Can someone smarter than me explain this please?

wingedbride · January 2011

So we would take away kids from parents who use drugs without testing to know if the temporary parents don't do drugs? Irony.

pdxmouse · January 2011

The studies I've read are complicated not just by the trauma of disruption, but the kids who enter the system are often worse off then the ones who don't (ie it was bad enough someone called) and the ones who stay in the system through adulthood often have worse situations (parents cannot get their act together or do not want them back and they've got too many behavioral issues or are too old to be readily adopted) than those who get to go back home. That could certainly sway the statistical outcome, but controlling for those issues as much as possible, there's enough of a difference that there's a reason reunification is heavily favored.

It's also more cost-effective to support the family than to do a foster program, but as Fenton pointed out, these laws seem to be about anger and punishment rather than best outcomes.

BobLoblaw · January 2011

THISSSSSSSSS.

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.

_Fenton · January 2011

I think family reunification for kids taken out of their home under the current system is way different than suggesting new rules to cause kids to be taken out of their homes (referring to drug testing which leads to welfare being revoked which leads to the kids of users who may not be abusive at all getting put into foster care). I think a child is most likely better off in foster care than with a physically abusive parent. I think a child is better off with a poor life-long parent than a foster parent, as long as the child can get fed and clothed somehow and has a place to sleep. Hence, welfare.

wingedbride · January 2011

BobLoblaw:
THISSSSSSSSS.
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.

Yes. The whole problem is that no one wants to really work on good social programs to make our society a place where we are not just cleaning up mess.

salimoo · January 2011

FallinAgain:
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.

This was my #1 thought throughout this thread (well behind GETTING ME SOME FVCKING CREAMED CORN). Either the screaming masses are wrong and it's a whole lot of wasted time and effort ... or they're right and we've got thousands of displaced kids and not enough foster homes/group homes. Neither option is something this country has the resources to commit to.

wendyld · January 2011

_Fenton:
CaptainSerious:

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'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.

This is precisely what my brothers state appointed placement family did. HATE.

ETA: their church gave these people a Foffing CAR.

wendyld · January 2011

I'm sure it's no surprise that I have strong opinions about this post, given that I was a child of an addict, a former foster child, and eventually a foster parent.

1) $900 / month / child (and the state covers the cost of daycare if needed). That's how much Oklahoma pays foster parents. You can bet your ass they aren't handing out $900 in food stamps per kid + daycare. And I definitely didn't have to do a drug test to be a foster parent. I'm almost angry that they were more worried about my dogs' shot records than whether or not I did drugs. I know for a fact my brother's placement family were addicts.

2) We've discussed the dangerous impact of kids to uproot them from families and the problems this causes with attachment, self esteem, etc. We've also covered the goal of reunification. This leads to kids who are removed from the home, reunified with the family, removed and placed in ANOTHER foster/group home, reunified, lather, rinse, repeat. These poor kids don't have any sense of identity or belonging by the time they age out.

3) Drug testing welfare recipients as a cost-reducing measure is just dumb.

4) Obviously there are people who abuse welfare (and yes, lots of them, perhaps more prevalent than a lot of people think) and there are also people who abuse the foster care system (same qualifiers). The same is true for any system and people would get around these drug testing ideas as well.

5) I wholeheartedly agree that taking food stamps / WIC away from a drug addicted parent won't magically make them change their priorities such that they buy food instead of drugs. It just means the kid's going to go hungry now. Who exactly wins in this situation?

6) I too wish that we would funnel more energy/funding into social programs to address the root causes and not the symptoms here.

pdxmouse · January 2011

Wendy, has anyone told you lately that you're awesome? Because you totally kick ass.

shanollee · January 2011

BobLoblaw:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/lonnie-napier-welfare-drug-testing_n_810577.html
"It's widely known here and all over the country that they'll take the food-stamp card and buy good groceries with it, and then swap them for illegal drugs.
Do you see how ridiculous this statement is? No one is swapping canned corn for crack, I assure you.

It's true, my friend's uncle's barber's stepson used to do it all the time. They even wrote a song about it. Jimmy swapped crack for corn and I don't care

My FB feed is surprisingly low-key on this issue. I expected it might be blowing up, but there's really only a couple of people going crazy on it. And for that, I'm thankful.

Since there's really absolutely nothing I can say that will come out with such eloquent perfection, I'll just say "yeah, what Fallin said"

Can someone smarter than me explain this please?

Re: Can someone smarter than me explain this please?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards