Caribbean Nesties
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Can someone smarter than me explain this please?
Fallin, I agree with almost everything you said, but are you seriously saying that it's better for a child to be raised by an addict than foster care? Sure the system has it's problems, but I have to disagree that a parent who can't stay clean long enough to pass a drug test is going to provide a remotely safe home for a child.
2013 Calendars and More!
From what I've seen, sometimes yeah. Especially if the parent is working on cleaning up their act and we consider neglect as a separate issue regardless of cause.
My "favorite" incident was my friend who was molested in one foster home, came forward, was placed at a second home, molested a second time and told she must be making it up to try and get home. She was also only fed one meal a day when not at school. I know it's anecdote, but I believe the system is f*cked enough that an addict parent could potentially be better.
"The meek shall inherit the earth" isn't about children. It's about deer. We're all going to get messed the fuckup by a bunch of cloned super-deer.- samfish2bcrab
Sometimes I wonder if scientists have never seen a sci-fi movie before. "Oh yes, let's create a super species of deer. NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG." I wonder if State Farm offers a Zombie Deer Attack policy. -CaliopeSpidrman
I bet her FUPA's name is Shane, like the gunslinger/drifter of literature.--HappyTummy
I think most drug users, even addicts, are more likely to protect their children than strangers. Granted, there are probably some awesome foster parents out there, but the system is also full of predators and schemers. In the roll of the dice, I say the parent is the most reliably decent caretaker.
ETA: in a perfect world, the child would be temporarily removed and placed with another relative, preferably grandparent or aunt/uncle. But that requires a living, stable, and willing relative on hand, which not everyone has.
"As of page 2 this might be the most boring argument ever. It's making me long for Rape Day." - Mouse
I don't know. There are some pretty highly functioning drug addicts out there (granted most would probably be able to clean up for the test, which means the tests would need to be random, which as Fenton pointed out is a whole other set of problems and costs). What if grandma lives there and cares for little Timmy but they rely on Drug Addict's welfare for the child because getting grandma legal custody so she could apply for the kid takes knowledge and money. So many factors.
But, the people that propose these laws aren't doing it for the good of getting children out of drug addicted homes. I mean no one is proposing testing all parents before sending babies home from the hospital. No one wants to test lawyers who have extremely high rates of drug and alcohol abuse. It's supposedly all about the money, right? MY taxes shouldn't pay for these lazy goodfornothings to sit on their fat assses watching tv all day. They're all a bunch of crackheads anyway. So my point was mostly that this is going to be infinitely my costly than welfare for the addicts.
Truth. I think I've found a way to replicate it. And they have them in OK and NM now, too.
Nope. Not all users are addicts, but building on what Fenton said about how long the drugs stay in your system, if they knew they could lose their benefits for a positive test, they would likely stay clean before going in. And if they tried to stay clean and couldn't, then they are an addict.
Yes, there are some bad foster homes. But the stipend isn't enough to even cover the costs of the child, so no one's doing it to get rich. Most foster parents are doing it from a good place. Yes, there are some abusers, but most are not, and no story about people you know is going to change that.
I do not believe that someone who is addicted to drugs will put their child's interest above their interest in getting more of their drug. Yes, kinship placements are great, when their is a stable, safe family member willing to get involved. But that doesn't often happen, so foster homes are the next step.
2013 Calendars and More!
For less then ten cents a day, you can feed a hungry child.
Sadly, I don't think some of the people who support laws like this care that it will cost more. I think they hate perceived freeloaders that much that they think it's worth the cost to punish them.
I think the more compelling argument is increased homelessness and crime. If there's anything rich people without compassion hate more than poor people taking their money it's having to interact with and LOOK AT poor people.
"As of page 2 this might be the most boring argument ever. It's making me long for Rape Day." - Mouse
I'm going to post Fallin statement in my status. If you are my real friends you will post it too, but sadly most of you won't but my real friend will.
Good I hate FB sometimes, but I lurve cream corn.
I agree that's not the purpose of the law, but is an unintended consequence.
And, I've learned that many mothers/babies are tested at birth, and that's how infants often come into the system.
2013 Calendars and More!
If we are talking marijuana I definitely don't think that kids should be taken away any more than people who drink should have their kids taken away. And since it appears in the previous instance they did testing a majority was marijuana it seems like that would apply mostly to that situation.
um okla, share that shiit.
Fair enough. I was really just taking issue with the idea that it was better for a child to be raised by an addicted parent than in foster care.
2013 Calendars and More!
I'm no criminal mastermind, but if I wanted to make money, I think putting the kid in public school where he gets free lunches every day and then not feeding him at home, plus belonging to a church where I'm seen as a good samaritan and thus receive a lot of charity and donations from the congregation would be my first steps in using a foster kid to come out ahead. Maybe not to get rich, but to rely on the money as a source of income.
"As of page 2 this might be the most boring argument ever. It's making me long for Rape Day." - Mouse
Which leads up to testing for alcohol. Wouldn't that also be appropriate in this case? For the most part, drunks are far worse than potheads. Where does the line get drawn?
For less then ten cents a day, you can feed a hungry child.
2013 Calendars and More!
I understand. It is six to one, half dozen to another.
For less then ten cents a day, you can feed a hungry child.
Look, one of my goals is to be a foster parent someday. (Um, the good kind.) What I hear over, and over, again from people involved in the system is that the system is broken. My stepdad was one of the people who checked up on foster kids, he pretty much had a nervous breakdown from the stress. These kids are not being checked up on by and large, serious complaints are ignored, the social workers have little power, etc. The people running the system are pretty open about that and the lack of support for the foster parents. (Not to mention the kids, especially when it comes to planning their future. Are they still kicking them out at 18 even if they're mid-senior year?)
No, I don't think anyone is a foster parent to get rich, but I do think there is widespread abuse.
Which is not to say that foster homes are unnecessary or that good outcomes don't happen. But it's Russian roulette and iirc, the statistical outcomes favor staying with the parents (as long as there isn't neglect or abuse)."The meek shall inherit the earth" isn't about children. It's about deer. We're all going to get messed the fuckup by a bunch of cloned super-deer.- samfish2bcrab
Sometimes I wonder if scientists have never seen a sci-fi movie before. "Oh yes, let's create a super species of deer. NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG." I wonder if State Farm offers a Zombie Deer Attack policy. -CaliopeSpidrman
I also have to question whether there would simply be enough foster care families to take in the children if drug addition on welfare really is a substantial issue. And these are going to be babies through older teens. So a lot are going to end up in group homes, if there are enough of those.
If we are really concerned about the children, it seems to me rehab and treatment is the way to go, and I'd love to see FB statuses about paying for rehab for welfare recipients.
But that's not the way it works. The curches don't give a lot of charity, because many of them are just squeeking by themselves. The families that really are abusing the system aren't seen as good church goers, because they generally seperate themselves from society so no one can know their business. They don't appropriately clothe the kids, don't take them to doctor's appointments, and still can barely get by if they plan to only use the money the state gives them.
Foster parents are expected to provide all clothes, food, toys, school supplies, etc. out of their own budget. No one's going to take that on in an attempt to get rich.
2013 Calendars and More!
"That chick wins at Penises, for sure." -- Fenton
Yes, not getting rich seems to depend on meeting the needs of the child. If you barely feed or cloth him, there's not much cost.
But I'm not arguing that all or even most foster families are bad. I have cousins who have taken in dozens of kid and do a fantastic job. I just don't know if the system, as it stands, could support an influx of kids. Certainly it would be costly.
I agree with this, wholeheartedly.
2013 Calendars and More!
Cali, I don't have time to look for it now, but the last time I did, I believe the statistics favored staying with the parents, especially with state support.
I think Angie has a point regarding homelessness, what these kinds of laws will do is separate people from the system. They'll just drop off the map, no one checking up on them or offering parenting classes (as can happen with welfare), no ready avenue if they want to seek treatment because they'll be afraid of social workers. And probably more of them would rather go on the streets with their kids than give them up. It's been awhile since I worked the soup kitchen, but we saw families in there all the time.
"The meek shall inherit the earth" isn't about children. It's about deer. We're all going to get messed the fuckup by a bunch of cloned super-deer.- samfish2bcrab
Sometimes I wonder if scientists have never seen a sci-fi movie before. "Oh yes, let's create a super species of deer. NOTHING COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG." I wonder if State Farm offers a Zombie Deer Attack policy. -CaliopeSpidrman
I don't think they'd get it from the church itself, but from generous families.
Most of the church-run food pantries around here give out food on the honor system. You don't have to prove anything. So if you foster three kids, you could easily show up and get some canned crap to scrape together enough dinners to keep them alive. You can also get school supplies and clothes from most of those charities.
