why we won't foster

[percival]

This is in response to a reply to my last post by angelofthenorth, which got me thinking.

Should people who go for IVF or other conception aids foster a child before they are granted help? This strategy has a lot going for it, to be sure. It would make parents reevaluate whether they really want a child, whether they can cope with a child who has problems, and whether they can deal with the relentlessness of it all.

But this effectively boils down to the question whether potential parents should be able to cope with children with grave behavioural difficulties and deep seated psychological damage before they are allowed to have children.

This is really a difficult one. By those standards, MY HUSBAND AND MYSELF SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PROCREATE because I am pretty sure that the two of us will not be able to handle a child who has suffered so much abuse that s/he is unable to connect to anybody. The two of us will not be able to deal with the constant challenges by a child who has been deeply deprived in his/her early childhood. The chances of a child of ours to be deeply deprived in their childhood is minimal of course even though I plan to be WORKING and hence will be a BAD MOTHER COMPLETELY UNFIT FOR CHILDREN.

So maybe it's good that we haven't conceived yet, because we're clearly unfit to be parents?

(ETA: I'd rather volunteer to work with children in need a couple of hours a week to work on reading or social skills or to provide safe touch than foster. This way, I'd do my thing, even though I AM TOO BLOODY INEPT TO HAVE MY OWN BABY.)

Comments

[tefkas.livejournal.com]

*massive hugs*

Please don't be so hard on yourself, though...

As for the fostering - as you say, it would asking would-be-parents to prove themselves at the highest level (indeed, in most cases where the biological parents had not been able to cope), and even then, not starting from scratch, but having to leap into parenthood midstream - this would be incredibly tough, IMHO. And what would it prove, really?

Which is not to denigrate fostering at all. It's just saying that fostering is a very different thing to actually parenting a child from birth. IT doesn't necessarily follow, then, that success in one field 'qualifies' you for the other (and this works both ways - just because someone's a parent doesn't mean that they'd make a good Foster parent).

Whether the mother works or not is really not a determinent as to the quality of the parenting, IMHO - this is not an area where you have nice tick boxes and stuff that add up to a final Pass/Fail flag for admission to Parenthood.

With much love...

[apel.livejournal.com]

Umm, why would people who need to help nature along a bit have to prove that they would be good parents when people who are too stupid to use contraception don't? And the way that is suggested is a really nasty way of using particularly vulnerable children as pawns. I can just imagine how I would feel if I was being fostered and I knew that the people who took care of me only did it because they had to or they'd be denied IVF. Imagine the leverage such a child would have. "Either you buy me an ice cream or I'll tell the social worker that you're neglecting me" is probably one of the more benign ways that a manipulative child could use this in.

[cynthia-black.livejournal.com]

I echo what slowfox said.

While I think there is something to be said for couples with infertility problems at least considering fostering and adoption before they jump into IVF, and even more to be said for gaining some parenting skills/advice before having kids, I do not think it is something that should be forced on a couple in that situation.

It is a very special person who can foster a child who may have behavioural and other difficulties, when they know that the child is not *theirs* and could be taken away again at any time, depending on the circumstances of the natural parents. It does not encourage bonding with the child, because the carer would just be setting themselves up to be hurt. I know I couldn't do it.

It is not a standard you should hold yourself and your husband up to - you do not necessarily need to be able to cope with the emotional havoc already wreaked by someone else on a child to be able to parent your own child(ren) effectively.

No parent feels fully adequate for the task of bringing up children (none that I've met anyway), and those that go into parenthood thinking they've got it all sussed generally change their minds pretty quickly!

And if a mother working makes her a Bad Mother Unfit For Children, then I should have mine taken away from me forthwith. I've always been very clear that I would make a very bad full-time mother - I need to work for my own sanity. And I don't think there's any evidence (so far at least) that it's had a detrimental effect on my kids.

Don't be so hard on yourself, m'dear. angelofthenorth was looking at the social issues from the perspective of having worked in the Social Services, not passing judgement on your abilities as a potential parent. There's nothing to suggest that you'd be any better or any worse at it than the rest of us.

