General Question

freestyletrue's avatar

What would happen if in the Foster Care System, Kids were kept at ONE foster-family instead of house-hopping?

Asked by freestyletrue (126points) February 25th, 2010

I’m writing a pretend-bill in Civics, and I decided to do something about improving foster-care. Many critiques of the system we have now say that for children (Usually older kids) who aren’t adopted and surf through the adoption/foster-system for years are constantly uprooted from foster-home to foster-home. I would assume that this creates an unstable environment for the kid or teen in question, and I was wondering what major consequences would be for those children, if they were assigned to a single foster-home?

I understand that foster homes are supposed to be temporary, but for people at that impressionable age to have such little, “grounding” in their life and surroundings, how could it be beneficial?

Problems I’ve thought of so far are:
-the children become too attatched to a family, and the family in question is unable to adopt, causing emotional pain.

-Kids might not “fit” into the family unit chosen for them/the foster-parents wouldn’t be able to handle the emotional/behavioral baggage associated with the child

But good things I’ve thought of are:
-Older kids and teens can have a stable home and not worry about being yanked out of it and thrust into a different house with strangers.

-Older kids and teens would be provided with role models who can encourage them and give them support in a way that other temporary families and counselors cannot.

Etc. Etc.

So, if anyone has any information or ideas, or better-understanding of the current system we have now, please reply! Thank you!

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

4 Answers

MebiByte's avatar

The foster family may not have enough income to have a child for an extended period of time.

freestyletrue's avatar

In that case, do you think that for foster-parents willing to take on a child for continuous care should be granted more benefits? The increase would attract some not-so-wonderful people to try and be foster parents just for the money, but that could be /somewhat/ avoided by upping the interviews/home checks, etc. I think…

Supacase's avatar

Some of the foster homes are, sadly, not great environments. I would hate to think of one child being forced to endure that life for several years. Of course, I hate to think of several kids living with it for a little while. Tough call.

YoH's avatar

Having been a foster parent, I can say it was a personal decision to keep children until they returned to their natural parents. This was an assurance kids were given shortly after arrival. This meant the child had only to look to the natural parents about returning home, whether they were complying with court orders.The system might well work with foster families prior to accepting a child, to ensure this stability, even though circumstances can be very unpredictable due to court orders, etc. Also we had a very close open relationship with the local department and courts we worked with. As far as anyone foster parenting for the money, we were in a position to do it without need of benefits and did so several times. However, I’m quite aware of the expenses and advise anyone to make certain they can handle the financial challenges.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther