4 ms·

Does fostering have less of a barrier of entry? You may also be able to participate in a mentoring program like Big Brothers Big Sisters.

em-bee 3y ago
i actually think fostering should have a higher barrier because foster kids usually come from difficult situations and eventually go back to their parents and they need to be raised and taken care of in a way that enables that. for adoption it should be more like: you are capable to be parents, here is your kid. off you go.
- fullstop 3y ago
  I hear what you're saying, but the legal aspects of being a parent likely outweigh that. With foster children the state retains legal custody. Adoption is not just finding suitable parent(s) for a child, it is transferring both legal rights and obligations. I'm saying this through a US centric lens, of course.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    i understand why things are that way, but it is exactly the legal situation that makes me think it should be otherwise. when adopting you are giving parents the full responsibility to raise the children as they see fit. so obviously they should be capable, but that is all that is needed, just as if they had kids of their own. for foster children the state retains a continuous responsibility for these children, and foster parents need to be able to go along with that. i think part of the reason why it is otherwise is because it is easier to take foster children away, so if a mistake was made, it can be undone, or so the thinking goes, but i actually think that is wrong. the most suffering foster children experience comes from changing families all to frequently. it hurts their ability to form trusting relationships. the adopted kids will be fine even if the parents make a mistake here or there, but the foster kids who are moved to another family because the foster parents made that same mistake have their world shattered.
    - fullstop 3y ago
      Right, but the foster children can be taken away at any time the state sees fit to do so. The hurdles to do that with adopted children are much higher. One action can easily be undone, but the other can not. Edit: one other thing to consider is that there are a huge number of children in the foster system and they are desperate for foster parents.
      - em-bee 3y ago
        (i added more to my previous comment so you may have missed that) the fact that foster kids can be taken away easily is the problem, because that should not happen. and that can only be avoided if foster parents are vetted more strongly.
        fullstop 3y ago
        Right, I do agree with what you are saying but it's also an example of perfect being the enemy of good enough. It's an unfortunate situation, but if the barriers are high enough there will be fewer people willing to foster. How many good-enough homes are out there, even if they are not perfect? At what point is the risk of being placed in a less than perfect home worth it? I have just a few more years until all of my kids are out of the house and living on their own, and fostering children is definitely on my mind. We have already started by hosting foreign exchange students.
        em-bee 3y ago
        i don't know what the best solution is, for one i think the same is true for adoption, although i hear that in the US (and maybe in most western countries) there are not so many kids needing adoption for that to be a problem. How many good-enough homes are out there, even if they are not perfect? that's actually not what i am concerned about but foster parents that are outright abusive. so basically, i think that even foster kids should only be taken away if they are neglected or abused in such a way that you would even charge native parents with that. the goal should not be to find perfect parents, but to find parents where the kids actually can stay as long as they need to. the barrier to take them away again is to low because it doesn't consider the hurt caused by being "taken away" itself.

em-bee 3y ago

i actually think fostering should have a higher barrier because foster kids usually come from difficult situations and eventually go back to their parents and they need to be raised and taken care of in a way that enables that. for adoption it should be more like: you are capable to be parents, here is your kid. off you go.

fullstop 3y ago
I hear what you're saying, but the legal aspects of being a parent likely outweigh that. With foster children the state retains legal custody. Adoption is not just finding suitable parent(s) for a child, it is transferring both legal rights and obligations. I'm saying this through a US centric lens, of course.
- em-bee 3y ago
  i understand why things are that way, but it is exactly the legal situation that makes me think it should be otherwise. when adopting you are giving parents the full responsibility to raise the children as they see fit. so obviously they should be capable, but that is all that is needed, just as if they had kids of their own. for foster children the state retains a continuous responsibility for these children, and foster parents need to be able to go along with that. i think part of the reason why it is otherwise is because it is easier to take foster children away, so if a mistake was made, it can be undone, or so the thinking goes, but i actually think that is wrong. the most suffering foster children experience comes from changing families all to frequently. it hurts their ability to form trusting relationships. the adopted kids will be fine even if the parents make a mistake here or there, but the foster kids who are moved to another family because the foster parents made that same mistake have their world shattered.
  - fullstop 3y ago
    Right, but the foster children can be taken away at any time the state sees fit to do so. The hurdles to do that with adopted children are much higher. One action can easily be undone, but the other can not. Edit: one other thing to consider is that there are a huge number of children in the foster system and they are desperate for foster parents.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      (i added more to my previous comment so you may have missed that) the fact that foster kids can be taken away easily is the problem, because that should not happen. and that can only be avoided if foster parents are vetted more strongly.
      - fullstop 3y ago
        Right, I do agree with what you are saying but it's also an example of perfect being the enemy of good enough. It's an unfortunate situation, but if the barriers are high enough there will be fewer people willing to foster. How many good-enough homes are out there, even if they are not perfect? At what point is the risk of being placed in a less than perfect home worth it? I have just a few more years until all of my kids are out of the house and living on their own, and fostering children is definitely on my mind. We have already started by hosting foreign exchange students.
        em-bee 3y ago
        i don't know what the best solution is, for one i think the same is true for adoption, although i hear that in the US (and maybe in most western countries) there are not so many kids needing adoption for that to be a problem. How many good-enough homes are out there, even if they are not perfect? that's actually not what i am concerned about but foster parents that are outright abusive. so basically, i think that even foster kids should only be taken away if they are neglected or abused in such a way that you would even charge native parents with that. the goal should not be to find perfect parents, but to find parents where the kids actually can stay as long as they need to. the barrier to take them away again is to low because it doesn't consider the hurt caused by being "taken away" itself.