I am a foster parent. Before I share my perspective, a quick disclaimer: foster care varies hugely from state to state (and within California, it varies hugely from county to county).
Here, there has been a greater focus on kinship care and in-home aid (i.e. not removing the kids) primarily due to a shortage of foster parents. There is a shortage of foster parents because the system treats foster parents like crap.
> “I helped her do all of these things that I don’t think a foster parent would have done for her. … You’re not invested in that,” Gray said. “But for me, it was my granddaughter.”
Not to pick on the person quoted in this article, but this attitude exists all around the system; there is an implicit assumption that foster parents care less about the foster children than a neighborhood teenage baby-sitter hired for $8/hour to watch kids.
> Plus, they aren’t as likely to be moved to different schools or communities, and as a result they have better mental health and do better in school.
This is a very odd statement to make; the foster care system around here always tries to place children geographically close. It's logistically easier, so even lazy social workers will do this. The one case where a child was placed with me for which there was willing and able kin was because it was not feasible for the child to make the mandatory visits with birth mom if placed so far away.
> Some states also pay less to kinship caregivers than licensed foster care parents
Perverse incentives around remuneration dog any government program. California does seem to have addressed a lot of these in the past couple of decades.
Not mentioned in TFA, but the increase in drug addictions is probably part of what is driving increases in kinship care; there are plenty of adults with serious drug addiction problems that have close family that does not. With other forms of abuse and neglect, it tends to be something that has been a cross-generational pattern.
I'm a CA foster parent, and growing up my family fostered in WI.
What you say is absolutely true. The trope of the neglectful, greedy foster parent is impossible to get away from. And if you provide love and care for the child, then you are trying to 'steal' it. Despite the fact that we formed our lives around these kids, made sure they visited and had frequent FaceTime with parents, we were still bullied by parents and agencies alike. The agencies will not hesitate to lie to foster parents to get you to agree to take a child into your home, and parents will not hesitate to lie to the state to get the child moved out. And both will throw you under the bus if anything goes wrong. Agencies receive 3/4 of the funding that should go to a child's care, apparently so irresponsible foster parents don't spend it?
Our most recent was a happy case, with the child being reunited with a healthy mother, and dad not being anywhere near. A friend had her life broken by two very high-need children born addicts with no parents around. She got them healthy, endured their severe behavioral issues and carted them to specialists many times a week. And every time she wanted to find a new foster family because she was out of money or just burnt out, the agency told her that 'adoption was right around the corner' to keep her engaged. Right up until they showed up to take them away with no notice. It was sick.
I never suggest anyone get into foster care. It's a broken system.
It's a shame, but I have personal experience with shit-tier foster parents who "took care of" my own adopted children whose birth mother is an absolute piece of human waste and whose fathers were never identified.
My toddler was brought to us at 11 months without the capability of turning himself onto his stomach. He had hair missing from the back of his head because he laid in a crib all day long.
The other one was physically and verbally abused by the children of the foster parents she was staying with. This is after being taken out of her original household because her mother had a tendency to live and do drugs with pedophiles. Other than her school clothes, all the rest of her clothing was too small for her, so she's got photos of a Disney trip (the foster parents were "Disney adults" who would save up foster money to go on trips) in her school uniform while the biokids were in normal kid clothes.
It was stories like this that made me realize that I don't have to be a super-parent to be a good foster parent. I can be a regular good parent and still be way better than the alternatives that would otherwise exist for a child that's placed in my care.
Realizing that there are kids out there that need someone to take care of them and that I don't have to be perfect to provide that care is what really got me thinking seriously about foster care, instead of thinking about it as "something other people do."
Kids aren't interested in how much you have, or where you came from. They won't necessarily be "grateful" in what you provide for them, because they don't quite get that "being provided for" isn't supposed to be the norm. They show their gratitude by growing and thriving, and eventually when they grow up, they'll finally "get it" and know. Love them, provide for them, survive their moments of immaturity, console them when they need it, guide them even when they don't want it, and they'll be come a reflection of what you want the world to be.
It's the foster kids who become permanently adopted who are a little bit different. They're the ones who understand that love isn't to be taken for granted, and so they appreciate it when you become the parent who will always be there for them, in ways that people who have never been so alone will ever fully understand.
There are essentially zero kids "available" to adopt outside of foster care. And foster care is (correctly imo) focused on reuniting children with their parents when possible, so the typical case of adoption being possible is when the parents are truly unsafe.
This. Foster agencies lead you to believe that fostering leads to adoption. It gets more people into the system (more $ for them!). But the state's goals are to reunite children with their parents or a relative. Even movies that feature fostering in a realistic way often end with adoption, which is completely unrealistic.
It almost never actually happens that children you foster will go to adoption, since it is literally a last resort. Even if a child ends up in adoption, it will be years later and probably with someone else since those children are the worst case scenarios and are routinely replaced with family before re-entering the system.
