Nothing in this blog entry is expert opinion but is based on observation of the effects of foster families. Hence it is biased and needs a rewrite. So if after you read this article and object to anything I recommend or say, then I urge you to comment to me.
It's not to hard to get a Gmail account and to become a GooglePlus member when that restricts comments. However, I am not a firm believer in perpetuating the evils of open comments, because the goods of rational discussion are not supported by the evils of spamming, and darkly negative comments which stop discussion dead.
Essentially, the family's cohesiveness ought never be challenged by the State. For the consequences of State involvement in the break-up of family are worse than the immediate situation IF and only IF the family is so dysfunctional that the children's security and safety are at threat.
During the interview to become a foster parent, it is up to the social worker to get a complete picture of the foster parents, his or her parents, and how everyone grew up. This thus will involve family therapists, and other mental health professionals. As it stands now, the gaping holes in the process leading up to being a foster parent need to be repaired.
Making these statements about foster parenting is in no way 'attacking' good foster parents. It is merely asking of social workers to enhance the security of family and the security of fostering. If this is actually done now, and my words are not in touch with today, then my words only show that I expect the process to continue to weed out "bad" parents.
One warning sign of "bad" parenting is when the social worker asks the question, "How are things going on in the home?" and there is an awkward silence followed by "Fine", "Things are alright and Sally is doing well", and "I really like it here. Thanks." Yet the foster parents and the foster child assigned to the home are not making eye contact with the workers.
If this is an Asian family with an Asian children, then the cultural trait of deference should be assumed. If they were suspected of having problems, then it's important to then say, "Well, off the record, are there problem between you, Joe and you, Jane?" and then after a minute, "How about you, Sally?" Finally, individual interviews need to be taken to help avoid the tendency for family groups to "put the lid on rotten garbage".
I actually encourage ethnic solidarity to be the practice of social workers. A lot of the problems in foster families is that the cultural milieu of the foster home may be at odds with the culture in which the child grew up. When the child is between 12 and 18, cultural traits are already hardwired and therefore, there will always be confrontation between the foster parents and the child being fostered. Therefore it is recommended that the child be matched by cultural origin, before other criteria are added to ensure fostering avoids the pitfall of any underlying agenda to continue the cycle of patriarchy.
Ethnic solidarity implies that both the child's cultural traits and the foster parents' traits match. When they do not match, then the foster parents are disqualified. Thus the home must be Asian if the child is Asian. However, the parents may be Asian or non-Asians who have adopted most of the Asian cultural traits through assimilation in an Asian community or country. This is not a racialist priotity; this is a multicultural priority.
Objection to this ethnic solidarity may be that any family is good enough to the child when his or her needs are met. I would argue that without a good ethnic match, the foster parents will rarely get the foster child from observing their family rules when the child has had a relax set of rules made arbitarily.
If you want confirmation of that, check out The World's Strictest Parents on Youtube.
No comments:
Post a Comment