Apparently Redbridge Council in east London is to ban smokers from fostering children to protect them from passive smoking, according to the Standard. I was wondering if people agreed that this was the right approach or perhaps too heavy handed?
CareSpace support
seems a little hypocritical when goodness know how many drugs and alcohol some parents take and are allowed to keep their kids.
There is in effect already in practice a partial ban on foster carers who smoke as BAAF recommendations are not to place young children with foster carers who smoke. Different local authorities and independent agencies implement slightly different age limits but generally pre-school children are unlikely to be placed with smokers, particularly in the private sector.
There are a lot of issues for the council to discuss before they bring in such a ban. Will they include kinship placements in that ruling. This may well be the final straw for some older carers who smoke, many of whom began fostering because they wanted to care for children not because they wanted to be pushed into having a professional identity. This will not help the general shortage of carers nationally. Offering support to carers to give up smoking may not be enough - many children who are placed are already smokers themselves and carers who work especially with teenagers may find they are hampered in giving up smoking if the children in placement smoke! Which is not uncommon. They will also need to have a policy for those who 'slip' and start smoking again (which is a known part of the addiction cycle) as well as another policy on how to police their no smoking policy.
If I may be a little cynical I would say the underlying concern is that children will grow up and sue the council for not protecting them from secondary smoking. But I cannot think of any other job in which an employer would get away with this kind of demand. Particularly one which, when you consider the hours of work, pays so little.
Do I agree with the proposal? Let's just say I can see arguments for both sides. It will come eventually though, particularly now someone has started the ball rolling by making this proposal.
Given what the majority of children have come from I would have thought passive smoking was the least risky situation they have lived with. I could understand not placing a sick child (asthma, heart condition etc) but lets face it this is not illegal and raises more revenue than it costs. Just for info I am not a smoker.
You may not be a smoker L38 but your reasoning seems to have been affected by something or other! Cigarettes are the biggest killer on the face of the planet - the tobacco industry does not dispute the 130,00 deaths per annum in the UK alone directly attributable to cigarette smoking. There are clearly established illnesses arising from secondary / passive smoking so why would we subject already disadvantaged children and young people to more potential harm?
Foster / substitute carers ought to set the highest possible examples of Care. To make any sort of argument that smoking is a good raiser of revenue is ludicrous in the extreme.
I'm an extremely heavy smoker and have been since I was a child (had my first cigarette at age 7 and have smoked continuously since). I started because of misguided peer pressure and so I reckon I'm pretty well placed to comment.
I think i'm a pretty good parent. Gill and I never smoke in the house when the kids are around (although we do when they're not there). Nevertheless I agree with Rupert. There can be no justification for placing kids with smokers if there's a viable alternative.
If there's no viable alternative foster home though - and the foster parents don't smoke in front of the kids then that may be different.
Visit my blog at http://stuartsorensen.wordpress.com/
I partly agree with L38 - foster carers who smoke may still be an improvement on their previous situation, and no I'm not a smoker either. However I agree also with Rupert - in an ideal world foster carers would not be smokers, but then we don't live in an ideal world. And the revenue from smoking goes nowhere near excusing both the obvious and hidden costs of smoking.
Research has proved that children are far more likely to smoke themselves if their parents/carers smoke therefore it is better if the parents/carers don't smoke. But, there is already a shortage of carers, I know some terrible ones first hand and I have been told that the social services are well aware of their shortcomings but they have no other carers that can 'take 3 siblings together', and they weren't smokers. So given the current shortage of good carers, smoking may well be the lesser evil.
Oh for an ideal world.
I think that smokers should be able to foster children. It is not illegal, and they shouldn't be penalised for doing it. A way around it would be to insist that they don't do it around the children (which a lot of smokers wouldn't anyway), although there would be no way to actually police that.
A smoker might make an excellent foster parent, and shouldn't be banned because they do smoke. There are a lot worse things out there, such as the situation the children will have come from, most likely.
~ The race goes not always to the swift, but to those who keep on running ~
I am looking towards the time when a fostered child brings a Prosecution against a Local Authority / Fostering Agency and even individual social worker(s) for placing them with smokers and them contracting a smoking-related illness. Can't visualise any of the excuses above holding much credence in any defence!
which is why it is getting harder for people who smoke to become foster carers and it is inevitable that fostering will become a non-smoking profession - but what do you do about smokers who are already fostering - many are experienced carers of whom there simply are not enough
Better to have a good foster carer who smokes sensibly (ie not in front of the kids) then one who doesn't and is a poor carer (and there are many).
Why stop at smoking? What about carer's that smoke, or are over weight? Given the shortage of carers I think these things need to be seen as part of the overall care that is offered by a carer - no one is perfect after all.
Sorry that should be carers that drink.
......so I guess it's not just about being a good role model for our children, its about protection.......
<:AtomicElement> <:AtomicElement> It's just so difficult to discourage, when we make it look so glamourous.......so no, foster carers shouldn't be allowed to smoke.
Hey that was odd......I never wrote AtomicElement.................whats that all about?