California, for kids under 3 is a bit of an exception. The laws have changed to favor permanency ASAP (which means about 2 years) and it's usually this order of priority:
1. Reunification
2. Adoption by Kin
3. Adoption by someone else
All 3 of the foster kids we adopted were under 3 when they entered the system. One reunified, and then was placed back with us a year later.
In our experience meeting other foster parents at trainings and such, around half were fostering with the goal of adoption.
Fostering can definitely lead to adoption (and in particular there is a need for parents willing to adopt teenagers) but it can be a long process with no guarantees. On the other hand, it's much cheaper than other paths to adoption, either domestic or international.
In our case we are open to adopting (and the more kids we foster, the more likely it is that we end up in a situation where adoption is on the table) but we are mainly fostering because we know there are kids out there right now that need parents, even if just for a few weeks, months or years.
You can't adopt the kids if the parents still have a chance to get them back. That either ends via legal action by the state, or voluntarily giving up rights. This often happens when parents go to prison, for instance, since there's no chance of them caring for their kids. You also have to exhaust all relative chances first as well before they can be adopted (Indiana), so this can take 1-3+ years. In English, there's a need for kids to go somewhere that can't be adopted yet, and around half go back to mom and dad or family anyway. We had one kid for three days, and two for six weeks, so not every kid is years long anyway.
Actually, I still recommend being a foster parent; as long as you have some idea of what you are getting into and both parents are on-board it's incredibly rewarding.
If that doesn't apply to you, there's still plenty of things you can do to help out; I ended up on that list from being a foster parent, but I'm sure if you contact whomever is in charge of foster care in your area you can get on the list. Usually whatever local version of child-welfare/social services you have will know what the needs are. Where I am, providing transportation is always a need (e.g. kids to school when they've been moved too far for a bus; kids to and from visits with birth families, &c.)
Another option for families that are not in a position to make a long-term commitment is respite care. Basically being available to take kids for a night, a weekend or a few weeks. It can allow foster parents to have a break (or sometimes an emergency comes up and they need a few weeks to deal with it) and it can also provide kids with a place to stay when they are between foster homes and there's a gap in availability for whatever reason. Or when they have to be removed from their birth family suddenly and there isn't time to find a long-term placement option right away.
Yes! Respite care is hugely useful. Typically the only real commitment involved in doing so is you'll need to child-proof your house (plus maybe taking a couple of classes). If you have small children already, there likely won't be many changes you need to make.
In our area you basically have to go through the same licensing process as regular foster parents. Glad to hear it's an easier process in other places :)
I was placed with "kin" and was abused further, then back to foster care, then placed with "kin" and abused further, then back to foster care, then placed with "kin" and was large enough to not be abused in the same way, then aged out and never spoke with those people again. The same with my brother (who is now addicted to drugs, living on the streets) and my sisters (went to different side of family, eventually adopted out, still went through drugs/homelessness).
Reflecting on it as an adult -- the "kin" experienced the same hardships, culture, values, and limitations in every case as my parents. Outside of straight up abuse (which was present within foster care and with "kin") the problem wasn't really with individuals (my parents or other guardians), it was poverty and problems stemming from poverty (e.g. drug abuse, homelessness). Everyone in my family and community was poor, and had been for generations, so I got fucked over by the system again and again. I lucked out of that cycle, but my siblings (and now their kids) did not.
It's a very hard problem. Not all parents and kin are talented or loving caregivers. Similarly for foster parents, who may be looking for a victim to abuse or exploit for funding.
Parents generally have a strong biological emotional bond to their children, and people who have lived together for mny years often develop a bond too. It's hard to create that bond if it's failed or never existed.
I think you may be misunderstanding the GP's statement of the problem: It's not parenting or bonds, it's poverty.
> Outside of straight up abuse (which was present within foster care and with "kin") the problem wasn't really with individuals (my parents or other guardians), it was poverty and problems stemming from poverty (e.g. drug abuse, homelessness). Everyone in my family and community was poor, and had been for generations, so I got fucked over by the system again and again.
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?
> 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.
> 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 ...
>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.
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").
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).
> Not to pick on the person quoted in this article, but this attitude exists all around the system; there is an implicit assumption that foster parents care less about the foster children than a neighborhood teenage baby-sitter hired for $8/hour to watch kids.
Unfortunately, there may be reasons that they assume this. Just for instance: one of every three kids in foster care are prescribed psychotropic medications, gravely alarming the American Academy of Pediatrics. Notably, foster parents taking care of a child on such a medication are paid much, much more than they would if the child is not. The statistics on child abuse in foster care are alarming as well.
Again things vary from state to state, but in CA, I couldn't give my foster children Tylenol without a doctor's orders, and all psychotropic medication was due to referrals by county appointed psychologists.
