Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Parenting
ParentingMothersSingle ParentsStep ParentsAdoptionTwinsSpankingChildren's Health
Pregnancy
PregnancyBreastfeeding
Marriage
MarriageDivorce
FamilyKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / January 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Robin

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Chosenchildinc1 - 28 Jan 2005 15:44 GMT
You said that the American's had the problem, this just popped into my google
reader.....

 
 LilMtnCbn   Jan 28, 5:55 am     show options  

Newsgroups: alt.adoption
From: lilmtn...@aol.com (LilMtnCbn) - Find messages by this author  
Date: 28 Jan 2005 13:55:05 GMT
Local: Fri, Jan 28 2005 5:55 am  
Subject: 'Why wouldn't they let me be with my dad?'
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2005/01/27/h...

'Why wouldn't they let me be with my dad?'
(Filed: 27/01/2005)

What is life like for Britain's 59,000 foster children? Cassandra Jardine meets
one girl who has lived with seven families in 11 years – and feels damaged

Just before Christmas, I heard about a 15-year-old, whom I shall call Alice,
who was desperate to talk. At the time, she was living with foster parents: "I
want to tell you what it is like being in care," she said. "I'm strong, so I
can speak out on behalf of all those who do not dare because they fear
reprisals."

Alice now plans to work with disturbed children: 'I am what foster care and the
children's home made me'

In the past 11 years, she explained, she had lived in seven different foster
homes, often feeling like a cash cow and a skivvy. Worst of all had been the
six months of last year that she had spent in a children's home in Kent, where
she had been hungry and was subjected to violent methods of control. For a
teenager who had been through so much, she sounded extraordinarily sane.
"That's because I am one of the lucky ones: I have a father who loves me," she
said, "though I'm not often allowed to see him."

All year, she had been looking forward to staying with him for her birthday in
early December. Plans for the visit had been discussed at several meetings but,
at the last minute, a new social worker had said the checks needed to be done
yet again, and the visit had been called off. Alice had threatened to go on
hunger strike, but her father persuaded her not to do so. Instead, he said he
would write to me, as he had read articles I had written about the social
services and adoption; he suggested I listen to her story.

Nick, a carpenter, wrote me a long, eloquent letter that detailed the agonies
and frustrations he and his daughter had endured at the hands of a care system
that seemed more concerned with covering its own back than meeting a child's
individual needs. "But it would be wrong of me, much as I love her," he
concluded, "to speak on Alice's behalf." I called her and we agreed to meet.

Her story is unique, but not untypical of the situations that fall to social
services departments to sort out. Alice was just three weeks old when her
mother walked out on her father, taking their two children. Later, she told
them their father was dead. She became an alcoholic and the children were taken
into respite care. Even though she went into rehab and has been sober ever
since, they were not returned to her.

Social services wanted "a permanent secure solution" and a full care order was
taken out. It was at that stage that Alice's mother revealed that Nick was
still alive. "But it was too late to resist the momentum of the fostering
machine," says Nick. His barrister did establish, at the three-day hearing,
that if a placement were to break down, he would be considered as a possible
carer. That has never happened.

I meet Alice at her father's home, where he lives with her half-brother, the
child of his second marriage. The half-siblings have spent very little time
together, yet they are happily mucking around with a pet ferret.

With her careful make-up - "she spends hours on it", her brother teases - and
her tendency to shoot loving glances at the boots her father gave her for her
birthday, Alice comes across as an entirely normal 15-year-old. But she says
she isn't: "I am what foster care and the children's home made me.

If I can't be bothered with someone, I ignore them. And if I don't get sugar, I
get depressed."

Digging into a strawberry yogurt, and sending her father out of the room, she
describes her years in a system in which she never felt anyone really cared for
her. Since foster carers are discouraged from becoming emotionally involved -
and can have children removed from them if they show signs of being so - this
is scarcely surprising.

The picture of fostering that Alice paints is a Dickensian one of being forced
to work like a servant for several of her foster carers - sometimes, while
being taunted by their natural children - and of being made to eat and watch
television in a different room from the biological family. "If the family got a
Chinese take-away, I was given chips," she says.

In her teens, she began to question some of her foster carers' motives, calling
them "skimmers" and "nickers": "I know how much money they make," she says. The
Fostering Network recommends allowances ranging from £108 a week for a baby
outside London to £224 for a 16-year-old in London, not including any payment
to the carers. Some of her foster carers, she claims, failed to pass on dress
allowances and pocket money amounting to several thousand pounds.

Bizarrely, because her mother is half-Indian, light-skinned Alice was
invariably placed with black families, the last ones being Jamaican
fundamentalist Christians with whom she had nothing in common. For a while,
though, she did have some stability. One couple, who asked her to call them
"mum" and "dad", looked after her for six years. The woman dressed her in pink
because it was her favourite colour, although Alice loathed it. But then they
had a child of their own and suddenly she felt extraneous.

