Losing foster kids because of political views?

[marley2580]

couple lose foster kids

This couple lost their foster kids because they are members of UKIP, a completely legal political party. Now I totally disagree with much of what UKIP stands for, but to take kids away from a caring home because of the people's political views? This smacks of totalitarianism IMO.

 

[Eternal]

Yeah, I began fostering interviews etc before i had kids and one, the others were fine, said No because I had a religion. She was very atheist and I was really annoyed that she felt it was ok to promote her belief but not ok for me to foster because I had a belief.

 

[omfgski]

If.

 

[marley2580]

But they split those kids up and uprooted them again. I find it hard to believe that experienced foster parents with political views are worse than splitting up brothers and sisters. Either someone is approved to be a foster carer or they aren't. You can't say it's ok to foster white kids but not brown ones, either you can foster or you can't.

 

[omfgski]

.

 

[marley2580]

But it would damage any child to hear that, not just the children of immigrants. UKIP is not considered to be an extremist party, it's not considered to be on a par with the BNP (also a legal political organisation). Where do you draw the line? Do you not place working class children with a couple that are members of the Tory party for fear that they slag off 'benefit scroungers'?

 

[omfgski]

.

 

[Eternal]

I think that hearing culture, immigrants and nationality being slagged off is a whole lot different to hearing benefits being slagged off. I think a child is more likely to be aware of skin colour, culture and ethnicity than whether they come from a family of "benefit scroungers" so I don't see it as the same thing.

I do agree with this, in the sense that was to happen, they will be left with low self esteem etc, because what can you do? Whereas if it were about benefits, then that would perhaps influence them, but at least They have power over that. They can choose to not be on benefits, but they can't change who they are or the colour of their skin.

 

[summer rain]

But it would damage any child to hear that, not just the children of immigrants. UKIP is not considered to be an extremist party, it's not considered to be on a par with the BNP (also a legal political organisation). Where do you draw the line? Do you not place working class children with a couple that are members of the Tory party for fear that they slag off 'benefit scroungers'?

I have seen materials by UKIP that suggest otherwise; such as an official party document an activist got hold of that UKIP would make all Muslims sign upon getting into power which states Muslims have to agree to renounce large portions of their faith, and many UKIP members and candidates alike certainly do have extreme views about Muslims, not even mentioning their views on immigration and immigrants, so in some regards they are an extreme party

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/12/ukip-far-right-bnp

Apparently the council in question had been watching the situation for some time and perhaps they had seen the foster parents in question expressing their views in front of the children? As these details often have to be kept confidential due to 'family law' reasons we will never know the whole truth xx

 

[Lina]

UKIP is nothing more than educated BNP. The current serving prime minister David Cameron referred to them in a 2006 interview as "a bunch of ... fruit cakes and loonies and closet racists mostly".

 

[marley2580]

I agree that UKIP have views that I (and many people) disagree with, but why does someone holding these views stop them being able to be a foster carer? The couple could have refused to take the kids if they really didn't want them. Again, I ask where do you draw the line? Do you stop home educators from being foster carers because they disagree with sending kids to school? Do you stop fat people being foster carers for fear they may turn the kids fat? Do you stop Muslim foster carers from fostering any child that is not Muslim? We have (or are supposed to have) freedom of thought in this country.

It really worries me that the state is now able to get you in 'trouble' if your thoughts or views disagree with theirs. First they came...

 

[summer rain]

My late friend was a Muslim foster carer and yes it was the case that aside from some newborns up to toddler age she fostered on a very temporary basis, virtually all the children she fostered were Muslim and of a similar background to her and her OH (she was English her OH Pakistani), this was just how the council ran things and it suited my friend as she didn't feel confident that she could meet the cultural needs of children from other backgrounds as well as someone from a more similar background to them could. Children in the care system are often extremely vulnerable and come from a very unsettled environment, I think placing children with foster carers from a similar cultural or religious background is important (and this isn't to do with skin colour and I don't think skin colour should play any role). There are a lot of organisations that haven't been outlawed but hold very extreme views such as the NF and EDL, being legal doesn't mean the views you hold aren't abhorrent nor that they are not an obstacle to being a suitable foster carer. Xx

 

[marley2580]

No where does it say that these views were being shared with the kids. If there was a concern that the children were being abused or mentally damaged that would have been the reason for taking them away. But it wasn't. They were taken away 'in case' they were adversely affected. People can hold views but not pass them on. Many foster carers are religious but take care not to pass those views on to the children.

