Court backs decision to bar foster couple

Originally Posted by martyh

Maybe ,depends on the child realy i think ,as you are aware some children need a lot more looking after than others

Statistically children in foster care tend to have far more traumatic experiences than most and many are as a result likely to have challenging problems and issues.I think that in that case fostering is for younger fitter parents.This is not being ageist just pragmatic.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Statistically children in foster care tend to have far more traumatic experiences than most and many are as a result likely to have challenging problems and issues.I think that in that case fostering is for younger fitter parents.This is not being ageist just pragmatic.

I bow to your greater knowledge Maggie

anyone know any foster parents for my too brats according to them i am officially an oldie

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Statistically children in foster care tend to have far more traumatic experiences than most and many are as a result likely to have challenging problems and issues.I think that in that case fostering is for younger fitter parents.

But (usually) with age comes greater wisdom?

[Digital Fanatic]

I think it was rest bite care they wanted to do.

The danger here is that they could potentially be unsupportive to a child that may think they were gay.

They are applying to work for the local council, and in that they come under the laws of employment.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

But (usually) with age comes greater wisdom?

Well maybe but it's not just wisdom that's required it's a certain amount of stamina as well.It has to be said that sometimes with age comes great inflexibility both physically and mentally.
In other words the older one gets the more set in one's way.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for older people to be foster parents I'm just saying that age as well as certain attitudes can make for a poor combination and their inability to embrace new ideas are possibly because of their age.

[TheDaddy]

It's always the children that suffer with these decisions, same with the Catholic adoption agencies, I am sure the children in care get a lovely warm feeling inside knowing that they are better of in care than with a loving family...

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

It's always the children that suffer with these decisions, same with the Catholic adoption agencies, I am sure the children in care get a lovely warm feeling inside knowing that they are better of in care than with a loving family...

Actually the image of a child staying with one foster family all the way through their childhood isn't the case for many.Not only can they be moved from one home to another at a moments notice they can be moved from their school right across counties,indeed hundreds of miles from where they were.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11567058
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8695642.stm

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Actually the image of a child staying with one foster family all the way through their childhood isn't the case for many.Not only can they be moved from one home to another at a moments notice they can be moved from their school right across counties,indeed hundreds of miles from where they were.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11567058
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8695642.stm

That kind of misses Daddy's point - the fewer foster caters there are, the more children will have to be cared for in Tracey Beaker style orphanages. Having several sets of foster carers is far from ideal, but growing up in a children's home is even less so.

Sadly we have a situation in this country where the branch of the State that is responsible for children's care has a deep-seated institutional belief that it knows best, to the exclusion of all other thoughts and opinions. In this case that belief now appears to have the backing of case law, which is very unfortunate indeed.

What has happened here is uncomfortably close to defining something as a thought crime IMO. Tolerance of a contrary view or lifestyle does not have to extend to approval of or agreement with that view. So far as we can see, this couple had nothing else against them as far as being foster parents goes. Smply the possibility that if asked, they would be unable to agree with the State's approved view on one aspect of morality. And because of that, there may now be other parents or carers who don't get badly-needed respite care due to there being too few short-term foster caters available.

Originally Posted by Chris

That kind of misses Daddy's point - the fewer foster caters there are, the more children will have to be cared for in Tracey Beaker style orphanages. Having several sets of foster carers is far from ideal, but growing up in a children's home is even less so.

Sadly we have a situation in this country where the branch of the State that is responsible for children's care has a deep-seated institutional belief that it knows best, to the exclusion of all other thoughts and opinions. In this case that belief now appears to have the backing of case law, which is very unfortunate indeed.

What has happened here is uncomfortably close to defining something as a thought crime IMO. Tolerance of a contrary view or lifestyle does not have to extend to approval of or agreement with that view. So far as we can see, this couple had nothing else against them as far as being foster parents goes. Smply the possibility that if asked, they would be unable to agree with the State's approved view on one aspect of morality. And because of that, there may now be other parents or carers who don't get badly-needed respite care due to there being too few short-term foster caters available.

I haven't missed the point at all.I'm pointing out that the whole system is if not broken at least out of alignment and that the challenges in being a foster parent should not be underestimated.
I agree about the possible short sightedness in this couple's case but it may not have been the 'only' factor.Age may well have been an unstated reason.

While I'm no expert on the procedures involved, I suspect "unstated reasons" would be irregular, if not outright unlawful. I'm not sure you have any basis for that supposition.

Originally Posted by Chris

While I'm no expert on the procedures involved, I suspect "unstated reasons" would be irregular, if not outright unlawful. I'm not sure you have any basis for that supposition.

You and I can't prove that it can't or won't happen however unlawful.They can and have discriminated on the grounds of smoking,weight,incorrect race in the past.I'm also pretty sure that age has played a part in the past though now age discrimination is now suppose to be an issue of the past and it may be that old habits die hard.

Personally I do think 65 is too old though.Religious and personal differences shouldn't weigh especially in short term fostering.

No, religious differences should not - but the High Court has ruled that they do, and that is a very significant development.