How flexible should the 'standards' be to foster a child and/or adopt from foster care?

I get a little annoyed when there seems to be an implication that there should be a "good enough" for these kids. In fact, in some places and situations, I'd like to see the standards tightened up. I'd like to see regular checks and surprise visits, in fact. It's not that I think all foster parents are bad (obviously), it's just that I think these kids are worth the "trouble" of being that much more diligent.

The problem is, with such a shortfall of applicants, standards do get too lax in choosing a placement for a child. I know a foster family who lives in a rural part of Alberta, who, at any given time has 8 children, at least 2 of whom are young babies, in her home. It's not that they are bad people, but there are virtually no foster homes in this area and absolutely no adoptive homes...Where else are they going to put these kids? So, the results of this are that children in that community are very vulnerable because SS is so reticent to apprehend, since there are no beds... or they apprehend and send them to a really overcrowded home.

So, yes. I agree that there are too few homes, but I don't believe that relaxing the standards and putting kids in peril is the way to fix that. I would like to see some of the myths about foster care and the kids in it put to rest in the eyes of the general public so that there could be a greater pool of applicants. With more hats in the ring, we could ideally do better by these kids by being able to choose better placements, and having the luxury of shutting down homes that are not cutting it.

No, I don't think it should be easier. From what you have said this person was not suited to fostering/adoption anyway. She wasn't going to put the childs needs above her own, or work towards understanding the complexities that go with fostering children. We do need more foster parents, but at more important, we need the RIGHT kind of people applying for fostering and making it through the process.

I spoke a very wealthy woman who looked down her nose at assessors and people in social services, any contact with birth families etc, she might have been able to provide a comfortable home for a child, but her attitude was all wrong, making unsuitable on an emotional level and caring...Her application was unsuccessful and she was confused as to why it was turned down since she's got everything. (I have nothing against people with money, thats an example of someone who on the suface would look idea, peel back the layers and you discover why they're not.)

I also have been turned down to foster a child. Me and my husband are both 28, we have a 3 year old son, and have enough means/space/ love/ for another child. But unfortunitly my husband has some criminal record from when he was a young teenager, which made us not qualify. We're talking about a teenage offence of well over 10 years ago, which is done with.

I think they should loosen the rules a little too, because I have no record, his record was a kid fight (ok I get it was violence) but he was like 15/16 years old....and from being a 15 year old to being a 28 year old with a family, bills, our own business, no more criminal record....its time to not be judge from the past.

I know we would make great foster parents for a kid in need, but instead they would rather put the kid in a house that already has 15 foster kids, and whatever other strange story we keep seeing come out in the news about "foster kid hoarders" and what not.

But maybe that lady was right to not have a kid if shes unwilling to bring the kid to school and help the kid through therapy that is needed. Some kids come from very rough places and need that professional help to get through it.

If there is a huge need of foster parents, which I also hear is true, then near enough/ good enough should be enough in most circumstances. And a new home would be better then a home that is already too crowded with kids. I found it unreasonable that they judge my husband on his teenage action.

Foster parents are regular parents but are often looked at through a magnifying glass. the standards should remain high and foster parents need to know what is expected of them before they are licensed---at he end of training is when one should decide ---not before then. Many opt out at that point. Yes I believe the child should stay in therapy BUT that is not the responsibility of the foster parent---that's why the state pays for transporters and I certainly do NOT believe that it's the responsibility of the foster parents to transport a child to another area to attend school---here that would be illegal any how. Most all foster parents have children of their own and they must be careful not to lose sight of their first responsibilities, My state Required that an effort be pu forth to place the child in the same school district---but that is not feasible most times as there may be only one or two homes in that school district and they are always full.

Standards should remain high for the welfare of the child. My only gripe with the system in the UK is that people are turned down because they aren't of the right ethnic background. For example where I live a person or couple are more likely to be turned down because they are white and social services don't have the 'need' for many white foster carers and are crying out for non white foster carers. I understand the need to place a child with the same or similar ethnic background but on the other hand if it means putting a child with foster carers of a different ethnic background what is the problem.

I think the requirements and 'hoops' should remain the same. YES it was a lot to go through- but if that's how they make sure they are providing the best home, that's fine with me! It's not a perfect process, but nothing is perfect.

Obviously the children should remain going to therapy! What an odd idea to NOT have them continue doing something helpful with someone they trust!!

As far as the school system- I can see where that would be a tough one. I guess I figured the state would try to match up children with families in their area, if not their own town.

If the parents have jobs they have to get to, I can see where it could be hard to drive them far away for school, get to work, pick them up etc etc.

Doing foster care is not easy- but if people aren't willing to do whatever it takes, maybe they should re-consider doing it.

The rules are the rules and they are there for a reason. Stability in school, continuity in friendships, stability in treatment(s), stability in routine and things like that are often the only things that foster children have. Its bad enough losing access, or having controlled access only, to their family never mind losing everything else.

Yes, the process is a pain in the butt but its not designed to easy for the foster parents. Its intended to make things easier for the children and their care/treatment.

If there is a standard, it means it's the same for everyone. Standards are not flexible at someone's discretion and either the standard gets applied or the standard is changed...in a standard way for everyone.

I have been a foster parent, and I look at it this way: As a prospective foster parent, you are applying for the priviledge of raising and nurturing SOMEONE ELSE'S CHILD for however long you are needed.

If you had to leave your child or children with a total stranger wouldn't you want them to have a background check, no criminal record, psychological evaluations, etc. etc. etc.? I would!

The more the better!

I ended up adopting three of my foster kids, and sometimes when I am tempted to lose my temper, I tell myself, "This is my child, but they are also someone else's child. And if someone else were raising them, wouldn't I want that person to be more tolerant of them?" And guess what - it works.

I think some standards are too high and some to lenient, but as far as continuing with therapy and keeping the child in same school. I believe the child has a right to go to therapy and if this school is working, then they need to get foster parents in a area where this child can attend that school. foster parents have a responsibility to get the help for the child that they need.

The standards should be high for the exact reason that was mentioned in another post. There are a lot of people that abuse the Foster care system (foster child hoarder) I think they should also screen for drugs (we were not screened when we were going through our home study) at the time of application and random throughout.