Something I am seeing quite a lot of and I'm not suggesting it's a new thing, is less than ideal foster placement matching.
Somewhere down the line, people start to see the results of this as the relationship between carer and child is fairly mediocre...not terrible...but somewhat lacking.
The placement does the job...just....(if it was terrible it would be an easy decision) but social workers are starting to think a move might be better for the child than remaining where they are.
However, because social workers and guardians are aware of the impact of multiple moves and negative outcomes......the placement continues.....
What are people's thoughts about this?
In an ideal world, everything would run smoothly. Being realistic, anyone could do our job if it was easy, the fact is we just have to make the best decisions possible with lots of factors influencing things. There is no such thing as a perfect family set-up, but we dont intervene on every family. As long as that 'good enough mothering' is there, people are happy and doing well, that should be fine. Moving people around to find a perfect match is counter-productive inho. I'm not saying we should just place kids wherever, I mean as long as it is the closest match possible to begin with. Just my thoughts really, never worked in fostering so forgive my ignorance.
Andy_Pandy: In an ideal world, everything would run smoothly. Being realistic, anyone could do our job if it was easy, the fact is we just have to make the best decisions possible with lots of factors influencing things. There is no such thing as a perfect family set-up, but we dont intervene on every family. As long as that 'good enough mothering' is there, people are happy and doing well, that should be fine. Moving people around to find a perfect match is counter-productive inho. I'm not saying we should just place kids wherever, I mean as long as it is the closest match possible to begin with. Just my thoughts really, never worked in fostering so forgive my ignorance.
Yes, I know it's a balancing act and there is no easy answer. Maybe matching was the wrong word.....as I think most of these children are good matches for the carers (on paper). I'm talking about the sort of situation that can commonly arise when the carer and child do not bond that well...but the child is there and relatively settled.
After all, how many are 'happy and doing well'? There could be lots of other reasons the child is not doing particularly well, not least because they were abused/neglected/removed in the first place.
Of course, it's down to each individual situation, just interested in people's general experience/views re this.
Working on the basis of what the child wants may be the way forward
My opinion... (for what its worth), if a child has been placed successfully but its a mediocre match where is the problem?
There are many families out there who have these types of relationship. At least the relationship is not an abusive or neglectful one.
May be over time the child and family will relate to each other more, maybe they won't.
I have previously worked in a childrens home for emergency bed spaces under care pathways, and the lads and lasses I saw were traumatised from the experience and just needed some direction and care.
Everything else flowed from this. I would advocate time for this.
Hmm, I think there is a difference between child centred care and 'what the child wants'. Lots of children in foster care have times where they want to be moved - times when they are having boundaries enforced in particular - is it good practice to move a child every time they come up against a difficult situation, or is it better to work with children in placement to help them learn that relationships require work and compromise?
Lots of foster placements don't have a special bond, but that isn't usually because of poor matching (in my experience as a foster carer). Children usually have huge attachment and relationship difficulties when they come into care, and so it is hard for them to trust or relate, however much they and their carer wants it. I have had placements where I have really clicked with children, and have been closer to them than my birth children, and others where all I can say is that I have kept the child safe and nothing more - and this is usually about stuff going on with the child emotionally rather than because we are a good match or not. Some of the best placements I've had have been emergencies I would never have been formally matched with, and others that have looked perfect on paper have been disastrous.
I do think really troubled children should be moved to therapeutic placements when they need it though. I find that if the carer is willing to keep them in a mainstream (and cheap) placement, children are left when they could make progress better elsewhere. Otherwise, like in 'normal' families, it's about working on relationships, not giving up on them.
Some observations on posts.
Which comes first? Needs or wants?
Testing out periods!!
Good enough V Optimum.
Changing needs/wants.
External factors. (Proximities, efficacies.
Physical care V emotional.
Age.
Breaking up siblings. etc. etc.
Glad I don't work in this area.
I should have said that I am talking about children 6 years and under, so it's not about wants, it's about needs. So, no question of asking the child.
It's more where there is good enough physical care and the rest is borderline. I see it a lot.