UK Foster Parents Have Children Removed Because of Their Political Party Affiliation

[prisonchaplain]

I was pretty astounded. The officials who made the call appear resolute. UKIP Couple Loses Foster Children over Politics - IBTimes UK

[Vort]

Unbelievable. Does the UK make any pretense any more to being a free country?

[prisonchaplain]

Well, yes...but we weren't talking about healthcare. :-)

[Guest]

That is alarming.

[Vort]

So being a homosexual is not reason enough to deny someone parental rights, but belonging to a political party that is not sufficiently leftist is.

[Mahone]

Unbelievable. Does the UK make any pretense any more to being a free country?

It's a little unfair to judge several entire countries based on on a single decision by one council. The reason this has made the media is because political membership is not usually considered relevant when assigning children to foster parents. There is an investigation to be conducted, and it will probably be reversed.

It's also worth bearing in mind that these are foster parents, not adoptive parents. Foster children rarely stay with one set of foster parents for any great length of time. It's intended to be temporary, so them being taken away at short notice isn't entirely unexpected, regardless of reasons.

[SanctitasDeo]

"Also the fact of the matter is I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs. The children have been in care proceedings before and the judge had previously criticised us for not looking after the children's cultural and ethnic needs, and we have had to really take that into consideration with the placement that they were in," Joyce Thacker, the strategic director of children and young people's services at the Council told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

What exactly are ethnic and cultural needs? I find this a little weird. I feel like people don't have ethnic needs. Your culture comes from the people you are around/have been around in your life. These children probably don't have a culture beyond that of their foster family.

Also not in the artlcle: Do the children feel abused? Do they feel that their cultural and ethnic needs have been met/not met? How old is the older girl? I wonder where the kids would rather stay.

[Dravin]

What exactly are ethnic and cultural needs?

Yeah, I'm kinda curious what exactly that means.

(Fake US Scenario)

Agency: This child is from a southern family, do you eat much grits?

Foster Family: Well, no...

Agency: Do you drink sweet tea?

Foster family: No, we drink water and sometime milk for the most part.

Agency: Do you listen to county music?

Foster Family: We're a classical music family.

Agency: I'm sorry, you'll be unable to met the ethnic and cultural needs of this child.

[pam]

I'm not sure your scenario would acurately describe ethnic. At least in my mind.

But culturally yes. While some might think culture would also mean ethnic it is separate. The culture in the south would probably go for the grits and sweet tea and country music. But not necessarily the ethnic backgrounds of people who live in the south.

[Dravin]

I'm not sure your scenario would acurately describe ethnic. At least in my mind.

But culturally yes. While some might think culture would also mean ethnic it is separate. The culture in the south would probably go for the grits and sweet tea and country music. But not necessarily the ethnic backgrounds of people who live in the south.

Southerners is an ethnic group. It's a rather broad one of course, but it's an ethnic group. It can be subdivided if one so cares.

1eth·nic adjective \ˈeth-nik\

Definition of ETHNIC

2

a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background <ethnic minorities> <ethnic enclaves>

b : being a member of a specified ethnic group <an ethnic German>

c : of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics <ethnic neighborhoods> <ethnic foods>

See ethnic defined for English-language learners »

Link: Ethnic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Edited November 25, 2012 by Dravin

[pam]

Well I did give the disclaimer "at least in my mind."

And you are right. It's very broad. In fact to me it's totally stretching it.

[Dravin]

Well I did give the disclaimer "at least in my mind."

And you are right. It's very broad. In fact to me it's totally stretching it.

Not really, it fits the definition of an ethnic group. It's limited, one could go more specific such as say Rural Southern Appalachians of Scots-Irish decent, but that doesn't mean the less specific is any less an ethnic group (it's just generally less meaningful the broader it is). If you define what you feel a ethnic group is it'd help me know where you are coming from.

And I'm wondering if you were semi-whooshed. I choose a deliberately mild example of cultural/ethnic difference in other to highlight that 'ethnic and cultural needs' is a rather ill defined term.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Dravin

[SanctitasDeo]

I liked Dravin's example, although it is very much a parody. But I am not sure exactly what they mean.

