Thought Provoking Question

One does not have to be licensed to be a biological parent. One only has to provide the minimum standard of care. We are not the kids' biological parents. We are licensed to ensure, to as much extent as possible, that the children will be kept safe while parents are trying to meet the minimum standard. Our road is long and hard. This is true. But, for some of the families, meeting that minimum standard is all they CAN do. Imagine how many kids would be taken if the parents had to pass a background check, have fingerprints run, pass a homestudy and safety inspections. Seems almost discriminatory to me... We don't have to like it. It just is what it is.

You are both right....and I have NOOO problem with all of the things I need to do to become a foster parent. I guess I am already worried for any of my future placements..(putting the cart before the horse! hee hee). Especially from what I read on many of these posts, there is very minimal requirements for the bio parents to get their kids back. And it seems even then, some kids are returned against best interest of the child.

Well, our definition of best interest and the court's definition don't always jive! It's not my intention to sound callous or flippant, but worrying doesn't help any of us. It only makes us sick. And believe me, you'll have enough of being sick when you start hearing the stuff that comes with the kids. When the powers that be set up the plan to be worked, they look at what is the minimum that a parent must do to get their child back. And if the parent works that plan, then they get them back. It's the nature of the beast. You and I both know about kids who've gone back to bare rooms with family living on public assistance. It's not a crime to be poor. We can't keep families separated because of what might happen. We have to have proof. I'm not arguing about sending home kids whose parents did little or nothing. They definitely need the protection. I just believe that if parents pull it together (whatever that looks like according to the plan) then they deserve the right to try again. And I've spent days sick to my stomach over the return of some kids I still love. It took DFPS a full year to find out they needed to come back into the system. But some are making it. A friend's former fd has been back home for 2 years now. Her parents lost something like 8 other kids, but managed to get clean and sober and stay that way for Little One. How do I know? Because my friend is still their friend and visits in their home regularly. It can happen. I believe it. That's how I keep doing this, even when it doesn't turn out the way I think it should.

Yes, I agree with you. Easily one of the most difficult things about doing this work for me has been knowing that these children we love so much are often returned to situations that are little changed from what they left. But I worked in law firms for many years and as a result of being around all that litigation I -- rather cynically, I suppose -- have come to assume that these sorts of requirements are likely intended to help shield foster care agencies against law suits. Not to hijack your thread, but one thing I would really like to see is a requirement for the parents to be working on some sort of education (i.e., getting a GED or job training) or job seeking as part of their caseplan. All of our kids have gone home to non-working parents on public assistance. Not that I am in any way advocating that poverty is a reason to remove or keep a child from their parents, and not that there is anything wrong with being on public assistance (my family was on it for a time when I was a kid) but rather that this would be an opportunity to aid the families in getting out of poverty, hopefully resulting in parents less likely to end up back in the same circumstances that contributed to drug dependency or other sorts of family chaos that brought them into the child protection system to begin with. And you know what? We actually asked a caseworker about this once, and she said they could never require this, that -- can you guess??? That's right, they'd get sued!

Although I've never had a child in this situation, but there are kids whose parents are fully employed, have advanced degrees or both. What do you do with them? Their issue isn't poverty. Or lack of education. This is one of those really gray areas I guess--like so many other things, one size does not fit all.

I see your point, Greenrobin. One of our kids' parents was mentally ill on disability, so that's another tough one. I was primarily referring to those parents who are trapped in that whole "cycle of poverty" from which we'd all like to see their families break free.

My dh and I have thought of this many many times, and better yet, what about kinship placements....

With kinship it depends on the state-we actually had to become certified foster parents, and clear the background and safety and space checks. So it just depends.

I asked this very question at our MAPP orientation meeting since it was bothering me. Here was the response: We expect so much more from our foster parents because we are hoping to set the best example possible (for the kids) of a healthy & safe family environment during the time they are in your care. I think that was a reasonable answer for why they expect a lot from us but I sure didn't think it answered the question of why they don't expect more from the kid's parents. Other than R/U is an important goal. I think the foster parents would agree the child's safety is the most important goal. P/S. Hi everyone! I'm Jamie and this was my first post. Hope I did it right.

I also think that bioparents and biofamily have different standards because the state is trying to protect their basic fundamental right to parent their children/family. And, as foster parents we don't have that same right. What I mean is that most people hold it as a very basic right to parent their children in the best way they see fit. A parent can control how the child dresses, their religion and morals they try to teach them, homeschooling, etc. The state only comes in when a basic standard isn't being reached and a child's safety is compromised. I think they should hold foster parents to a higher standard because we are basically being chosen to parent these children, briefly or long-term and so: if you could choose, wouldn't you want the very best? I think so. Just my opinion.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. I understand that bio parents can't be held to the same standard as we are as fp. I feel like as foster parents you are the same as a teacher a person in a position of trust. The thing I don't understand is the criminal aspect. I think the bio parents should held to a high standard on this. Bio dad has been placed on probation for sexual assault of a minor. But due to a plea he will not be listed as an offender. So he can still get his kids back. I find that unacceptable. Also... Felony child abuse should be a big deal! Not just a bump in the road. I understand that they shouldn't be held to the same standard as far as finances, homestudy's, living space, etc. Because that is unreasonable. These are their children. But they should be held responsible for their actions and criminal activity that could jeopardize their children and their safety. Every child should be able to feel safe with their family.

Abjones, I totally agree about the criminal activity; it's a matter of safety and security.

We had to become licensed foster parents (take MAPP classes, do home study, background checks, etc...) and have a license before they would even consider placement with us as relatives. I think that differs depending upon area.

Relatives here I don't think have to take classes. They have to do a homestudy and a backround check. But the pgm of our fs's failed her homestudy but someone higher up said that if she contests it that they over rule the denial!?! So relative placements are upsetting to me in this case.

In our State, WA, relatives have to pass a background check and home study, though they dont have to become licensed foster parents. I think itҒs pretty unfair that the rules vary so much by State. I wonder, should States be allowed to determine this? Or should there be some sort of Federal standard?