lot of detailed consideration.
It is encouraging to see what can be achieved when there is good will. It should come as no great surprise that things can go wrong if that good will is damaged.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
You're probably right, B62; I certainly agree about how important open relationships are.
My instinct is to look for the best possible construction I can put on what looks like a very poor decision. Social workers are often severely criticised, but as in many areas of life, seeing the whole picture makes things look very different.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that doesn't answer my point - if there is other information about the parents, the social workers are duty bound not to release it, and I assume, the Council likewise.
As I said, the tabloids will be desperate to get hold of this info, if it exists, so let's hope the confidentiality sticks.
What the council might or might not have found out is irrelevant - unless they were lying when they said they had no concerns with the foster parents' care.
But presumably what social workers may have found out is not irrelevant, is it?
I also assume it will not be released to the right-wing press!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Hawk, you are entirely free to check out closely my views and my reasons for them on this website. It's just a discussion after all.
But it just strikes me as ironic that you are so reluctant to give a supervisory social worker a similar freedom to check out the views of two foster-carers whose caring on behalf of the local authority is actually subject to that worker's supervision. Foster-carers are not autonomous in the carrying out of their duties. And what they do in that role is a heck of a lot more important than us shooting the breeze here.
Thank you B62 for the link. Sorry for the combativeness in my previous posts BTW. I appreciate the subtleties of your argument.
I am perfectly happy with social workers making whatever checks they deem appropriate. Just because IMO they are barking up the wrong tree, checking on its own doesn’t hurt. In this case we aren’t talking about a random couple picked off the streets however. I haven’t been a foster carer myself and I may be wrong, but I assume that this couple have been extremely stringently checked already. I would imagine, especially considering the case of these children had already been criticised by the courts, the social services checked out the views of these parents quite thoroughly to find out their capability and suitability for fostering culturally different children before the children were placed in their care. If these pre-checks weren’t carried out, and the children were just handed over to the care of someone who hadn't been checked already by the social worker, then this is a considerable failing to begin with.
Assuming however that these checks were fully carried out, and the social worker had asked the appropriate questions like: “these children are migrants, what are your views on migrant children?” and received a satisfactory answer, and taken that there was no subsequent problem with the couple’s care. And that no information was received, anonymously or otherwise, that the couple were mistreating, neglecting, or otherwise harming the children, or failing to provide for their cultural heritage, in fact the opposite, that they were making specific efforts to learn the language and take the child to an appropriate religious service. In this situation receiving information that the couple were members of UKIP should, in my opinion, have raised no red flags at all, or led the social worker to consider that any checks out of the ordinary were required. The couple have already been checked, the social worker is already confident they aren’t racists or bigoted, otherwise they wouldn’t have been given the children in the first place. Maybe, at a regular follow-up meeting, the social worker could have mentioned the couple’s political affiliation and asked a couple of relevant questions, just to make sure. It’s their job after all, as you say. But that’s about as much as I think would have been necessary or helpful in this case.
Of course, as others have said, we don’t know all the facts. Maybe confidentiality hides a multitude of issues.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
There's a lot in what you say there, Hawk. Your post demonstrates very well, I think, the importance of good relationships between foster-carers and supervising social workers.
quote:
Maybe, at a regular follow-up meeting, the social worker could have mentioned the couple’s political affiliation and asked a couple of relevant questions, just to make sure
I agree if a good and candid working relationship existed, that kind of approach may have been all that was required, plus a note for the record. But as DT so succinctly put it
quote:
Hmm, court criticised them - then legal advice supported the criticism. Seems then social services got very twitchy
You probably know the old army motto about twitchyness?
"We must do something
This is something
So let's do it."
Fear can sometimes drive people into less-than-best choices.
But let's see what comes out. It doesn't look good for Rotherham at this stage but maybe there were factors as work hidden by the needs of confidentiality.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I would imagine, especially considering the case of these children had already been criticised by the courts, the social services checked out the views of these parents quite thoroughly to find out their capability and suitability for fostering culturally different children before the children were placed in their care... In this situation receiving information that the couple were members of UKIP should, in my opinion, have raised no red flags at all, or led the social worker to consider that any checks out of the ordinary were required. The couple have already been checked, the social worker is already confident they aren’t racists or bigoted, otherwise they wouldn’t have been given the children in the first place.
My thoughts exactly. Presumably the foster parents had already been vetted and approved, both in general terms and for these particular children, so I'm a bit alarmed that membership of a legitimate political party was seen as grounds to end the foster placement. It's a wild over-reaction, ISTM.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Undue suspicion?
I think it's pure bigotry.
I don't agree.
UKIP may have suddenly become all respectable in the eyes of many, but they remain a fringe party with probably more anti-foreign bigotry in its ranks than the Tories.
Rotherham's mistake was not finding out whether in fact the foster parents were racists. That is what makes their reaction so wrong and Orwellian.
All I'm hearing is bigotry on the Left is perfectly acceptable because those on the Right hold views that we right on Lefties don't like.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ Beexwax Altar
Maybe you have an unusual form of tinnitus?
Joking aside, it might help if you would explain what you see as bigotry. If proven that the UKIP couple had the children taken away from them purely because of their political affiliation, I'd agree that was a bigoted decision. So far as I can make out that's a view that has already attracted a lot of support.
So where's the rest of the bigotry?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
The fact the UKIP is signaled out for special scrutiny based on what are perfectly legitimate political positions to take. Lefties don't like those political positions. However, none of those positions, even the ones held by the 37%, suggest members of the UKIP wouldn't be able to foster children. Their views of the UKIP on immigration are irrelevant. As Hawk said, I can believe immigrants should be repatriated and still provide excellent care for the children of immigrants.
The left might not be any more prone to moral vanity than the right or center but this is certainly an example of moral vanity on the Left. Behinds the distrust of the UKIP is the assumption that only mean, nasty people can advocate the policy positions of the UKIP. That's simply wrong. Members of the UKIP shouldn't be required to prove they aren't mean, nasty people based on their political positions. Can we take seriously all the negative stereotypes Tories apply to Labour and then give extra scrutiny to foster parents belonging to Labour based on those stereotypes?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
We may be in violent agreement again. Of course folks who are members of UKIP can be foster parents and there should be no bar against that. I would extend that argument to the 37% (sample evidence) who have what seem to me to be extreme views on deportation. It is however necessary to check whether the views on immigration would affect their fostering of immigrant children. That is a reasonable supervisory check. Particularly given the requirement to look after cultural and ethnic needs and the parallel requirement to find "best fit".
Would you deny a supervisor the freedom to ask questions about that? I think I would do so only if there were reasons to believe the supervisor was bigoted. Either way. It would be wrong to assume that the supervisor would be unfair.
I do not see this process as bigoted. If you do, we must agree to differ on that point. But only on that point.
[Edited to remove a double-negative]
[ 27. November 2012, 17:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Asking any additional questions of UKIP party members not asked of Labour party members is discriminatory. The same set of questions regarding immigration and multiculturalism should be asked of all potential foster parents. Party affiliation should have nothing to do with it.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
One of the grey areas in the Rotherham information concerns the standards of applied to the initial recruitment of this couple - which was apparently done externally.
I agree that the same standards should be applied on recruitment to all candidates regardless of party affiliation.
But I wouldn't want to limit the scope of a supervisor to ask pertinent (rather than impertinent) "best fit" questions in connection with a specific fit. So far as immigrant children are concerned, because of party policy differences over immigration, political affiliation may be an issue.
hatless has indicated some of the practical issues associated with immigrant fostering in his post. There aren't insuperable difficulties, but they need to be talked about by the supervisor and the foster couple.
In fact, candid communication about these issues is more likely to be produce a better overall result than pretending there aren't any potential issues. That's exactly what I learned through the experiences of the evangelical couple who fostered a Muslim.
That sort of approach seems a heck of a lot better to me than inhibiting discussions because we're bothered they might be in some sense unfair.
Political and religious affiliations may present a bit of a challenge to best-fit fostering; so there should be room to talk. That's a practical, pragmatic approach. I favour it.
Beeswax Altar, did I just note an element of political correctness in your desire to be transparently even-handed?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Should card-carrying members of political parties which are committed to ensuring that gay people should be able to marry be quizzed about their appropriateness as foster parent for Catholic children, just for being party members?
