6 ms·

> Then where is the new study ? Fact of the matter is that foster care was horrible 170 years ago when it started, was terrifyingly bad between the 2 WW (should

> Then where is the new study ? Fact of the matter is that foster care was horrible 170 years ago when it started, was terrifyingly bad between the 2 WW (should I link to pictures of kids getting locked in steel cages in foster care homes (even outside) or should we skip that part ? Many just died), it was bad after WW2, and it was very bad 10 years ago. And in the US it wasn't even the worst it could be. Google "aktion T4" and prepare to be horrified by the child services system. While the US was certainly better, it wasn't by much. You.. you realize you're still conversing with an actual foster parent, right? Foster kids don't get locked in cages. We have people in our homes checking on the kids at least once per week. They get seen outside of our home without us around several more times per week. These kids are in constant contact with people in the system, therapists, their bios, etc. If we were harming them, people would know. > If you want to claim things have radically turned around you have a high mountain to climb. What has been changed in the system in the last 10 years that was not done for close to two centuries ? Because you're just making a claim of radically different results with zero data on what has changed, why it would matter, never mind an actual study on if it has actually changed. >I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that foster parents of the last 10 years ... are pretty much the same as foster parents of 20 years ago, so of course the study is valid. At the VERY least you need to look into the "normalcy" laws. After that, go ahead and look into the changes in training necessary to become a foster parent. > Bonding is only healing if the bond doesn't get broken again,... We form and break bonds as humans, ALL THE TIME. Being able to form and break bonds is a necessary and healthy part of life. If a child can't form a bond they will have more issues develop as they mature. > Most parents of placed children have never abused their children. I find it hard to believe you don't know this, but okay. The Number One Reason is Neglect. The top five reasons in no order are abuse, neglect, parental drug use, parental incarceration, loss of parents. And they're only placed in foster care if a family or non family care giver cannot be found first. > The biggest reasons for placement are divorce, "autism" (meaning difficult children), and poverty (often combined with drug problems or criminal histories/records). Those together account for >90% of placements, and none involve abuse of the children on the part of the parents, none involve "no control". If you say that these aren't good situations, I'll agree with you, but it doesn't justify doing a placement. In fact the biggest constant factor in these situations is the parents, THAT is the main thing limiting damage, which foster care then takes away. Where are you getting this? > Furthermore despite these "safety" decisions the amount of children found abused by the police keeps going up. So if the purpose of child placement is to make those go down, they're placing the wrong children and generally not making good decisions. How is child placement supposed to make child abuse go down? Child placement exists because there are parents who are not currently able to make safe choices for their children. Child placement is not meant as some deterrent. The legal system is supposed to be the deterrent in this situation. > One number I've found, which clearly shows the problem, is that ~400 children get placed to avoid the situation that 1 might get beaten (not killed, beaten, potentially just once). Children shouldn't get beaten. Ever. > So for instance, children will get placed if there is a sole mother that has to leave young kids alone to have job. The eldest kid will do that and take care of it, and do it well. I'm not 30 years old and I know I've had to do this for my parents 20 years ago when it wasn't a problem. Now if you get caught repeatedly it may result in placement. Depends on the age of the child(ren). This is where a support network would come in to play. Before the children are removed, the investigators will do their best to help the parent find and build a support network so that the child(ren) can have a safe place to stay while the parent works.