Hi Shel
I'm not sure why AtomicElement appeared on your post. It was in the html code of your message for some reason.
Simeon
The day they make it compulsory for Social Workers to be non-smokers is the day I'll finally let my foster daughter flush all my cigarettes down the toilet (something she has wanted to do since day one!).
Well 'Malorium' - seems that your foster-daughter is more sensible than you are!!! So go on and do what she says and stop the smokers excuse of always blaming someone else - accept personal responsibility for your dangerous habit and give it up - or seek help to do so.
Rupert M: the smokers excuse of always blaming someone else
the smokers excuse of always blaming someone else
!!!!!!!!!!??????????
I was a teenager and still at school when I first started experimenting with smoking. My parents never smoked, so I never saw the dangers first-hand - like the coughing and wheezing. There were no warnings on the box - and cigerettes were adverised on every other bill board - and on every other bus - even sporting events promoted cigerettes. In fact smoking was glamorised, in that - every other beautiful actress performed with a cigerette between her elegant, manicured fingers. Every cool looking actor knew how to speek, with a cigarette or cigar hanging from his mouth. Think about how this compares to the way we are educated about this deadly habit these days - there is no comparison.
The problem is, smoking is highly addictive, it took me years to stop and I hope, that I never start again. Indeed, I have reflected but find it difficult to take full responsibility for starting - when I did.
I currently work with two male foster carers who smoke, they never smoke in the house and the young people placed do not see them smoking. They are also not permitted to have children under the age of five years placed with them.
I am not a smoker myself and do not particularly like it anyway, so I would not oppose a blanket ban and suspect this is the way the local authorities will go in the future.
I am a smoker and I take responsibility for that, however I am also a mother to 3 children (1 is in remission from Leukaemia) and citizen in a country that is crying out for foster carers as well as adoptors with many children in placed inappropriatly. In turn this argument appears to reflect similar difficulties that make my job so hard and remove children and their development from the center of social work, with defensive practice and fear of litigation taking presidence.
I dont agree with blanket bans like this one. Yes smoking is bad for your health and children should not be encouraged to smoke or suffer from passive smoking but most adult smokers I know do so outside or in a specific area of their home away from the children. I accept that not everyone does so but whats next ? Shall we force smokers who wish to procreate to undergo hysterectomys and vascectomys? Or maybe we will stop over weight and social drinkers from fostering as well.And what about those idiots who drive fast? Voluntarily unemployed people ? People who cant cook or can only go as far as opening tins? All these can be interpreted as not being in a childs best interest .It smells of nazi- ism to me .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7436239.stm
I agree. This ban is ridiculous, sometimes I think it is almost like councils are just looking for reasons not to let people foster/adopt children. I recently wrote and article about gay adoption in which many people told me it can still be quite difficult for this group despite many children still languishing in care and needing families.
It seems a radio presenter has got a little too fired up about this whole debate
Are smokers' criminals?
Do we stop all smokers working with children?
The sensible response is not whether they smoke but that they do not smoke in front of the children
All people that smoke and work with children are required to not smoke in front of children or in the workplace
If there were to be a smoking ban for foster carers would that lead to there being less foster carers. If so, who will fund the new children's homes to replace them? What would be the impact? Aren't there enough children in residential cere who should be with families? Would children learn to smoke then from disaffected teenage residents?
What about kinship carers? There's an issue.
i can see this is a highly emotive subject.
i work with foster carers on a daily basis.
some even admit to smoking ( getting the air freshener out 5 min before i visit) would i stop them fostering- hell no.
they provide my children and young people with a level of care that is better than they have come from.
okey i would want them to smoke in front of the young people, but they hey there are so many kids that need fostering and so very few approved foster carers.
The harmful chemicals in cigarrettes stay in the room for 24 hours and are breathed in by children even if carers dont smoke in front of them. Also it makes the soft furnishings stink and clothes smell too. A parent complained that her child's clothes smelt of smoke on their contact visit. The foster carers denied smoking in front of the child, but they dont have to actually smoke whilst the child is around to pollute the air of the house and the child's clothes, (unknowingly).
I have fostered for nearly 20 years, and smoked for longer. Many of the children we foster are teenagers with multiple problems and at least 75% smoke when they come to us. I have over the years given up and started again, and encouraged the young people to do the same (give up that is not start again) - very few manage to as when they return for contact they 'need' their cigarettes as a comfort. None of the young people however are allowed to smoke indoors and neither do I.
At the moment all foster carers (even those with 20 years experience) are expected to do unaccredited induction courses. We are also expected to act as accountants, therapists, cooks, security guards, nurse/doctor, teachers (when excluded from school) as well as getting everything politically correct and attending multiple training sessions each time the wheel is reinvented. We get no pension, we are not 'employed', we get no sick pay and only the few lucky ones get any kind of paid holiday/respite. I have degree level qualifications in a variety of subjects and have taught in specialist schools in the past - none of this is worth a light when it comes to fee payments etc. etc.
We continue to foster (at the moment) because we can and have made a difference to some young people's futures. If we have the temerity to complain about the above we are accused of not caring and told we chose to become foster carers. If social workers and teachers complain about pay/pension/working conditions or if they make mistakes some wag comes up with the idea that they should be paid more ...... HELLO....does that mean they don't care about the children they work with?