Should people who are committed to keeping abortion legal and to opposing any restrictions on it be quizzed about that before being allowed to foster Catholic children?
If one's answer to either of those questions is no, you might want to consider whether one is being consistent if one holds that belonging to a party which wants to have stricter restrictions on immigration to the UK should in itself constitute a hurdle to be jumped for those wishing to foster.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
Beeswax
quote:
Asking any additional questions of UKIP party members not asked of Labour party members is discriminatory. The same set of questions regarding immigration and multiculturalism should be asked of all potential foster parents.
They are, however throughout one's fostering career (if it can be called a career) questions are asked and asked again. Each time a child is placed their social worker will want to investigate your views and they will home in on points that interest them. Everytime you go before the panel each year to confirm your status as a foster carer and when a panel is considering making a placment permanent they will question you. In my case we are often asked about supporting people of other faiths, if we would force children to attend church and our views on same sex relationships. I suspect we are asked these questions more often than other carers because we are practising Christians and some Christians (Stephen Green) have expressed views which would be incompatible with caring for some children. Other carers are asked about subjects which may have been mentioned just in passing to us. Social workers want to make sure that we are not in that group. Call it discrimination if you wish but for me it is about social workers and other panel members having the freedom to ask what is on their mind and not have to stick to a one size fits all set of questions.
If you don't want every aspect of your life picked over and every opinion you hold tested don't sign up to care for other people's children on behalf of the state
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
No, I call it bigotry and discrimination because that's what it is.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Should card-carrying members of political parties which are committed to ensuring that gay people should be able to marry be quizzed about their appropriateness as foster parent for Catholic children, just for being party members?
Should people who are committed to keeping abortion legal and to opposing any restrictions on it be quizzed about that before being allowed to foster Catholic children?
How would either of those things impact their ability to look after those children? Being opposed to immigration from EU countries could quite reasonably be a problem when looking after... immigrants from EU countries. Catholic children would be totally unaffected by foster parents being in favour of equal marriage or being pro-choice. What might be more of an issue is if devout Catholic children are housed with a non-Catholic family and so aren't able to attend mass.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It looks like there is much to criticise, much to reform, in Rotherham.
There has been much to criticise and much to reform in Rotherham for years. It's not so long ago that the council were in special measures and their children's services has been the subject of scrutiny for some time. Scroll down this article (sorry about it being the Mirror - it was the first reference I found!) or take a look at the 2009 Ofsted report . Having been judged as poor in 2009 explains the yearly Ofsted inspections subsequently and even in 2011 children's services there was only judged 'adequate'. I wonder how they will do under the latest regime of inspections, which are focusing purely on frontline delivery of services.
This decision was purely political and should never have been taken.
I am glad that the coalition government is amending the Adoption Bill to ensure the same approach towards ethnicity which is being proposed when considering potential adopters is also to be taken when assessing foster carers. While I can sympathise to an extent with the reasoning behind ethnicity being a consideration, the situation has become ridiculous, not only because good, non-racist people are vulnerable to just this kind of politically motivated action but also because children have been left waiting in children's homes when perfectly good foster carers and adopters have been available who just happen to be of a different skin colour or have a different mix of nationality to the children awaiting placement.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
quote:
Should card-carrying members of political parties which are committed to ensuring that gay people should be able to marry be quizzed about their appropriateness as foster parent for Catholic children, just for being party members?
Should people who are committed to keeping abortion legal and to opposing any restrictions on it be quizzed about that before being allowed to foster Catholic children?
Whether they should be or not is a question but they are, at least to a degree. Many children are looked after at the request of their birth parents who have asked for help and still have parental responsibility. In such cases we have known parents to object to a placement because of the colour of one of the foster carers and the child was moved, both in case the parent removes consent for the child to be cared for forcing social services either to take legal action to protect the child by keeping them in care or allowing the child to return to their parents.
A child placed from a Catholic family would expect their religious and cultural needs to be met. Arrangements for the child to attend church would be made and nothing in the foster home should diliberately undermine the teaching of their church. In same way that a Muslim child would expect the same level of consideration. I would expect to be up before the panel if I denounced the teaching of a child's religion. Exposure to wider views from those outside the home is one thing but indoctrination within it quite another.