If even a handful of people have managed to game the system to make money, that indicates it's possible.
And this doesn't include the sexual predators who don't mind spending the money as long as they get a live-in victim. As has been said before, this isn't a blanket statement about foster families, but it's common enough to be a concern. This also isn't about adoptive parents, either, since the cost to adopt truly is prohibitive for people who don't desperately want a kid.
ETA: I have given serious thought to becoming a foster parent myself and still consider it a possibility so I'm not saying people shouldn't foster and can't be good people if they do. I'm saying it's risky from the child's perspective that you'll end up in one of the good homes.
"As of page 2 this might be the most boring argument ever. It's making me long for Rape Day." - Mouse
I feel like an idiot posting a creamed corn recipe in such a thuper therious post, but I'll do it for Winged.
I did this kind of on the fly and kind of just threw stuff in and don't have measurements.
Two large bags of frozen corn
Two bricks of cream cheese
One medium container of heavy cream
Tablespoon of sugar
Lots of fresh cracked pepper.
Throw it everything but the pepper in a crockpot, cook on high for two hours or so, stirring often. Load up on the pepper when it's finished. I did this for a potluck and it made a TON.
Cali, studies show that every move and/or disruption from a caregiver is traumatic for a child, and can affect them in areas of self-esteem, developmental delays, attachment, bonding, etc, but while I'm sure the types of studies your asking about exist, I'm not specifically aware of them.
That being said, the system is heavily geared toward family reunification, and the parents are given many chances to get their acts together and get their kids back. FC is supposed to work as a temporary fix while the family heals, but all too often the parents fall short.
I fully admit that my views on this are biased by on knowing a few real-life foster parents and all the foster parents on the bump, who give their love and work their arses off to give these kids a loving home while their parents work there plan. Over and over again, the parents drop out of the picture, relapse, don't work their plan, miss visits, etc.
2013 Calendars and More!
No, foster parents do not have mandatory drug testing, but they do have to undergo background checks and child abuse registry checks. They have to show proof of income (or other means of support) to indicate that they can support themselves without assistance of the stipend. They go through classes, a homestudy, and are subject to unannounced visits by a social worker at any time. The social worker also gets time alone with the child and the child's teachers. I believe in many cases, the child is also required to be in counseling, and the social workers are privy to that information as well. So there are a ton of checks.
Foster care now is very different from foster care 20 years ago. In the late 1990's the federal law was changed to require states to focus on reunifying the family if at all possible. If not, a suitable kinship placement trumps everything else. Finally, there are foster homes and group homes, in that order.
2013 Calendars and More!
Oh, my Old Kentucky Home. We're full of geniuses, I tells ya.
Here's my 2 cents, abbreviated as I'm swamped today. My job puts me in contact with a lot of families in the system, so my perspective is less idealistic than it used to be. Totally agree with everyone else, the drug testing idea is stupid. If we're looking to get more families off the dole, we need to put more money in education first and foremost, drug treatment, and job training. We need to get people out of concentrated low income/public housing. If you don't see anyone around you going to work every day, it just doesn't become part of your worldview. A lot of people are apathetic and frankly, some really enjoy the drama that comes with living in a subculture that feeds on only living for the now, or having beef with so and so's baby mama, or whatever.
Here's what I see as the real hurdle. A lot of the people I encounter don't seem to have any internal drive to do better for themselves or for their kids to be more successful and financially secure. It's very frustrating, since it's a reversal from the generations before where parents wanted to see their kids go to college etc. If being on WIC and welfare is good enough for me, it's good enough for my kids.
The kids I talk with say they want to go to college because the school system pounds that message into them, but a lot of their parent(s) unfortunately don't reinforce that at home. They are left to steer their own ships to some extent and it's easy to get sucked into the path everyone around you has followed.
Foster care-most states have the singular goal of family reunification. Is this always in the best interest of the kids? No. And certainly there's good foster families out there, and ones that choose to abuse the system to their benefit. Frankly most caseworkers are beyond overloaded and don't have the time or ability to dedicate proper attention to each individual situation. It's such a shame.
And an anecdote I think I've shared here before. When I worked at the fish market in high school, people would come in with food stamps and buy mass quantities of king crab legs. Apparently they were cooking them and selling them for cash. So yes, some people abuse the system. But it's not a reason to dismember it entirely. If people think it's bad now, I shudder to think of what will happen if all of these supports disappear.