Have you fostered kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

One would expect that with teens there would be some kind of program that would teach them basic life skills and get them ready to live on their own.
I hear that despite all the benefits they qualify for, only 2% go to college.
Could that be because they are moved around so often during high school years or just nobody teaching them to even apply?
Do they get to learn how to drive?

Step back and think about all the years of life skills teaching that a foster child who has spent a decade or more being shuffled between foster homes and an unstable bio family will have missed.
Start with emotional regulation. A neurotypical child in a stable home learns those skills gradually through toddlerdom through elementary school.
Very basic stuff: Don't hit people. Don't scream at your teacher.
Then get into things like: Be on time. Call if you can't get somewhere.
Kids who grow up in dysfunction miss out on a lot of these very basic principles, which are best instilled in small children who are at a malleable age and want to please adults. Teaching those skills to teens is a lot harder because they are at a developmental stage which is hard-wired to want to rebel against instruction.
Then add in the reality that a large percentage of kids in foster care are struggling with the effects of pre-natal alcohol and drug exposure that cause learning disabilities and emotional dysregulation, not to mention emotional trauma.

Surely most have not been in foster care for a decade?
All kids are not taken into care as preschoolers

Sure. There are a couple of teens out there whose parent or grandparent dies and they end up in foster care for a short time as a teen. But for most, even if they weren't always formally in foster care, it's very very likely that their home situation was unstable with drug use, abuse, homelessness, etc, since forever.

I grew up with foster siblings. I remember the infant in the full body cast because his mom's boyfriend threw him down the stairs; the 4 yo who went home on weekends to an apartment without electricity or a refrigerator and would come back having not eaten anything for 2 days; the 10 yo boy who would hold his head and just rock and rock because his parents had found that CPS couldn't tell if they abused him if they hit him on his head because the bruises were covered by hair (turns out he had a skull fracture); the 3 yo who would jump off of things to try to kill herself over and over, including throwing herself down the stairs and off of windowsils; and an Asian baby of immigrants who was gravely ill but who had been abandoned at birth so the hospital decided to stop treating him because he couldn't pay so they sent him to foster care with instructions to call the ambulance when he died.

Are you for real?
Hospital cannot refuse to treat a child.
All your examples sound exaggerated, bordering criminal.

[Anonymous]

I was a foster kid. Emergency placement when I was 4 (parents arrested for drugs), 6 (in car with drunk driver parent), removed from home for neglect and abuse at 8 and 10. By 12 I’d just lie when the social workers showed up because I knew the system and it was better to be neglected than shuttled around to scary new places. I never stole or hurt people, but I also never felt safe. Ever. If you do this, you need to have a very open heart. None of the families were mean, but it was always cramped, messed up kids, weird food, no clothes, what about my school?, what about my friends?, what about my sister?, and yes, what about my mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

One would expect that with teens there would be some kind of program that would teach them basic life skills and get them ready to live on their own.
I hear that despite all the benefits they qualify for, only 2% go to college.
Could that be because they are moved around so often during high school years or just nobody teaching them to even apply?
Do they get to learn how to drive?

Step back and think about all the years of life skills teaching that a foster child who has spent a decade or more being shuffled between foster homes and an unstable bio family will have missed.
Start with emotional regulation. A neurotypical child in a stable home learns those skills gradually through toddlerdom through elementary school.
Very basic stuff: Don't hit people. Don't scream at your teacher.
Then get into things like: Be on time. Call if you can't get somewhere.
Kids who grow up in dysfunction miss out on a lot of these very basic principles, which are best instilled in small children who are at a malleable age and want to please adults. Teaching those skills to teens is a lot harder because they are at a developmental stage which is hard-wired to want to rebel against instruction.
Then add in the reality that a large percentage of kids in foster care are struggling with the effects of pre-natal alcohol and drug exposure that cause learning disabilities and emotional dysregulation, not to mention emotional trauma.

Surely most have not been in foster care for a decade?
All kids are not taken into care as preschoolers

Sure. There are a couple of teens out there whose parent or grandparent dies and they end up in foster care for a short time as a teen. But for most, even if they weren't always formally in foster care, it's very very likely that their home situation was unstable with drug use, abuse, homelessness, etc, since forever.

I grew up with foster siblings. I remember the infant in the full body cast because his mom's boyfriend threw him down the stairs; the 4 yo who went home on weekends to an apartment without electricity or a refrigerator and would come back having not eaten anything for 2 days; the 10 yo boy who would hold his head and just rock and rock because his parents had found that CPS couldn't tell if they abused him if they hit him on his head because the bruises were covered by hair (turns out he had a skull fracture); the 3 yo who would jump off of things to try to kill herself over and over, including throwing herself down the stairs and off of windowsils; and an Asian baby of immigrants who was gravely ill but who had been abandoned at birth so the hospital decided to stop treating him because he couldn't pay so they sent him to foster care with instructions to call the ambulance when he died.

Are you for real?
Hospital cannot refuse to treat a child.
All your examples sound exaggerated, bordering criminal.

Totally for real. It was foster care in rural Texas in the 80s.

It was Dallas Children's Hospital that refused to treat the baby. They assumed he had a fatal genetic disorder but didn't want to pay for the very expensive test. So they sent him to foster care expecting him to pass within the week. It got complicated when he was still alive at a month and then at two months and they actually had to figure out what was wrong with him. My mom and the social worker tracked down his parents and reunited the family. The parents desperately wanted the baby but were illegal immigrants and were afraid of being deported if they couldn't pay the medical bills. My mom helped those parents navigate the system for years to get the kid the needed surgeries and therapies (outside of the system, as they became family to us).

The infant in the cast did have parents in jail. Hence the reason he was in foster care. The boyfriend did go to prison for injuring him. My mom was a witness at trial testifying to the baby's pain and suffering.

The kid with the skull fracture had his parent's rights terminated once they found out what was happening and I believe he was moved to an adoption placement. He had a lot of issues so I don't know if he was ever actually adopted.

The 4 yo who wasn't fed got sent back to the apartment without food or electricity once her mother completed a parenting class. My mom fought hard against it, but the judge wouldn't listen. She probably had a really hard life.

[Anonymous]

People who don't think these stories are real have led a very sheltered life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who don't think these stories are real have led a very sheltered life.

A majority of the kids in foster care are not there for the reasons you mention
Sometimes social workers make mistakes too and take a child away from a home without adequate reasons

[Anonymous]

So the OP has a husband with Aspbergers that didn’t do any childcare for his own biological kid, but she thinks it would be good to bring a child into her home that comes from a trauma background? This sounds ridiculous to me. But perhaps I am confusing the posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who don't think these stories are real have led a very sheltered life.

A majority of the kids in foster care are not there for the reasons you mention
Sometimes social workers make mistakes too and take a child away from a home without adequate reasons

Um, what’s this based on please? Because my personal experience (I’m the PP foster kid), is obviously very different. The social workers did everything to keep me in a home with a drunk and drug addict, no electricity or food at times, and complete filth. Who are these social workers you suggest are messing up close calls? Don’t really think that’s common, but if you have data I’d love to see it. Obviously my experience is only my own.

[Anonymous]

Um, what’s this based on please? Because my personal experience (I’m the PP foster kid), is obviously very different. The social workers did everything to keep me in a home with a drunk and drug addict, no electricity or food at times, and complete filth. Who are these social workers you suggest are messing up close calls? Don’t really think that’s common, but if you have data I’d love to see it. Obviously my experience is only my own.

Question for this poster---from the perspective of your now adult self, do you think it would have been preferable for the social workers to have given your biological mother one (maybe two) chances to get her act together and then arranged for termination of parental rights and your adoption by a stable family, instead of shuffling you between bio-home and multiple temporary foster situations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Um, what’s this based on please? Because my personal experience (I’m the PP foster kid), is obviously very different. The social workers did everything to keep me in a home with a drunk and drug addict, no electricity or food at times, and complete filth. Who are these social workers you suggest are messing up close calls? Don’t really think that’s common, but if you have data I’d love to see it. Obviously my experience is only my own.

Question for this poster---from the perspective of your now adult self, do you think it would have been preferable for the social workers to have given your biological mother one (maybe two) chances to get her act together and then arranged for termination of parental rights and your adoption by a stable family, instead of shuffling you between bio-home and multiple temporary foster situations?

My kid self would say staying with my mother, who I thought loved me, kept me with my siblings and I knew how to navigate the chaos, esp as I got older. I didn’t have the perspective of understanding what I was missing. I would have fought like all get-out to not be adopted and would have been easily manipulated into thinking what a terrible outcome that was. As an adult? I should have been removed so, so many times more than I was. There were so many reporters who failed me (back before I’d lie about it). My mother was not capable of “getting her act together.” It just wasn’t a possibility. To have had a stable family probably would have been better. That said, it’s really hard to know. I understand that adoption is challenging for adoptees and the grass isn’t always greener. I have a great life now so I can’t regret the choices I made and that were made for me. But I really do take issue with potentially minimizing when / how children should be removed. Probably because it was the excuse my mom would use - that the social worker overreacted, didn’t know what they were doing, the police were wrong, etc - all while I’d been scraping mold off of food to eat, having bugs crawl on me at night from filth or when I was in the actual car that she drove off the road into a pole while drunk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Um, what’s this based on please? Because my personal experience (I’m the PP foster kid), is obviously very different. The social workers did everything to keep me in a home with a drunk and drug addict, no electricity or food at times, and complete filth. Who are these social workers you suggest are messing up close calls? Don’t really think that’s common, but if you have data I’d love to see it. Obviously my experience is only my own.

Question for this poster---from the perspective of your now adult self, do you think it would have been preferable for the social workers to have given your biological mother one (maybe two) chances to get her act together and then arranged for termination of parental rights and your adoption by a stable family, instead of shuffling you between bio-home and multiple temporary foster situations?

My kid self would say staying with my mother, who I thought loved me, kept me with my siblings and I knew how to navigate the chaos, esp as I got older. I didn’t have the perspective of understanding what I was missing. I would have fought like all get-out to not be adopted and would have been easily manipulated into thinking what a terrible outcome that was. As an adult? I should have been removed so, so many times more than I was. There were so many reporters who failed me (back before I’d lie about it). My mother was not capable of “getting her act together.” It just wasn’t a possibility. To have had a stable family probably would have been better. That said, it’s really hard to know. I understand that adoption is challenging for adoptees and the grass isn’t always greener. I have a great life now so I can’t regret the choices I made and that were made for me. But I really do take issue with potentially minimizing when / how children should be removed. Probably because it was the excuse my mom would use - that the social worker overreacted, didn’t know what they were doing, the police were wrong, etc - all while I’d been scraping mold off of food to eat, having bugs crawl on me at night from filth or when I was in the actual car that she drove off the road into a pole while drunk.

I am also a former foster child and I can totally relate to this. Good to see you are doing well now.

[Anonymous]

9:28---I was the PP who asked the question. Thanks for your honesty. It seems like there has been a pendulum swing over last 30 years ---from the terrible days when kids were permanently removed from parents simply because the parents were poor, and not unfit---to today, when family reunification is such an overwhelming policy goal that kids' longterm best interests are sacrificed when parents cannot get their act together. What do you think the balance should be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Um, what’s this based on please? Because my personal experience (I’m the PP foster kid), is obviously very different. The social workers did everything to keep me in a home with a drunk and drug addict, no electricity or food at times, and complete filth. Who are these social workers you suggest are messing up close calls? Don’t really think that’s common, but if you have data I’d love to see it. Obviously my experience is only my own.

Question for this poster---from the perspective of your now adult self, do you think it would have been preferable for the social workers to have given your biological mother one (maybe two) chances to get her act together and then arranged for termination of parental rights and your adoption by a stable family, instead of shuffling you between bio-home and multiple temporary foster situations?

My kid self would say staying with my mother, who I thought loved me, kept me with my siblings and I knew how to navigate the chaos, esp as I got older. I didn’t have the perspective of understanding what I was missing. I would have fought like all get-out to not be adopted and would have been easily manipulated into thinking what a terrible outcome that was. As an adult? I should have been removed so, so many times more than I was. There were so many reporters who failed me (back before I’d lie about it). My mother was not capable of “getting her act together.” It just wasn’t a possibility. To have had a stable family probably would have been better. That said, it’s really hard to know. I understand that adoption is challenging for adoptees and the grass isn’t always greener. I have a great life now so I can’t regret the choices I made and that were made for me. But I really do take issue with potentially minimizing when / how children should be removed. Probably because it was the excuse my mom would use - that the social worker overreacted, didn’t know what they were doing, the police were wrong, etc - all while I’d been scraping mold off of food to eat, having bugs crawl on me at night from filth or when I was in the actual car that she drove off the road into a pole while drunk.