*hugs*

[aome.livejournal.com]

I think the 'foster' requirement would be unfair, not only because of a) taking on a likely older child without any buildup to reaching those stages and b) the difficulties but also c) the child is not your own, and, as everyone on the planet told me, it's much MUCH different to take care of your own child than someone else's.

There are, of course, no guarantees in life and it's always possible a biological child could have long-term health or emotional problems. But to *make* you tend to a child with one or more of those is a grossly unfair assessment of your parenting potential.

Loads of parents work and their children survive just fine.

[ciircee.livejournal.com]

Off topic: I think AngeloftheNorth had her tongue in her cheek on that comment and didn't really mean to say that she believed it.

On Topic: I don't even know where to begin. On the practical side, yes maybe the money might be better spent elsewhere. IVF is expensive and so are a lot of fertility treatments. Why not improve facilities, develope better cancer treatments, sort out care for the elderly...on and on. I guess the 'better' area is always in the eye of the beholder.

But who knows what these children, waiting in the wings, might do? What problems might they solve? Their possibilities are so endless that it takes my breath away. Children are the future and even if the Earth is overpopulated, maybe that's a problem that God means for them to figure out. Who can say?

I think that any couple with the means to pay for it themselves, without going into debt (or at least more into debt than they would for some other 'luxury') should pay for it themselves. It'd be less of a tax burden that way, I suppose. Besides, one hopes that the children grow up to pay taxes, anyway.

As for so many years of wait time/trying time: I know that, in the States at least, doctors only go to IVF when all the steps before it have failed. Unless a couple really wants to go for IVF right off the bat, they wait until they've run the course of everything else...so I don't see the point of waiting if a doctor has determined that nothing short of IVF (or beyond) will work.

I hang around at storknet.com and the personal stories of trying to concieve, fertility treatments, etc. are so moving. Some of the tests and treatments are so invasive and leach out so much of the intimacy of a relationship. The post-coital test is just not nice! But it's sometimes necessary. Any couple wiling to endure the things I've seen these women go through *should* be given the option of doing so...it should be something that's covered.

I don't know what NHS requires for eligibility for IVF treatment but I think any couple seeking fertility treatment should have to prove some financial stability...just because it is an expensive procedure and...I don't know. It's some justification that 'see, this child won't automatically end up on welfare'.

Which is sort of dumb, I know. Nobody *else* has to prove that they'd be financially able to care for a child...they just have them and yes, sometimes at the expense of the tax payers. Fertility and contraception should really *both* be something the NHS deals with, at that point.

*sigh* It's all such a tangle. One thing I'm certain of is that there is *no way* to determine who would be a good parent or not. I think most of us feel we're doing okay and that our kids would forgive us any mistakes we might make.

The saddest thing is that Edward and I have the running joke that three out of four unplanned pregnancies happen to us; we only planned our Allie and the rest...*sigh* I feel like such an ass being pregnant by accident when some people (you, one of my older sisters) would do almost anything to have my problems. Trust me, if I could box up the fertility, I'd overnight it to you.

If I've helped or made sense, great. If I've overstepped, feel free to make a large post mocking me. I won't mind. ^.^

[queenriley.livejournal.com]

Okay, not addressing the IVF thing as I 1)don't know much about the NHS and 2)have very very muddled and often changing views on it. I also don't feel right giving my opinion on infertility to someone who is going through it when I not only have one child but could have had two, can still have two. It's not really my place.

Anyway, what I really wanted to say here. JUST BECAUSE YOU WILL WORK DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BAD MOTHER. Hear that? Shall I say it again?

You should be allowed to procreate. You will be a good mother. You'll be a great mother, in fact. It's all there, all the necessary stuff. I've seen you in action with a toddler who did just fine with me leaving you alone with her for a short amount of time, even though she'd just met you, and she's usually not that taken with people right away... not to the point of me leaving her alone with them for a brief time.

Got that? I'll say it again, if you need me too. I'll say it as many times as it takes for you to believe it.

[loup_noir]

I've never wanted to be a mother, so I don't fully understand this all-encompassing need to get pregnant and give birth.

Personally, I can't see why the government should give out money to help people achieve pregnancy when a) there are a lot of unwanted children who need homes and b) the world is already overpopulated. Frankly, and I'm not trying to be cruel or insensitive, I'd rather the money was put into contraception and and support of the existing population.

Your post sounds as though it was written while very upset. Many wonderful mothers work outside the home while their children are growing up. Mine did. That's hardly a problem as long as the children get some attention. Many women have problems becomming pregnant. While it is a great sorrow for them, their lives are still full of joy and growth. I hope you can see the happiness that's still ahead for you and not drown in this point of darkness.

[anyro.livejournal.com]

Maybe I shouldn't reply to this because I neither have children nor am I trying to have a baby at the moment. It just seems to me that there are too many 'should' in the discussion. I mean, over the centuries, people have always had children, or adopted children, or whatever, and things have either gone right or wrong. I know that sounds trivial, but it seems there is no telling whether somebody will be a good parent, or get along with their kids, regardless of whether or not the kids are people's biological kids, and regardless of whether people live a 'well-ordered' life. If only perfect parents were allowed to have kids, the human race would be extinct soon. - Same goes for working mothers. (Of course, we know that whatever goes wrong with a kid, the mother is always to blame, so I suppose there is no need to discuss the problem of working FATHERS, right?)

As everybody else says, fostering is a special case which should not be forced on anybody. However, I used to know a couple who were fostering children and who were very happy with their situation. These
children were aged 2 and 4; both came from difficult situations (mother underage / alcoholic). To me, it was amazing that in spite of that, it seemed to work well - even with a friendly contact to the children's mothers.

Mind you, I'm not saying anyone should be forced to foster children, or withheld IVF if they don't want to foster. It only seems to me that it's not easy to say in advance whether or not things will become difficult.

[piperx.livejournal.com]

I can't see why the government should give out money to help people achieve pregnancy

A question to anyone willing to answer: where does the IHS get its funding from? Since it's a government agency, am I right in assuming it comes from taxes?

[perceval.livejournal.com]

I've never wanted to be a mother, so I don't fully understand this all-encompassing need to get pregnant and give birth.
Be glad you don't, because it is quite painful to go through. Imagine desiring something with all your heart and not getting it, even though you are doing everything you can to achieve that goal, and you are close to what it's like.

I completely see your point, and I respect the decision of any woman to be childless or childfree, whichever way you want to put it. Contraception and sex education is indeed a major issue, especially in preventing teen pregnancies. In fact, I'm also really in favour of parenting classes for EVERYBODY, because there seem to be a whole load of parents out there who had a baby just because it seemed to be the thing to do, or because they wanted to repair a relationship. And that is just so beside the point!

Finally, thank you for empathising with the tone of the post and seeing behind the factual content. I was actually close to breaking down while I wrote it :)

which, I must stress, is NOT angelofthenorth's fault. She did make valid and good points in her original comment!

[piperx.livejournal.com]

Oh honey... *hugs*

I disagree so much with everything you've said, I don't even know where to begin.

Should people who go for IVF or other conception aids foster a child before they are granted help?

Definitely not. As slowfox and aome have said, caring for a foster child, especially one with emotional problems, is vastly different from caring from your own child who you've raised since birth. Success in one area has little to do with success in the other. I've seen this first hand. I have worked intimately with "problem" children, in a group home for autistic children and also a residential treatment facility for *severly* abused children. One of the things that really struck me is how completely different the mindset is for caregivers of these children than for parents of "non-problem" children. In the treatment of abused children, there are very specific methods for dealing with their unique problems. These methods are often inappropriate if used with non-abused children and vice versa. After months of working in these intense environments, I had to completely rearrange my caregiving strategy when in the company of well-behaved little girls and boys.

It does take a special person to handle abused children appropriately. I doubt most parents would be up to the challenge. I think that's a ridiculous standard and I sincerely hope you aren't holding yourself up to it.

And of course being a working mother has no bearing on your ability to be a good parent. There are plenty of working parents who are much better parents than some who stay at home.

What's more, I know you and you would be a wonderful mother because you're caring and thoughtful and you've got so much love in your heart to give a little girl or boy. So quit saying you'd be a bad mother because it's just not true!

And please don't be discouraged by others' comments. That's the bane of parents and parents-to-be: others' sometimes seemingly impossible standards of what makes a good parent. Go by your own instincts first and foremost -- they will serve you best.

