DEBATE OVER MODERN ORPHANAGES
This morning another headline was written about the lack of funds and loving people in the foster care system in most states. Life is really unfair when kids who are being taken out of abusive homes are plopped into an even less caring one. While many foster parents do it just for the money that's not true of all. Many are kind-hearted people. While they couldn't afford to take on the care of a child on their income, that doesn't mean they aren't stable and affectionate.
One couple I knew had over fifty foster kids in their home. Not in the same year of course. Anyways they did a loving job of taking care of them. One little girl, born a crack baby was not expected to live more than three years. Last time I heard she was eight and going to school. This is one of the great foster homes that do exist.
CHILD CARE IS A LABOR OF LOVE
Child care is a twenty-four hour a day job. You can really care about the kid(s) and still feel overworked. The people who are taking in kids simply for the money often don't perform their job the way they should. The social workers - all vulnerable to criticism - have case loads that would give them a twenty-four hour work day if they saw them all.
The foster kids are trapped between the social workers and the family who isn't caring for them. If they complain the foster parents get angry and if they don't no one ever notices how unhappy they are. Then when someone does notice it can be impossible to find a better living situation anyways. As with most things, lack of money is the root of the problem.
Money would pay more for the children's care. Money for more social workers would keep them safer. Easy to say money doesn't buy happiness. In improving the foster care system in most states, it would be a good start.
GROUP HOMES ARE NOT ORPHANAGES
About five years ago, someone in my area proposed the idea of modern orphanages. People were horrified, thought it was some kind of reversion to Oliver Twist and dirty bowls of cold porridge for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But would the kids be worse off than they are in bad foster care. I won't rehash all that can go wrong. Its on the news every night. Any one not living on Mars for the last decade is well aware.
Imagine situation A. Child in foster care with caretaker who drinks or leaves him alone while she goes to the racetrack. Social worker who has time to visit once a year. "Hi, how's it going? Nothing to say? Well goodbye then, see you next year."
Now situation B. A group of twenty or thirty kids - living together - not being served cold porridge for breakfast, lunch and dinner and having a reasonable number of caretakers on duty to keep them safe. There are bound to be some caring individuals in any group of child care providers. If the living conditions are not any one's first choice, at least the kids are in a place with responsible people watching over them. Someone would notice and handle a dangerous situation. At the very least, they would have a peer group living in the same circumstances. Possibly a social worker could be on staff.
FINANCIALLY POOR ONLY
Remember Loretta Lynn the country singer and her song "Coal Miner's Daughter?" She grew up in abject poverty in a little mountain town called Butcher Holler. She talked about it during various interviews and wrote of it in her music. I recall clearly her comment, (paraphrased) "We didn't know we was poor. Everybody we knew was poor too."
She always stressed the positive things about her childhood. Her parents were hard-working and caring and the kids always felt loved. She never felt deprived even getting only one pair of shoes a year. All the kids in the family got just one pair of shoes a year.
OPINION
In the years since the group home suggestion was thrown out with the trash, the foster care system hasn't improved. Kids are still moved every two years whether in a happy home or not. The theory is that the biological parent(s) deserve the opportunity to try to have their kids returned. The parent may be sincerely trying but the child is labeled not available for adoption during that time. Another theory is that kids shouldn't be allowed to get "attached" to the foster parents. Who decided that? Instead they should have the attitude, "Thank God this child is in a good home."
And conversely, they advertised on television for new foster parents. One of the statements made was (paraphrased) if a child receives loving care even for a month, the advantages will remain with the child for a lifetime.
They still move the child every two years. Perhaps four years of consistent care taking is worth the risk of an unwanted attachment (as stated in the TV ads). However, these alleged "experts" continue to utilize this system originated by some "alleged" genius psychiatrist. Common sense tells us that perhaps the group home isn't a perfect solution. But in many cases it would certainly qualify as less bad.
