4 ms·

I am attempting to become a foster parent in Texas and have had a similar experience. Placing with kin and even "fictive kin" (effectively, anyone the child alr

I am attempting to become a foster parent in Texas and have had a similar experience. Placing with kin and even "fictive kin" (effectively, anyone the child already knows whether related or not) is always the first priority over placement with licensed foster families. I wouldn't even say this is entirely because of foster family shortages. It's just what they'd prefer to do even if every option is open. And yes, the system does treat us like crap. I don't even really want to foster, let alone try to get rich exploiting state payments for caring for kids. One, you can't. The expenses will always exceed whatever they pay you. I've already spent upwards of $80k on house modifications and buying a new car to comply with everything the licensing agencies said I had to do and that's before getting a single placement and spending anything on the actual kid (it does include pre-furnishing a child's bedroom, though). What I'm really trying to do is adopt, and since I've worked in the foster care system before (in California 15 years ago), I figured I'd give it a shot there as a I know kids who emancipate from the system without ever being adopted have absolutely terrible outcomes, even compared to other kids who have been in foster care. But, at least in Texas, there is no way to become licensed to adopt without also being licensed to foster, and because they privatized the entire system, you can only get licensed through a placement agency, and their own priority is placing kids in foster care. They don't seem to give a crap about the kids who are already legally free, and have even gone so far as to discourage being open about looking to adopt because apparently the state is reluctant to even place kids with you at all since their priority is the exact opposite, to reunite with the birth parents. It's honestly getting to the point that it's enough to just give up and go for private adoption instead, which we were initially reluctant to do because 1) I actually want to help the most vulnerable, worst-off kids if I can, and 2) it is very hard to tell who and what is remotely legitimate in the world of private adoption and who is just bullying teenage girls into not getting abortions and then extorting people like me who have money but are not biologically able to have their own kids. Who'd have thought the foster care system would manage to be even worse than that?

aidenn0 4y ago
> I don't even really want to foster, let alone try to get rich exploiting state payments for caring for kids. One, you can't. The expenses will always exceed whatever they pay you. I'm sure if you are sufficiently neglectful you could probably turn a profit. > They don't seem to give a crap about the kids who are already legally free, and have even gone so far as to discourage being open about looking to adopt because apparently the state is reluctant to even place kids with you at all since their priority is the exact opposite, to reunite with the birth parents. In California it actually used to be illegal for foster parents to adopt the children they had fostered, due to the conflict of interest. They changed that, and we encountered no issues fostering as willing to adopt (and in fact Judges would move kids to homes like ours to light a fire under birth parents; a "move towards permanency"). However, we were told by our agency that we were, under no circumstances, to directly raise any objections to reunification with the county, but to instead relay through them. Anything that even looks like interfering with reunification is a huge no-no.
gowld 4y ago
I suspect that foster care for non-babies fundamentally can't work at the required scale. The best hope is well-funded, well-staffed, well-audited orphanages (but call them "boarding schools").
- aidenn0 4y ago
  System is moving in the opposite direction. The county I'm in banned "group homes" because outcomes are worse in group homes, and foster homes will magically appear if we ban group homes (they didn't, instead they paid for kids to be in group homes in neighboring counties, until enough places found loopholes in the ban).
cool_dude85 4y ago
>The expenses will always exceed whatever they pay you. I've already spent upwards of $80k on house modifications and buying a new car to comply with everything the licensing agencies said I had to do and that's before getting a single placement and spending anything on the actual kid (it does include pre-furnishing a child's bedroom, though). For what it's worth, even this varies a lot by jurisdiction. Where I live, you could spend $2,000 per month out of pocket per child, and if you took in 3 of the "right kind" of placement, you'd get back that 80k in less than a year. If you could keep the placements that long, that is.
wolverine876 4y ago
> But, at least in Texas, there is no way to become licensed to adopt without also being licensed to foster, and because they privatized the entire system ... They privatized foster care??!! And adoption?!!!
- krageon 4y ago
  We can call it what it is. A marketplace for children, as horrible as that sounds.

aidenn0 4y ago

> I don't even really want to foster, let alone try to get rich exploiting state payments for caring for kids. One, you can't. The expenses will always exceed whatever they pay you. I'm sure if you are sufficiently neglectful you could probably turn a profit. > They don't seem to give a crap about the kids who are already legally free, and have even gone so far as to discourage being open about looking to adopt because apparently the state is reluctant to even place kids with you at all since their priority is the exact opposite, to reunite with the birth parents. In California it actually used to be illegal for foster parents to adopt the children they had fostered, due to the conflict of interest. They changed that, and we encountered no issues fostering as willing to adopt (and in fact Judges would move kids to homes like ours to light a fire under birth parents; a "move towards permanency"). However, we were told by our agency that we were, under no circumstances, to directly raise any objections to reunification with the county, but to instead relay through them. Anything that even looks like interfering with reunification is a huge no-no.

gowld 4y ago

I suspect that foster care for non-babies fundamentally can't work at the required scale. The best hope is well-funded, well-staffed, well-audited orphanages (but call them "boarding schools").

aidenn0 4y ago
System is moving in the opposite direction. The county I'm in banned "group homes" because outcomes are worse in group homes, and foster homes will magically appear if we ban group homes (they didn't, instead they paid for kids to be in group homes in neighboring counties, until enough places found loopholes in the ban).

cool_dude85 4y ago

>The expenses will always exceed whatever they pay you. I've already spent upwards of $80k on house modifications and buying a new car to comply with everything the licensing agencies said I had to do and that's before getting a single placement and spending anything on the actual kid (it does include pre-furnishing a child's bedroom, though). For what it's worth, even this varies a lot by jurisdiction. Where I live, you could spend $2,000 per month out of pocket per child, and if you took in 3 of the "right kind" of placement, you'd get back that 80k in less than a year. If you could keep the placements that long, that is.

wolverine876 4y ago

> But, at least in Texas, there is no way to become licensed to adopt without also being licensed to foster, and because they privatized the entire system ... They privatized foster care??!! And adoption?!!!

krageon 4y ago
We can call it what it is. A marketplace for children, as horrible as that sounds.