Foster Adoption Blog

06/25/07

You've got to be kidding

Posted by : Kelly in Foster Adoption Blog at 04:56 pm , 458 words, 233 views  
Categories: Issues in Foster-Adopt Care, In the News!
confused

This story is coming out of the UK, and I’m praying it doesn’t make it to the states.

The Fostering Network in the UK is looking to ban foster parents who smoke from taking in any child under the age of 5, and set no age limit if the child is unable to go outside due to a physical disability, or suffers from a respiratory illness.

OK, I get this to an extent. Children should not be exposed to second hand smoke, we all get that. But to NEVER place a child with a foster parent because of this issue alone is just plain ridiculous.

According to the article in the Daily Record,the UK is already short on foster homes by about 10,000 homes.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to prohibit the foster parent from smoking in the house, or from smoking with in a certain distance from the child? Do we really need fewer placements than we do now?

SPONSOR

Since apparently both the US and the UK have shortages in foster homes, wouldn’t we try to find more ways to recruit families, than to put even more restrictions on the homes that we already have?

A friend of mine surrendered her foster care license a few years ago. She had fostered for 33 years, and had adopted 13 of the children that she fostered. She surrendered her license because of the red tape and the hoops she had to jump through. Wouldn’t you think that they’d bend over backwards to try to keep her as a foster parent?

This woman has become an incredible advocate for parents and kids, and we are working together to get Wisconsin to enact a state specific foster parent bill of rights. She also lobbied to get the state to clarify some things on adoption subsidies. Trust me, this is a lady you want in your corner.

What will happen if parents like her end up dropping out of foster care because social services tightens down on restrictions even more? I’m not saying to let all rules and regulations go out the window, but where does common sense come in?

If you trust me enough to put a child in my custody and take care of their well being, wouldn’t you trust that I have enough common sense not to do things that will endanger that same child? If not, there is something wrong with your licensing process.

As I said, I pray this ban will only apply in the UK, or even better, that the UK officials will realize what a nightmare they are going to create and repeal this.

In case you’re wondering, I’m not a smoker and never have been.

Photo credit

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Holly [Member] Email · http://africa-adoption.adoptionblogs.com
Isn't this just so similar to banning adoptive parents because of not being within an ideal weight range?! I'm not a smoker, but I know some really good parents who are, and who are really careful (as much as can be, I suppose) around their kids. Let's restrict parenthood more and more and more . . . makes tons of sense . . .
PermalinkPermalink 06/25/07 @ 18:26
Comment from: Kelly [Member] Email · http://fost-adopt.adoptionblogs.com
Well, I'm quite a bit from the ideal weight range, and my kids actually like it. Makes me softer to cuddle with.

What kills me is that they impose dumb restrictions like this, and then complain about a shortage of foster homes. DUH!!
PermalinkPermalink 06/25/07 @ 19:02
Comment from: thomasina [Member] Email
Subjecting children to secondhand smoke is child abuse. These new restrictions are necessary to protect children. In a perfect world, foster parents who smoked would all do so outside far enough away to prevent kids from breathing noxious chemicals. However, we don't live in a perfect world. There is no way to "police" foster parents who smoke from doing so in their own homes or in their cars (etc.) with children present. I've seen some very nice people, loving parents rationalize that behavior away. Comparing subjecting children to secondhand smoke to an overweight foster parent makes no sense. There's no empirical evidence that I know of that suggests that being raised by an overweight parent is harmful to a child's health. On the other hand, there is a ton of evidence to support claims that secondhand smoke is hazardous to children's health. I'm not for red tape, but feel it is necessary here.
PermalinkPermalink 06/25/07 @ 20:18
Comment from: John [Member] Email
So Thomasina, where do you propose putting the kids who won't have a foster home with these new restrictions? Social theory is great, but these are real kids that need homes. Where should they go? John

PS I don't smoke either.
PermalinkPermalink 06/26/07 @ 19:07
Comment from: thomasina [Member] Email
My support of the restrictions has nothing to do with social theory; it has to do with protecting the physical wellbeing of the children in question. I don't have an alternative. I would suggest promoting foster care and making it easier for qualified people to adopt.
PermalinkPermalink 06/26/07 @ 23:59
Leave a Comment: You need to login to leave comments.:

Login | Register

Login To AdoptionBlogs.com

Search

Sponsors

Misc

Subscribe to Foster Adoption Blog

 Enter your email address:
 

 

Who's Online?

  • abensonslaton Email
  • erindutton
  • Guest Users: 183