Fostering is not adoption nor is it the same as raising your own child, it is caring for someone else's child as their substitute
[ 27. November 2012, 20:02: Message edited by: Chief of sinners ]
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How would either of those things impact their ability to look after those children? Being opposed to immigration from EU countries could quite reasonably be a problem when looking after... immigrants from EU countries.
Shocked, I tell you, shocked. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chief of sinners:
Fostering is not adoption nor is it the same as raising your own child, it is caring for someone else's child as their substitute
This. Foster-carers need to be flexible in order to substitute. A condition which applies to all foster-carers. So they are going to get taken out of their own comfort-zones (whatever they are). Some people can cope with that better than others. And everyone has their limits.
It's a complication in seeking the best-available fit, obviously. I'm sure foster-carers are expected to be willing to take just about anyone in emergencies but be honest about their own tolerance limits when longer-term placements are in the air. And I'm equally sure that some folks are better in the emergency role than others; while some will be better in the long term role than others.
I don't think foster-caring is for perfectionists, whatever they might be perfectionist about. I'm also pretty sure that even with the best recruitment/selection processes, tolerance limits get missed, get found out by real placements. People don't necessarily know in advance what their limits are.
Supervising social workers have their work cut out. So do foster-carers. While the overall aim is easy to say, in practice people aren't chameleons, able to morph effortlessly from one substitute role to another. While it might be a lot less hassle if they were like that, that isn't the real world.
We've never fostered, but have known enough who do to have gained that kind of picture of "situation normal". Not just "normal for Norfolk" either. Happy to have it corrected by any Shipmates who live it. That's the way it looks to us, based on lots of chats with the brave souls who do it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Undue suspicion?
I think it's pure bigotry.
I don't agree.
UKIP may have suddenly become all respectable in the eyes of many, but they remain a fringe party with probably more anti-foreign bigotry in its ranks than the Tories.
Rotherham's mistake was not finding out whether in fact the foster parents were racists. That is what makes their reaction so wrong and Orwellian.
All I'm hearing is bigotry on the Left is perfectly acceptable because those on the Right hold views that we right on Lefties don't like.
What's so right-wing about wanting to restrict immigration?
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Should people who are committed to keeping abortion legal and to opposing any restrictions on it be quizzed about that before being allowed to foster Catholic children?wishing to foster.
I fail to see the relevance. It is not as if any such foster parent would be likely to abort the foster children, after all.
You will accept, I'm sure, that it would be relevant to ask the foster parents' views on (I assume Roman) Catholicism generally.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Having worked with fostering situations going wrong from the school end, it really is important that foster carers can cope. One girl's outworking of her abuse was promiscuity. It's really common in abuse cases. The foster carer could not deal with this at all, and the relationship broke down entirely over a couple of very painful years with a lot of collateral damage in other areas.
The bottom line is that if children / teenagers don't feel safe and parented their behaviour is affected, their schooling is affected, they often then end up in the groups that are truanting and getting into legal trouble.
Fostering is often temporary, so many children in foster care are already unsettled and wondering what is going to happen to them. For many of them they are waiting for the results of court cases and hearings to know if they are going to stay in care, be put up for adoption or return to their parents. Foster carers have to be super parents to cope.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I'm sure that's true, CK. And it's all the more reason why foster-carers need to be supported in their role. They aren't autonomous of necessity and the relationship with the supervising social worker is a really key factor in all of that. Not being able to cope on one's own is just normal when things get very difficult. Being properly supported in crises may lead to an improvement in coping, or a humble recognition that "this one really isn't for you". That's sad. So it's better if coping limits, suitability are recognised in advance, so far as they can be. Clearly that is one of the pressures on supervising social workers. It's an imperfect world of restricted choices. Sometimes I guess they just have to take a view, take a chance, recognise the possibility that a placement may go wrong even as they make it.
Capability, coping are dynamic things. Even when the portents are good for a specific fit, things can go badly wrong.