candiodari 7y ago
> Foster kids don't get locked in cages. Not locked in cages ? What do you suppose happens to these kids if they were to, say, go back to their biological parents. Just walk out. And before you say "no bars, no locks", it is actually the case that large pieces of the justice system has no bars either. Something is a cage if you can't leave. If violence will be used to return you to that place, that takes the place of locks. Those kids are very much locked up. > We have people in our homes checking on the kids at least once per week. They get seen outside of our home without us around several more times per week. These kids are in constant contact with people in the system, therapists, their bios, etc. If we were harming them, people would know. If you were PHYSICALLY harming them, yes. Psychologically you must realize that those people, for those kids, are a threat. Each of those individuals is a risk for them to get placed away from you, again. If they see something (even misinterpret something, totally out of context), they will get ripped out again. My point is this is the exact opposite of safety, this is far worse than daily beatings. In other words, those people are there to protect family judges and child care investigators from getting accused of causing abuse, they aren't there for the safety of the child at all. Reminds me of the scene in "instant family" in the hospital where the child sees the foster parents trying to tell the truth about the nail accident. IMMEDIATELY the child panics, tears in her eyes, and refuses, with an initial angry fit and shouting to her foster parents (whom she really does not want to lose) to let the child care worker talk to anyone but her. Why do you suppose she has this reaction ? Do you not see the treat ? Do you think it would have been the first time that sudden re-placement for a dumb reason without asking her happened to her ? Here it is: https://youtu.be/GcrDSzfaydo?t=220 https://youtu.be/GcrDSzfaydo?t=220 And let me assure you, compared to what you sometimes read in child protection papers, this was a very mild reaction by that child. Very often a child will respond to such an event by running away. I hope you can understand where such a reaction comes from. And let me ask you. If you had zero control over your own life, but had 10 people regularly have a conference and if at that conference decisions are made, they are implemented with brutal violence on you. Would you consider this a way to avoid harm to you ? No. You wouldn't. Such a situation would inflict harm. You would never feel safe. You would never feel in control. Which is of course exactly my point. Which is why you are harming those kids. And I get it, you can't fix it. You can't stop it. That unfortunately doesn't change the fact that you are harming them. But as I'm sure you've heard often in foster care: the world just isn't fair. > We form and break bonds as humans, ALL THE TIME. Being able to form and break bonds is a necessary and healthy part of life. If a child can't form a bond they will have more issues develop as they mature. First, we're talking about parental bonds. Those are definitely not formed all the time, outside of birth. Do you form bonds on which you will be totally reliant for 20 years "all the time" ? I sure as hell don't. Nobody does, not even kids. > How is child placement supposed to make child abuse go down? Child placement exists because there are parents who are not currently able to make safe choices for their children. Child placement is not meant as some deterrent. The legal system is supposed to be the deterrent in this situation. The idea is that children who are abused get placed, stopping the abuse. This is not happening, which brings the whole point of placement in question. > Children shouldn't get beaten. Ever. No, you should NOT HARM CHILDREN. And when you don't have a choice, you should pick the one with MINIMAL harm for the children. This does NOT mean you should protect children from everything, that itself is child abuse. Aside from the fact that the vast majority of cases there was no beating of the children by the parents, so this just doesn't apply. Does it apply to your foster kids ? But even where it does: the damage done by placement is far greater than the damage a parent does by beating child. That's the point I'm making here. Furthermore, children will explore boundaries. That means they will push you until you react with violence (e.g. ideally a slap). If you let them push and push and push, you and the child will lose control and it will lead to disaster, because their behavior will intensify and intensify without bound. So I do hope you make this very important exception to the simplistic "no beating children, ever" statement. Simplistic catch-all answers just lead to disaster in kids, just like everywhere else. > ... the investigators will do their best to help the parent find and build a support network so that the child(ren) can have a safe place to stay while the parent works. I have calculated how much time an investigator can spend on a child before a decision to placement is made by taking their working hours (optimistically, without lunch or bathroom breaks), divided by caseload. I came to 23 minutes per month. That includes the court case (there is no investigator in the actual court case by the way, just a short report by the investigator is read). Explain to me how these people do what you say they're doing ? How do they even drive to the house of these children (of course, plenty of stories online with claims investigators never saw the child before placement, and nobody in court, save the parents, saw the children before the case, so there's that). Can you explain how they even check anything in those 23 minutes ? Because what you're saying sounds very, very hard to believe. So allow me to say: no, they don't. Investigators just don't do this. They may send childcare workers that do this (and as said, judging by stories online, they often don't), but they are most certainly not doing this themselves.