I can understand wanting to protect children from being told that their race is inferior or something like that. If the children were Italian, and the family really hated Italians and were busy teaching the children to hate themselves and their culture, obviously this would not be a good environment.

However, it just sounds like they support a party that opposes immigration, which isn't necessarily racist (although it could be). It certainly doesn't make them unfit parents.

If an orphaned child comes from Arab Muslim parents, do the foster parents have to be Muslim? Raise the child in Islam even though they are not Muslim? Greek Orthodox? Mormon? Neo-Pagan? Atheist? Religion is a huge part of many cultures. Do we have to find Balkan parents for the Balkan child?

I think that the basic requirements that a parent care for the child's physical and emotional needs as a human being are really all that should be required.

[prisonchaplain]

There is an investigation to be conducted, and it will probably be reversed.

I hope so. However, those who made this decision have not recanted, nor have they "walked back" their ruling. They seem to believe their judgment was valid--that immigrant children should not be placed in the homes of those belonging to an alleged anti-immigration political party.

What concerns me is that this could be America's future.

[Backroads]

Wow. I have no words for it.

Mahone, I do hope there will be an investigation and I do hope it is decided that political leanings in and of themselves have no place in determining foster care.

[Just_A_Guy]

IMHO, the problem isn't that the Council has - or is using - this power (would you really want South Carolina DCFS placing a black kid with a family whose dad is an active member of the KKK?)

The problems, IMHO, are a) that the couple wasn't screened properly, with the result is that the kids have been yanked around more than necessary; and b) possibly an unfair labeling of the UKIP. Not being familiar with their politics, I'm in no place to pass judgment on that particular issue.

Now, if the Council were removing children from their legal and natural parents on political grounds (as was done recently with a neo-Nazi couple in Appalachia, or with the FLDS kids at the YFZ raid a couple of years ago) - I have a real problem with that. But where kids have already been put in state custody, I think the state has a right to be picky about who they farm those kids out to.

[Vort]

Thanks for the thoughtful and level-headed response, JaG.

[prisonchaplain]

I know that JaG was not equating the KKK with UKIP. Instead, the fair point was that some worldviews might be incompatible with cross-cultural fostering. However, the few articles I have read convince me that the Council is way out of line. UKIP is described as a mainstream political party with a fair number of actual politicians in parliament. It's definitely a third party, but far more influential than any American third party. Thus, even though some social workers might sincerely believe UKIP is racist (just as some believe the American GOP is racist), they should not have the right to disqualify foster parents with a successful track record, based only upon their party membership.

[prisonchaplain]

It appears that the decision-makers are drawing the drawbridge, circling the wagons, and trying to hide behind "on-going investigation." So, here's the update...though no apparent change, and certainly no apologies to the foster carerers.

Ukip foster care couple 'surprised' at lack of apology from Rotherham council after it removed children from their care - Home News - UK - The Independent

[prisonchaplain]

In yet another update, the thought-police apparently believe it is better that this family of three children be split into separate homes rather than be subjected to the loving care of foster parents who were actually learning the children's language. After all, if such things carry on we might have young immigrants growing up and joining UKIP. The horror!

Children in UKIP foster row have been split up: Decision sparks further criticism of Rotherham council | Mail Online

[Gramajane]

We were foster parents for 10 years. The first child placed with us was a 5 week old part Native American baby girl. We had her for about a month and she was sent back home, only to be sent back to us sick and without any of the clothing or blankets we had sent home with her.

She seemed to have colic really badly and reacted VERY differently to car trips than any child I knew, as she would scream the whole 1/2 hr each way I was forced by the system to drive with her to go visit her birth parents, every other day.

The parents refused to ride the bus (no car- no job) to come visit her. It would take me the whole rest of the day after a visit to get her calmed down again, and she would cry most all the time OF her visit. I waited in the hall and could hear her.