It's in this context that I truly believe in the central importance of good relationships, good communications, between supervising social worker and foster-carers. As you say, it can be a very difficult role; coping cannot be assumed for theoretical reasons.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Apologies for not reading all 3 pages and possibly missing this, but... isn't there a basic logic problem with assuming membership of political party = support for all of that party's policies?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
There sure is, orfeo. There's a difference between seeing a possibility and assuming a certainty.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Apologies for not reading all 3 pages and possibly missing this, but... isn't there a basic logic problem with assuming membership of political party = support for all of that party's policies?
Yes, but not if the reason that party exists is because of one policy and in this case it is anti-foreigners, especially those in the UK.
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I know very, very little about the UKIP. But one of the few things I've read was that they gradually expanded their policy base precisely because they DIDN'T want to be seen as single issue.
I mean, you could say the Greens existed for one reason. They've moved on.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
BNP, yes, UKIP, no. Otherwise Nigel Farage wouldn't be married to a German, would he?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
BNP, yes, UKIP, no. Otherwise Nigel Farage wouldn't be married to a German, would he?
OK, I used too broad a generalisation/ brushstroke but that brushstroke is still wide.
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
[Missed edit window but last post was reply to Mr Clingford. Plus what Orfeo said.]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Cod:
What's so right-wing about wanting to restrict immigration?
Nothing...that's my point. Since you recognize that lefties can favor immigration restriction wouldn't it make sense to make sure all foster parents are capable of fostering immigrant children instead of just focusing on UKIP members? Instead, UKIP members receive special scrutiny and that's bigotry.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Preeee-cisely!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Lord, this is going round in circles again!
We don't know for sure whether the particular couple's UKIP membership pre-dated or post-dated their original recruitment as carers but it seems very likely that it did post-date it. They had been working as foster carers for 7 years. We do know that they changed their political allegiance relatively recently.
There is an implication, not a certainty, that the original emergency placement was made without knowing about the change of political allegiance.
We know that the children come from a migrant background.
Matt, Beeswax Altar.
Are you seriously suggesting that, in this specific case, it would have been wrong for any supervising social worker worth his salt even to ask a question or two to test whether their changed political views might have any impact on suitability?
Supervising social workers are not expected to be thought police, but neither are they expected to be mind-readers. There is a working relationship there. The foster carers have an accountability within it.
Even a question shows a bias? In those circumstances?
[ 28. November 2012, 15:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
They would also be duty-bound to inform the birth-parents, wouldn't they? And if they objected, to act on that, I assume.
I also assume that we will never know, unless there is a special dispensation to reveal information.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Barnabas62:
Are you seriously suggesting that, in this specific case, it would have been wrong for any supervising social worker worth his salt even to ask a question or two to test whether their changed political views might have any impact on suitability?
Yes!!!! ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Treating an anonymous tip that the foster parents are members of the UKIP any differently than an anonymous tip that the foster parents are members of the Labour Party is bigotry.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
You can ask the same question(s) that you would ask in response to knowing that someone was a member of the Labour Party, the Lib Dems, the Conservatives or the Greens. If the social services department can demonstrate that they do ask those questions evenhandedly, then fine.
But, in any event, they did rather more than just ask a question or two, didn't they?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Matt
You've missed my point. I critised them for making the judgment they made. I said they would not have been wrong to ask a question in these cirucmstances.
Beeswax Altar
It's a working relationship. A supervisor can ask if the tip off is true simply because it has been received. The previous political allegiance was in fact Labour, according to press reports. Would you deny the supervisor that question?
It can only be denied if the change is irrelevant to care of migrant children.
You and I cannot possibly know that it is irrelevant. A change of political allegiance to the extent of joining a different party is actually a major move. It is an indicator of a possible value shift since the original commitment to foster caring. In particular in this case since UKIP has a more prescriptive and proscriptive view of immigrants than the three main political parties in the UK.
I'd say the supervisor has a duty to check that if the tip-off re UKIP membership is confirmed to be true. It is an assumption that any value shift has no bearing on the original assessment.
None of that means the couple could not represent a safe placement in this case, nor does it mean that they would not continue as foster carers even if the supervisor judged that a change might produce a better fit.
You are seeing bias when there is a clear professional need to confirm suitability.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
...as long as they also ask the same question for membership of any other political party.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There is also a professional need to inform the birth parents, isn't there, and ask them if they object to the new situation?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