candiodari 7y ago

> Foster kids don't get locked in cages. Not locked in cages ? What do you suppose happens to these kids if they were to, say, go back to their biological parents. Just walk out. And before you say "no bars, no locks", it is actually the case that large pieces of the justice system has no bars either. Something is a cage if you can't leave. If violence will be used to return you to that place, that takes the place of locks. Those kids are very much locked up. > We have people in our homes checking on the kids at least once per week. They get seen outside of our home without us around several more times per week. These kids are in constant contact with people in the system, therapists, their bios, etc. If we were harming them, people would know. If you were PHYSICALLY harming them, yes. Psychologically you must realize that those people, for those kids, are a threat. Each of those individuals is a risk for them to get placed away from you, again. If they see something (even misinterpret something, totally out of context), they will get ripped out again. My point is this is the exact opposite of safety, this is far worse than daily beatings. In other words, those people are there to protect family judges and child care investigators from getting accused of causing abuse, they aren't there for the safety of the child at all. Reminds me of the scene in "instant family" in the hospital where the child sees the foster parents trying to tell the truth about the nail accident. IMMEDIATELY the child panics, tears in her eyes, and refuses, with an initial angry fit and shouting to her foster parents (whom she really does not want to lose) to let the child care worker talk to anyone but her. Why do you suppose she has this reaction ? Do you not see the treat ? Do you think it would have been the first time that sudden re-placement for a dumb reason without asking her happened to her ? Here it is: https://youtu.be/GcrDSzfaydo?t=220 https://youtu.be/GcrDSzfaydo?t=220 And let me assure you, compared to what you sometimes read in child protection papers, this was a very mild reaction by that child. Very often a child will respond to such an event by running away. I hope you can understand where such a reaction comes from. And let me ask you. If you had zero control over your own life, but had 10 people regularly have a conference and if at that conference decisions are made, they are implemented with brutal violence on you. Would you consider this a way to avoid harm to you ? No. You wouldn't. Such a situation would inflict harm. You would never feel safe. You would never feel in control. Which is of course exactly my point. Which is why you are harming those kids. And I get it, you can't fix it. You can't stop it. That unfortunately doesn't change the fact that you are harming them. But as I'm sure you've heard often in foster care: the world just isn't fair. > We form and break bonds as humans, ALL THE TIME. Being able to form and break bonds is a necessary and healthy part of life. If a child can't form a bond they will have more issues develop as they mature. First, we're talking about parental bonds. Those are definitely not formed all the time, outside of birth. Do you form bonds on which you will be totally reliant for 20 years "all the time" ? I sure as hell don't. Nobody does, not even kids. > How is child placement supposed to make child abuse go down? Child placement exists because there are parents who are not currently able to make safe choices for their children. Child placement is not meant as some deterrent. The legal system is supposed to be the deterrent in this situation. The idea is that children who are abused get placed, stopping the abuse. This is not happening, which brings the whole point of placement in question. > Children shouldn't get beaten. Ever. No, you should NOT HARM CHILDREN. And when you don't have a choice, you should pick the one with MINIMAL harm for the children. This does NOT mean you should protect children from everything, that itself is child abuse. Aside from the fact that the vast majority of cases there was no beating of the children by the parents, so this just doesn't apply. Does it apply to your foster kids ? But even where it does: the damage done by placement is far greater than the damage a parent does by beating child. That's the point I'm making here. Furthermore, children will explore boundaries. That means they will push you until you react with violence (e.g. ideally a slap). If you let them push and push and push, you and the child will lose control and it will lead to disaster, because their behavior will intensify and intensify without bound. So I do hope you make this very important exception to the simplistic "no beating children, ever" statement. Simplistic catch-all answers just lead to disaster in kids, just like everywhere else. > ... the investigators will do their best to help the parent find and build a support network so that the child(ren) can have a safe place to stay while the parent works. I have calculated how much time an investigator can spend on a child before a decision to placement is made by taking their working hours (optimistically, without lunch or bathroom breaks), divided by caseload. I came to 23 minutes per month. That includes the court case (there is no investigator in the actual court case by the way, just a short report by the investigator is read). Explain to me how these people do what you say they're doing ? How do they even drive to the house of these children (of course, plenty of stories online with claims investigators never saw the child before placement, and nobody in court, save the parents, saw the children before the case, so there's that). Can you explain how they even check anything in those 23 minutes ? Because what you're saying sounds very, very hard to believe. So allow me to say: no, they don't. Investigators just don't do this. They may send childcare workers that do this (and as said, judging by stories online, they often don't), but they are most certainly not doing this themselves.