I tried EVERYTHING to help her deal with the drive, (sleep in car seat to begin trip - she would wake and scream, sleep before so she was totally rested, feed her before, or during or give bottle to her parents to calm her, different car seats, music during trips, heart beat recordings, another woman friend of mine, (former Foster care child herself, who was also Native American) to attend to her as I drove, with pats, gentle giggling, holding her hands etc, stopping 1/2 way through the ride to calm her as she would begin to totally lose it, tears and deep sobbing etc. --- nothing helped.

Finally I was feeling so bad for her like it was almost abuse to transport her plus I wondering if I was getting Post Traumatic Stress from not being able to help her, and so I requested that Foster services provide other transport for her. Right in that phone call request, they told me that they would not do that, but would come and get her to place in another home instead. I quickly told them, I would transport her! They said, no, that I wasn't her culture anyway, and they now had a Native American foster mother for her. I begged, that she was used to us etc, no good. I cried quite a lot after that, and decided I would never ask for help again.

I later found out that the Native American foster Mom, declared the baby had colic so bad that she had to put her in Day Care, as she couldn't do anything to calm her down! (now I think the baby was going through drug or alcohol withdrawal and that is why the drive upset her?) And no, the day care people were not Native Americans. The baby was only 1/2 anyway!

But the good news was she finally went to her fathers mother, who had a sister still living at home who was a nurse, so I believe she got in good hands. :) -- It was hard but I would do it again, as I see it as baby sitting for Heavenly Father. :) The kids need as much stable love and good care as possible!

[Jamie123]

I've been following this story since it first broke. It seems to me that the Rotherhan council did what "seemed reasonable at the time" (based on some foggy notions of what the UKIP is about) and horribly misjudged what the reaction would be. There was a council leader on TV yesterday trying to explain the decision and making a pretty poor job of it: I was counting on my fingers the number of times she said "we've got to consider the long term interests of the children" (as if repetition of this phrase explained anything) and she said at one point that NO IMMIGRATION* was the "mantra" of the UKIP. (Is it?) It's clear they are sticking to their guns simply because to do otherwise would make them look stupid.

* I just checked - I got it wrong. What Joyce Thacker actually said was "If for example the party mantra is ending the active promotion of multiculturalism, I have to think about that...." You can hear the whole interview here: Audioboo / Council protected children from 'strong views'. This was a radio interview though - I'm sure there was a TV one as well.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Jamie123

[prisonchaplain]

I can almost understand the inititial decision. However, when we do something that, in hindsight, is really stupid, the wise thing to do is say, "Wow, we made a really poor decision. We meant well, but this was so wrong. The children will be returned immediately, and we state for the public record that our agency means no disrespect for UKIP, a legal political organization with significant support in our community." Alas, when did humility and wisdom ever override ideological arrogance and moral smugness, when one is in power?

[Vort]

I've been following this story since it first broke. It seems to me that the Rotherhan council did what "seemed reasonable at the time" (based on some foggy notions of what the UKIP is about) and horribly misjudged what the reaction would be. There was a council leader on TV yesterday trying to explain the decision and making a pretty poor job of it: I was counting on my fingers the number of times she said "we've got to consider the long term interests of the children" (as if repetition of this phrase explained anything) and she said at one point that NO IMMIGRATION* was the "mantra" of the UKIP. (Is it?) It's clear they are sticking to their guns simply because to do otherwise would make them look stupid.

* I just checked - I got it wrong. What Joyce Thacker actually said was "If for example the party mantra is ending the active promotion of multiculturalism, I have to think about that...." You can hear the whole interview here: Audioboo / Council protected children from 'strong views'. This was a radio interview though - I'm sure there was a TV one as well.

Sticking to their guns when they've been shown to be bigots is making them look far more stupid than 'fessing up and apologizing would ever have done. I agree with PC.

[lizrenowden]

Interview with the foster parents:-

BBC News - Rotherham foster couple want council apology

There was a video on the evening news and if I can find a link to it I will add it.

Video link as promised

BBC News - Rotherham foster couple want children back

Edited November 28, 2012 by lizrenowden
add video link