Termination of parental rights makes the kid a legal orphan. They do not get adopted. A child left to the system is better off thinking that they still have a parent out there, rather than have nobody. These legal orphans change school and families frequently and age out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9:28---I was the PP who asked the question. Thanks for your honesty. It seems like there has been a pendulum swing over last 30 years ---from the terrible days when kids were permanently removed from parents simply because the parents were poor, and not unfit---to today, when family reunification is such an overwhelming policy goal that kids' longterm best interests are sacrificed when parents cannot get their act together. What do you think the balance should be?

I am a former foster child. I wish my mom had gotten more support. I think that is the balance. You can't just tell someone to stop drinking. You have to help them become sober. Those interventions are probably cheaper than all of the costs associated with foster care (think about the direct and indirect costs). She needed someone to make sure that she complied with her doctor's instructions regarding her schizophrenia. When she was on meds and not drinking she was fine, but you can't just tell someone to stop drinking and take their meds. You need strict monitoring for compliance.

I also needed someone to take me to the dentist, eye doctor, etc. Maybe a social worker could have done that. I think there are out-of-the-box ways to support low functioning caregivers without taking the children away.

[Anonymous]

Do you think that some form of supported housing---where you and your mom lived in a 4 unit building where 3 units were families and the 4th was a social worker---would have been better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Um, what’s this based on please? Because my personal experience (I’m the PP foster kid), is obviously very different. The social workers did everything to keep me in a home with a drunk and drug addict, no electricity or food at times, and complete filth. Who are these social workers you suggest are messing up close calls? Don’t really think that’s common, but if you have data I’d love to see it. Obviously my experience is only my own.

Question for this poster---from the perspective of your now adult self, do you think it would have been preferable for the social workers to have given your biological mother one (maybe two) chances to get her act together and then arranged for termination of parental rights and your adoption by a stable family, instead of shuffling you between bio-home and multiple temporary foster situations?

My kid self would say staying with my mother, who I thought loved me, kept me with my siblings and I knew how to navigate the chaos, esp as I got older. I didn’t have the perspective of understanding what I was missing. I would have fought like all get-out to not be adopted and would have been easily manipulated into thinking what a terrible outcome that was. As an adult? I should have been removed so, so many times more than I was. There were so many reporters who failed me (back before I’d lie about it). My mother was not capable of “getting her act together.” It just wasn’t a possibility. To have had a stable family probably would have been better. That said, it’s really hard to know. I understand that adoption is challenging for adoptees and the grass isn’t always greener. I have a great life now so I can’t regret the choices I made and that were made for me. But I really do take issue with potentially minimizing when / how children should be removed. Probably because it was the excuse my mom would use - that the social worker overreacted, didn’t know what they were doing, the police were wrong, etc - all while I’d been scraping mold off of food to eat, having bugs crawl on me at night from filth or when I was in the actual car that she drove off the road into a pole while drunk.

Termination of parental rights makes the kid a legal orphan. They do not get adopted. A child left to the system is better off thinking that they still have a parent out there, rather than have nobody. These legal orphans change school and families frequently and age out

The federal government gives states money for every kid in the foster care system. There are definitely some, not all, CFSA workers who are horrible at their job and pull kids from homes without a thorough investigation. And if the family doesn’t have the money to fight back, those kids are SOL. Twenty to thirty percent of kids who age out of foster care are immediately homeless. Boom. No Home or family to go back to. Seventy percent of the girls who age out of the system are pregnant before the age of twenty-one. In DC, 65% of the foster kids cannot read or graduate from high school. The foster care system is horrible, for the kids in the system. I know someone who lost her child because of a dispute with a neighbor. cFSA went into their home based on a lie from a neighbor. It took that family months to prove their innocence and retrieve their child. The trauma that family faced was horrible, just from the PTSD aspect. Of course that family had it easier than most, for they had jobs and were able to hire attorneys to fight back.