Your friend that is a foster carer has made the decision for herself to not take children from other faiths/backgrounds, and that's fair enough. But would it be right for the council to give her some kids that she felt she could look after effectively, only for the council to take them back because they believed she was 'too religious'?

 

[omfgski]

.

 

[Ozzieshunni]

I can see both sides. When it comes to fostering, you really want to provide children with a sense of consistancy. They have probably been through a lot and struggle to develop connections.

However, if the council had been monitoring the situation for a while and felt it was in the best interests of the children to be relocated, then they surely had a reason to do so.

Remember, we don't always get a clear picture of what goes on behind closed doors. Stories will always be one sided and the media will play the sympathy card to get people enraged over the system.

 

[summer rain]

No where does it say that these views were being shared with the kids. If there was a concern that the children were being abused or mentally damaged that would have been the reason for taking them away. But it wasn't. They were taken away 'in case' they were adversely affected. People can hold views but not pass them on. Many foster carers are religious but take care not to pass those views on to the children.

Your friend that is a foster carer has made the decision for herself to not take children from other faiths/backgrounds, and that's fair enough. But would it be right for the council to give her some kids that she felt she could look after effectively, only for the council to take them back because they believed she was 'too religious'?

It was actually the council who said she could for the most part, only take Muslim children, not her decision. She was happy with their decision but it wasn't her decision to make, it was an overall policy of wherever possible placing children with foster parents of a similar religious, ethnic and cultural background. Although recently the tories claim to have changed such guidelines they are still in place in many areas. And my friend died a few years ago may she rest in peace hence me saying my 'late' friend.

Oh and yes the council did remove children from her home on several occasions due to various reasons, change in the circumstances as to why they were originally fostered, or on rare occasions her or the council feeling that those children in particular would be better placed with a different family. She didn't take it personally and it was something she knew you had to be prepared for when becoming a foster carer. Over the years she fostered close to 100 children.

From my understanding the couple in this case were told them caring for these children was a very temporary arrangement but they were telling the children to call them mum and dad and potentially confusing the children by making things seem more permanent than they were. Also while they haven't identified themselves the foster parents have given out enough details about themselves and the children In question that apparently many local people have figured out who they are. When fostering there are all types of issues regarding confidentiality and protecting the interests and identity of the children involved and by going to the media this couple have breached these. Xx

 

[Dopeyjopey]

This shouldn't be allowed at all. How far does it go? That Tory government only allow Tory foster carers so the children can all grow up and be Tories too? What's the point of democracy when people are penalised for supporting the 'wrong' party? I've heard of some terrible things happening to children in care; being around a UKIP supporter is not a biggie in comparison to those monsters.

 

[omfgski]

.

 

[Dopeyjopey]

This shouldn't be allowed at all. How far does it go? That Tory government only allow Tory foster carers so the children can all grow up and be Tories too? What's the point of democracy when people are penalised for supporting the 'wrong' party? I've heard of some terrible things happening to children in care; being around a UKIP supporter is not a biggie in comparison to those monsters.

I don't think that's an equal comparison really. The issue wasn't that the children would or wouldn't grow up to be members of a particular party like in your example. The issue was the party that these carers are members of has negative views about immigrants and multiculturilism and that there may have been concern these views could impact on the children's care as these children's parents are immigrants. Also, while being around a supporter of UKIP may not be "a biggie" in comparison to other terrible things that happen in care, that doesn't mean it is a good place for a child of an immigrant to be.

Was there any proof at all that the carers' views were having an impact on their ability to give a stable, nurturing environment? Were they proven to be negative towards the children? Personally I wholeheartedly disagree with the views and stance of UKIP, but disagreeing with a government's policy on immigration doesn't mean that they hate immigrants.

 

[omfgski]

[.