"They moved to a smaller house and said they couldn't have me any more." She
was so distressed at "being dismissed like a domestic servant", as her father
puts it, that she was difficult for the next foster family to manage.

Some of Alice's accusations of "unfairness" could probably be levelled by most
teenagers at their natural families. She was not allowed designer label
clothes; she was required to do constant housework and not given credit for it.
The difference is that she felt powerless, unloved and that no one wanted to
listen to her point of view. "I was sent to counsellors, but when they can't
help, you feel betrayed," she explains.

Her father tried to see her, but his efforts were frustrated: social workers
didn't return calls, he rarely dealt with the same member of staff for more
than a few weeks and new ones didn't trust previous background checks. "The
buck would be passed until it was lost," he says. "If you blamed them, they
discredited the family. Because one parent had failed, the whole family was
held in contempt."

"You don't deserve to live with a family," a social worker told Alice, before
putting her in a children's home. "In the home, I was slapped, shoved and
shouted at, and constantly hungry," says Alice. "Dinner was from five to six,
even if you were out doing a recognised activity, so I often missed it. I lost
loads of weight and eventually took to sleeping in the corridor to protest.
Then I was picked up and flung against the wall and the ceiling. I've had
blackouts ever since."

When she complained about the restraint methods, she was "treated like a
freak", placed under constant supervision and bars were erected on her
curtainless windows: "That made me want to escape even more," she says. On her
fingers, she wears six rings, her most treasured possessions, as each one comes
from a member of her family. They are her security. "They tried to take them
off me at the children's home," she says, "but they are all I have."

With all this going on - and living with far more disturbed children than
herself - she stopped going to school. The next step would have been a secure
unit, but, fortunately, foster carers were found, though they lived far from
anyone she knew.

Nick rang his daughter constantly on the mobile phone he gave her and was
agonised by his daughter's distress: "Whenever I called her at the children's
home, I could hear screams in the background. Social services seemed to be
making no effort to get her back to school or plan for her future." He feared
that she would end up one of the 60 per cent of children who leave care with no
qualifications.

His attempts to meet were thwarted, but he was finally given permission to take
Alice to see her mother on Christmas Day. On their way back to her foster
carers, his car broke down and the rescue service said they could either take
them to his home in Somerset or to the foster carers, but not both. At that
point, he decided that, despite the care order, Alice was coming home with him.

At first, social services considered a forcible recovery, but Nick's lawyers
fought. A social worker came to observe his calm and orderly home, his
well-balanced younger son and found Alice happily painting her bedroom. Last
week, a court decided that she could stay.

What angers Nick is that he had to break the law to reclaim his own daughter -
and that, but for his determination to keep in touch, Alice would have lost
contact with her family long ago.

"Social services had been doing everything they could to keep us apart," he
says. "My daughter was being kept in captivity. Now, at last, I hope to give
her the home she has always wanted." To his great sorrow, his elder son is so
disturbed that he cannot look after him.

John Kemmis, chief executive of Voice for the Child in Care, is familiar with
such complaints. "Our research shows it matters overwhelmingly to children to
keep in contact with those who matter to them - not just parents, but
grandparents, siblings, aunts." Numbers of children in care have grown to
59,000 from 44,000 in the past 10 years, as more children are fostered
long-term. "But," he says, "many social services departments are in such
disarray that they aren't child-centred."

Since she left care, Alice's life has improved dramatically. She not only has
the family she longed for, she hopes to have a career, too. Her father is
trying to get her into a local college.

"I want to work with disturbed children," she says. "I think I could help
them."

-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

Reply



©2005 Google
Robin Harritt - 28 Jan 2005 16:06 GMT
The 59,000 figure refers to all children in care within that year
including the tens of thousands of respite care cases. The number of
older kids awaiting adoption is pretty abysmal though nothing like as
serious as the US. That's why I'm not keen on rich Brits with baby lust
running of to the USA and buying an HWI through some shonky facilitator
when there are older kids here who need a home. They're even in with a
chance of getting one that isn't seriously damaged yet. As a child I was
20 months when I was placed after a year in care still not too badly
damaged, the further year in foster care with my paps didn't do any
harm. Plenty of kids just like I was back then available for adoption
now. Even more older ones for those who like a chalenge.

Robin

>You said that the American's had the problem, this just popped into my google
>reader.....
[quoted text clipped - 192 lines]
>
>  
rkbose@pacific.net.sg - 28 Jan 2005 21:02 GMT
Robin:

I understand where you're coming from. But adopting an older child from
care is *not* a substitute for adopting an infant. As Julia (who has
done that and more) points out, it's something that's better done by
experienced parents who will put that experience to work, not parenting
newbies who are looking to complete their families.

I realise you are thinking of your own situation as an example. I have
only two comments about that. First, all kids are not the same. You
seem to have been an outgoing and resilient baby, and you did have the
benefit of one-on-one care in your earliest months. A different child
might not recover as well from institutional care. Second, you can't
know the path not taken: perhaps it would make no difference to you
now, but maybe being placed with your a-parents earlier would have made
you happier then.

I found this part the most disturbing:
>Since foster carers are discouraged from becoming emotionally involved -
> >and can have children removed from them if they show signs of being so - this
> >is scarcely surprising.

I thought this was no longer true. That means that foster care is
almost by definition unloving.

In making adoption more difficult, I suspect there are a lot of kids
who are ill-served.

Rupa
Robin Harritt - 28 Jan 2005 21:44 GMT
> Robin:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> experienced parents who will put that experience to work, not parenting
> newbies who are looking to complete their families.

There are plenty of very young kids more in need of adoption in the
third world aren't there? Why on earth  British people feel the need to
go the USA to get an HWI for I really don't know, unless it's because
they want to play 'let's pretend it's not adopted'.


> I realise you are thinking of your own situation as an example. I have
> only two comments about that. First, all kids are not the same. You
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> now, but maybe being placed with your a-parents earlier would have made
> you happier then.

There were a lot kids in  similar situations who seem to have fared
perfectly well.  I believe our local adoptee serial killer, Jeremy
Bamber  whose upbringing was in all other respects similar to mine, was
adopted at birth.

> I found this part the most disturbing:

>> Since foster carers are discouraged from becoming emotionally involved

Not sure what that is quoting from, not me I think. That applies only to
specialist foster carers who look after newborns very short term.
Adoption agencies do try to place children who have to be removed from
the mother at birth as soon as is possible. In fact from the hospital if
possible.

>>> and can have children removed from them if they show signs of being
so -
>>> this is scarcely surprising.


> I thought this was no longer true. That means that foster care is
> almost by definition unloving.

Again as that appears to be a snippet  from something, I'm not sure
where it is from or what it means. That is certainly not supposed to be
the case generally and I suspect  again it probably refers to emergency
fostering of newborns who are to be placed for adoption as soon as possible.


> In making adoption more difficult, I suspect there are a lot of kids
> who are ill-served.

In the past children placed at birth  were sometimes placed with the
wrong parents for that individual child.  Those children were just as
ill-served in my opinion. I spend some of my  time trying to help them
as adults. Nevertheless I do think in some cases mother's are encouraged
to parent children that they would be happy to give up to adoption if
not for the stigma now surrounding relinquishment in some sectors of
society Those make up a lot of the kids that get trapped in the system
later in childhood.

Robin
rkbose@pacific.net.sg - 28 Jan 2005 23:10 GMT
>  > Robin:
>  >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> third world aren't there? Why on earth  British people feel the need to
> go the USA to get an HWI for I really don't know, unless it's because

> they want to play 'let's pretend it's not adopted'.

Or it's easier?

India, which has a great need, still makes it so complicated for
foreigners to adopt that even some of the people who have done it would
not want to do it again. China makes it somewhat easier, but even then,
it's hedged about with caveats.

The USA is not a monolith in the matter of adoption - each state has
its own rules.

> There were a lot kids in  similar situations who seem to have fared
> perfectly well.  I believe our local adoptee serial killer, Jeremy
> Bamber  whose upbringing was in all other respects similar to mine, was
> adopted at birth.

Hmm. Is this where we get to trot out the 'bad seed' theory?
Or the 'adoptees are spoiled rotten by overindulgent parents' theory?
Or the "Some percentage of a population is always going to kill
serially" theory?
Or of course the Lori story.

>  > I found this part the most disturbing:
>
>  >> Since foster carers are discouraged from becoming emotionally involved

> Again as that appears to be a snippet  from something, I'm not sure
> where it is from or what it means. That is certainly not supposed to be
> the case generally and I suspect  again it probably refers to emergency
> fostering of newborns who are to be placed for adoption as soon as possible.

>From the context, it seemed to be referring to all fosters.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> In the past children placed at birth  were sometimes placed with the
> wrong parents for that individual child.  Those children were just as

> ill-served in my opinion.

I'm sure they were. There is no 100% solution.

>Nevertheless I do think in some cases mother's are encouraged
> to parent children that they would be happy to give up to adoption if

> not for the stigma now surrounding relinquishment in some sectors of
> society Those make up a lot of the kids that get trapped in the system
> later in childhood.

I'd guess so.

Rupa
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.