Reply to: Adults to get foster care

[Old Greg]

The state is the parent. What kind of parent turfs their kids out the door at 18.

[SueEllen]

Greywolf you aren't the he.

[Zero Liability]

Idiot.

[d000hg]

Then by all means, feel free to donate to them.

Idiot.

[Zero Liability]

Then by all means, feel free to donate to them.

[mudskipper]

Foster carers are classified as 'service providers'. Regardless of how attached they may have become to the kid, it's unreasonable to expect them to support someone else's, often problematic, child/young adult out of their own pocket.

[MicrosoftBob]

I'm not letting any bugger on here suckle on my breast...

Just think of it as free breast cancer screening

[darmstadt]

It's a very good policy actually - half the posters on here should be put into proper adult care provided by the other half of posters.

I'm not letting any bugger on here suckle on my breast...

[AtW]

Is this a crazy policy, or is it just me?

It's a very good policy actually - half the posters on here should be put into proper adult care provided by the other half of posters.

[GreyWolf]

Don't be sensible.

The fact that those who have been in the care system may need lots more help than the average 18 year old is not what he wants to hear.

I am not sure if I am meant to be the "he" referred to above but there isn't anything I particular "want to hear" or not hear. I am not questioning the wisdom of the proposal*, just the way it has been presented. The proposal is to extend fostering to 21 but a lot of the reporting has concentrated on this "not allowed" line which is irrelevant to the story. If the proposal was to reduce from 21 to 18 you could also almost understand it being reported as "not allowing fostering after 18" in an attempt to sex-up the story in the same misleading way that the so-called bedroom tax was presented but this is the exact opposite.

It's as if they've looked at the story, found nothing negative about it so they've gone with reporting some hypothetical current scenarios (without any examples) and just forgetting to mention that the new regulations are intended to avoid those situations happening.

Trouble with these stories is that commentators start competing to show how much holier than the next man they can be.

*On balance, it seems a reasonably sound idea so far as it goes. There's an element of kicking the can 3 years down the road but that might be enough to help some people.

[SueEllen]

Or the council may expect them to take in a new child now that they're no longer employed to look after the 18 year old.

Don't be sensible.

The fact that those who have been in the care system may need lots more help than the average 18 year old is not what he wants to hear.

[suityou01]

It doesn't give than an equal footing, it gives them an unequal footing! Real parents don't get state aid for letting an adult son or daughter live with them.

I'm all for free speech, but not in this case.

[MicrosoftBob]

Having my thoughts coloured by knowing a few people who are foster carers, I don't think it's a bad way to waste money

At least it something preventative that could cause less costs to the state further down the line

[d000hg]

Adults to get foster care

Who's going to take Suity in?

[aardvark]

I had the same thought about the way it was being presented as being "not allowed to stay" with the foster parents. The media seemed to be trying to conjure up an image of jackbooted council enforcers calling round to eighteenth birthday parties to cart off any violators of the new regulations.

The reality, of course, is that the foster parents may, or may not, boot them out of the house once the cheques stop. Nothing new there.

Or the council may expect them to take in a new child now that they're no longer employed to look after the 18 year old.