Also, being prescribed medication does not change the payment. There is an additional payment for children with certain specific diagnoses, but that is only loosely related to medication; a child with a generalized anxiety disorder, for example, would not qualify for extra payments, but might be prescribed anti-anxiety medication.
Also, w.r.t. the one-in-three statistic, the most common side effect of prenatal exposure to methamphetamine is ADHD, and if you send an elementary-school aged boy with ADHD symptoms to public school, you are likely to have medication recommended.
> The statistics on child abuse in foster care are alarming as well.
I'm not going to say there aren't abusive foster parents (because obviously there are), but it is probably hard to measure the level of abuse. I lost count of the number of (unsubstantiated) allegations made against me, and I can assure you I didn't abuse any of my children (foster or otherwise).
> Again things vary from state to state, but in CA, I couldn't give my foster children Tylenol without a doctor's orders, and all psychotropic medication was due to referrals by county appointed psychologists.
I understand California had this particular scandal in 2016 and passed some reforms. This is probably a consequence.
I mean, i would assume that foster care => unstable home situation/significant trauma => more likely to have mental health problems. It seems like its hard to take the stat at face value without controlling for correlations
> Just for instance: one of every three kids in foster care are prescribed psychotropic medications
Not particularly surprising to me. 1) Everyone I met experienced some horrific stuff growing up, and 2) psychiatric evaluation and care was pretty much mandatory.
My experience in foster care was more positive than with the family members I was placed with who kicked me out after a few months. And yes, I had a prescription for antidepressants. I didn't take them.
> Here, there has been a greater focus on kinship care and in-home aid (i.e. not removing the kids) primarily due to a shortage of foster parents.
That's good because children probably feel more comfortable around their family rather than complete strangers. Shouldn't the system be placing kids with kin regardless of the number of available foster parents?
The “shadow foster system” is related to this and has some problems. These are complex situations, maybe sometimes there is no good options. But if you are interested in learning more, Propublica has done some good reporting on the downside of non-foster placements: https://www.propublica.org/article/they-took-us-away-from-ea...
"Research shows that children who have been removed from their parents but brought up by relatives do better in myriad other ways. They are less likely to have a criminal record or become homeless (as more than a quarter of those who have been in foster care or institutions do). Research also suggests why that might be so. Relatives are less likely than foster parents to request that poorly behaved children be removed. And they are more likely to take in groups of siblings, who are routinely separated in the care system."
It also discusses some of the institutional structures that make this difficult (i.e. requiring that relatives become certified foster care participants before they can receive any of the support regular foster care participants receive).
Foster care training is not too challenging, and includes fairly normal inspection of the house for safety purposes. It also comes with a lot of help for setting up food benefits, Healthcare, and so on. It's no more arduous than parenting a child with a minor health problem, and I've done both now. And it protects the child from exploitation.
Also the in-home care and coaching that social workers give to at risk parents before they consider placing a child in foster care is quite extensive.
Foster parents are regularly told that they are a last resort, and any family member do over them. Unfortunately, many parents who lose custody of their children exhaust their support structure long before the state intervenes, so they aren't likely to find help from family.
If we can't sell your data we don't want you! Typing this from Iceland, which is, at least last time I checked, not in the EU. Not sure if the GDPR rules apply here...
It's more like "If you don't want us handling your data in a specific way which we do for everyone, we will gladly oblige by not letting you give us your data".
> It was her son Vaughn’s child. He was on the street, doing drugs, and he conceived Evaughn with a woman who was also homeless and an addict.
> She later adopted Evaughn’s half-brother, Isaiah
Making babies is much, much easier than caring for them.
A woman and her male partners can make a dozen.
Reproduction happens quite naturally, unless you have the resources, wisdom and will to to prevent it, and losing your children is quite easy if you lack the resources, wisdom, and will to care for them.
Do you have a source? With a brief search I was unable to find a credible source that supports your claim. These papers suggest that anyone involved in child-welfare as a child has a higher risk, unless they can go back home.
> Youth aging out of foster exhibit similar rates of literal homelessness and housing instability as other child welfare-involved youth, while youth who reunify after out-of-home placement in adolescence experience the lowest probability of literal homelessness
> Consistent with earlier studies, we found that youths aging out of foster care are at high risk of becoming homeless during their transition to adulthood. Specifically, 36% of the 624 Midwest Study participants whose outcomes we could observe reported at least 1 episode of homelessness by age 26 years. That figure could be as low as 31% or as high as 46% depending on the rate of homelessness among those with unobserved outcomes, which means that, at a minimum, nearly one-third of the study participants were homeless at some point after leaving foster care.
Obviously these studies are talking about risk and not a percent of the population, but it does seem that being effectively a homeless child increases risk of being a homeless adult at some point.
The latter study mentions several mechanisms to ameliorate the problem.