Lastly, I added a comment to your last post and I stand by what I said there. Infertility is (usually) a medical issue. Sure there are probably much more important things that the money could be spent on but why does it have to be an either/or choice? We live in an advanced society, if improvements need to be made in one area, other important areas should not have to be sacrificed.

I'm a huge proponent of adoption as you know but I realize it's not the right choice for everyone. No one should be forced into it and you should have a choice available to you. Period.

[angua9.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I'm a bit behind with this.

I greatly respect and admire people who do foster care for children. But I would hesitate to do it. Not because the children are vulnerable and emotionally-damaged and hard to manage. But because it would break my heart.

How can you love a kid, and be a parent, and know that it could be TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU at any time? I know people who wanted a baby and they fostered two who got RIPPED AWAY from them before they finally got to adopt the third one. They survived that. I don't know if I could.

People who desperately want to have children are the LEAST equipped to take the proper "come and go" attitude that you have to have for foster children. People with grown children are probably the best.


About IVF, you know I'm a big fan of it, thanks to my three adorable little nephews. I don't see why medical problems such as impotence and infertility and anxiety and hearing loss, which only affect "quality of life," shouldn't get treated just as much as problems which kill you. If your body isn't working right, it's a medical problem, period. I mean, NHS pays for GLASSES, for God's sake.

And having children is a major, major part of your life.


Okay, and I'm sure you KNOW that working mothers can be excellent mothers. And working fathers, too! The way I explained it to my unborn children was "Look at it this way, kid. You can have a working mother, or not be born at all -- your choice." They went with the whole life thing. (ironic that ten years later I chose to quit working anyway, but that's a different story).

Anyway... I know you're past this now, but I wanted to put in my two (three? four?) knuts.

*hugs*

[voxmaille.livejournal.com]

::loves:: ::hugs:: ::loves::

There's no reason why you should have to have a "higher standard" set for you when you explore parenting options.

On the other hand--to be fair to the kind of children you're discussing--there are a lot of very young children in foster care, at least in the States. Also, I've found that many of my most severely abused kids (10 or younger) still were able to bond very well and were able to accept and express affection. Almost all of them were extremely eager to please, and sought adult love and attention--though not always constructively.

And to be fair to you and your abilities, as well: I personally have found that my experiences and struggles with anxiety and depression have helped me understand the immediacy and the overwhelming nature that distress has for children (whether temporarily distressed/frustrated/scared or more chronically) and it's helped me bond with children more easily and be a more effective caregiver than others who haven't had those experiences.

[voxmaille.livejournal.com]

See, I disagree with that assessment. I've found that the methods I learned to care for abused and disabled children are the same methods that I need when I care for nondisabled and/or emotionally stable children. With children who are "normal," I find that I just have to resort to the most structured "behavior plans" a whole lot less, though even "normal" kids end up on the most structured plans for short stretches of time.

[voxmaille.livejournal.com]

God knows, though, in some cases there should be a little tick box. And some people shouldn't get the second chances that the system gives them.

[voxmaille.livejournal.com]

Well, that's an oversimplification of the matter, really. Historically when children are raised inviolence, they grow up to be violent. Since individual violence is no longer tolerated by our society--as it was in the past, what was "right" or "wrong" child-rearing in the past is quite a bit different from raising children today. In fact, the concept of "childhood" as we think of it didn't emerge until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and understandings of "adolescence" emerged even later than that. The conceptual shift between dealing with a "tiny adult"--complete with all of the faculties that term implies, and dealing with a "child" is huge, and each puts a very different spin on the roles of biological parent and/or legal guardian.

[in-the-blue.livejournal.com]

You know... everyone who plans to become a parent should do lots of long hard thinking about what it means. Not just people who are going the IVF or other fertility route.

There are ideas and ideals about parenting, and ideas and ideals about children. The truth is that each child is his or her own very special and very unique challenge, and practicing ahead of time with one child won't necessarily even relate to what happens with another child.

You're not inept. You're going through something that many other women before you have gone through. It doesn't make you any worse or any less capable or any more incompetent or any less worthy than anyone else. It's frustrating and it's heartbreaking but on the objective side, it's also a great way to take the opportunity to learn about yourself. Acknowledge what you want and acknowledge what you need, and don't let anyone shoot down your dreams.

[anyro.livejournal.com]

Er... aren't you mixing up a few basic concepts here? All I said is that you can't say in advance how things will work out, as in, for example: mother has an academic child rearing degree and will dedicate all of her life to her children; father is very educated and makes a lot of money => child will automatically have a fantastic childhood and turn out a great person. It just doesn't work that way! But that doesn't mean that you can expose your children to violence and think it won't harm them. - By the way, where do you bring the 17th century into this discussion - in terms of making sense, I mean?

[awelkin.livejournal.com]

Well.

I read your later post first, and your first post later.

I'm glad you feel better now. It's hard when you want something so badly, and you can't get there.

BUT

keep trying. Accept your feelings as natural, but, like you usually do, don't let them get you. Emotions, the damned things, will, when you least expect it.

Take care of yourself, and don't worry. We understand when/if you break down.

Catherine

[perceval.livejournal.com]

You mean they should not be allowed to tear their children away from the foster parents they have come to love?

[perceval.livejournal.com]

Well, what Vox was saying (I think) is that personal qualifications and personality of the parents are only one part of the equation - the other is what society expects of parents and of children. There is quite a literature on how children used to be raised to be violent, to fend for themselves, and how e.g. a systematic disdain for women was instilled in them from a young age (Elisabeth Badinter to name but one author).

[perceval.livejournal.com]

My question is how do parents (adopters and fosterers) who do not know about these behaviour plans cope?

[perceval.livejournal.com]

sigh. yes, this is my path, and it's not easy.

thanks for the perspective! :)

[voxmaille.livejournal.com]

Exactly. :)

[voxmaille.livejournal.com]

Yes. I think the *second* a biological parent threatens a child with a knife (to name one instance that I know about), that parent doesn't get a second chance to "earn back" the child.

[voxmaille.livejournal.com]

In particular, I was referring to the comment "things have always gone either right or wrong," because the definition of "right" and "wrong" parenting has changed dramatically in recent history. In most of Western society today, we wouldn't bring our children to view an execution, nor would we consider that appropriate parenting--no matter how the child eventually "turned out."

[voxmaille.livejournal.com]

However, that was acceptable parental behavior even into the 19th century. Other examples of changing societal expectations that challenge the implication that there is a stable construct of family life and child-rearing in society include historical attitudes towards child labor (outside and inside the home), severe child-beating (and wife-beating, for that matter), and what we would consider emotional neglect. These were a part of life for people of all social strata in the past. By no means does this imply that we should continue with these historical attitudes. It is instead pointing out that the child-rearing practices and family life of centuries past do not necessarily provide grounds for arguments relating to family life today.

[cerise-noir.livejournal.com]

I've been incog-negress myself wallowing for the last couple days so i believe i've missed the furvor of this convo, but here's my two pence.

1. (Story) a sistren of mine's sister couldn't conceive, she and her husband decided they'd adopt a new born, they (we - friends in solidarity) waited for a year now. three weeks ago they were given a spanking new born; however last week as they planned the christening and a naming cermony, the social work came to collect the baby back. the birth mother had decided she wanted her baby. everybody is still in shock and deadly quiet.

2. my mom has had 4 pregnancies and 6 children. Two sets of twins. my mother emabarassed me at the age of 14 when a family planning woman came to do a survey and she asked me to name all the contraceptives i knew, before i could open my mouth my mother announced none worked she'd had her six children on all you could name. we see the exgeration but you get here point.

3. at 30 i starve off the fear that when i'm ready i will not be as fertile as my 'penis sniffing pregnant' mother (family joke). i can't honestly say i've "tried" to have a kid, but i've never been in fear of having a kid in my now 12 yr sexual history.

what i have discovered the key to growing older is really all about is how you roll with the punches. things you least expect expect. i have no words of wisdom for you my dear, but walk in the grace of your faith. believe that no matter what life throws your dreams or you nightmares, like time, it will pass and you will learn. the most important thing to remember is no matter what what materializes in your life, it's all about love. loving children whether their your or not is a gift. i watch my nephew from a distance grow and i am filled with a pride i share with his father. we are all children of this world just claim them.

(i don't know if i make sense, but it's how i feel)

one love, one heart