How about instead of giving them more money, pensions, holidays, sick pay etc. etc., we say to them YOU can no longer get a pension, or sick pay, or holidays etc. etc., you will have to work 24/7 and be inspected at least once a month, you will have to go on training courses and start again with an induction course because everything you've done for the last x years is valueless, oh and the induction course is also valueless too. In addition to that - just for a laugh - if you smoke, you can't anymore, particularly in your own home - oh and if you fancy a gin and tonic or a trip to the pub or even just a quiet night in with friends - pretty soon you won't be able to do that any more either because that'll be next on our list. Ah and one last thing, if someone sues us in the next 60 years we're probably going to blame you somehow........well YOU chose to become social workers, teachers, doctors, dentists etc. etc. why are you complaining?
Nanny state - what nanny state.....come on, what happened to MY rights? Until Foster Care is professionalised and accredited then no-one has the right to tell me what I can and can't do in the few moments I get to myself. 'Moggie' seems to be the only one that gets this!
Oh I do so agree with you. I just happen to think that with the nanny state marching ever forward it is inevitable that (now someone has started the ball rolling) there will come a time when foster carers are in effect banned from smoking, even it is by means of making sure that all new carers don't smoke. In an ideal world foster carers wouldn't smoke but we don't live in an ideal world and I would rather a foster carer who smoked and cared about the child(ren) than a carer who doesn't smoke and is just in it for the money (which some are).
I dont think it will be long before we are all banned from drinking in pubs, never mind fostering children in need for little reward. or having the odd fag...
'SMOKING KILLS' - the tobacco industry accepts that so how is it possible to advocate that it is acceptable for foster-carers (and parents and anyone else caring for children) to smoke? Setting good examples include health as well as other elements of child care. Strip away all the emotion and the excuses for smoking and it has to be accepted that tobocco is the most dangerous drug on the face of the planet - it kills in the region of 130,000 per year in the UK alone and there are many accepted illness associated with passive smoking. Stop making excuses and accept the reality of this highly dangerous drug.
Well I think you'll find drinking kills a lot more people than smoking so should we ban alcohol completely from everyones lives who has/ is envolved with or fosters children? Hmmm?
Carcinogens in the atmosphere from fuel stations, factories and exhaust emissions actually kill more people on the planet than smoking a year but I don't see anyone pulling the plug on foster carers that drive or heat their homes or buy certain products.
Electricity pilons and substations are known to cause cancers, especially lukemia in children should we make sure no one who wants to foster are not in the same vacinity? Recycle plants (in this country) who do not cap their emissions (unlike most in germany who do). While were at it lets check for Radon build ups under houses, quite a few million people living in dangerous circumstances there. And lets not forget anyone who lives near an airport, or a petrol station, or nuclear plant, or factory, fabric mill , water treatment centre or paper manufacturers.. Well while we are at it lets not forget to make sure there are wooden surfaces in the houses instead of fabric and hypo alergy bedding as dander is known to cause bronchitus and lung infections that could lead to emphasema. (probably haven't covered everything especailly cleaning with household chemicals instead of vinegar and bicarbonate of soda ).
I would rather a foster carer that smoked (outside of course) than one who drank, even a mouthful of alcohol.
You see - that is exacty what the smoking apologists do - totally ignore the facts and try to sidetrack people into a completely different avenue of thought.
This thread is not about drinking or car emissions it is about SMOKING and SMOKING KILLS - simple, clear, factual and totally undeniable.
I agree with Rupert M. You see the difference between smoking and drinking is that drinking can be done safely. Don't confuse those who have the odd glass of wine with a meal with those that are alcoholics or go out every weekend binge drinking and getting into trouble. As far as I am aware, there is no safe level of smoking and the dangers of passive smoking are well known.
I wouldn't want any child placed with an alcoholic or binge drinker any more than I would with a smoker.
I feel that the way society is today (and will be worse in the future) if we dont stop placing children in homes with people who smoke, ther are going to be a lot of legal actions in years to come from people who have astma, lung disease, heart disease etc, as they will blame it on being exposed to passive smoking with in the 'care' of the local authority.
I think so much of fostering a child is to lead by example, and we should be giving very clear messages to all young poeple that smoking is bad for you.
Rupert M: You see - that is exacty what the smoking apologists do - totally ignore the facts and try to sidetrack people into a completely different avenue of thought. This thread is not about drinking or car emissions it is about SMOKING and SMOKING KILLS - simple, clear, factual and totally undeniable.
Actually rupert your wrong, but your also right. Smoking does kill, but so does everything else named above, to hold a balanced discussion we must look at all the evidence and weight the subject matter fairly (you should have learned that from your degree) to say smoking kills and leave it there does not fully express the situation. The cancer doesn't look up from the petrie dish and say "it was cigarettes that did it" that's like saying climate change is due to humans and has nothing to do with other factors such as solar maximus, axis change and global positioning in the milky way.
The highest cause of death in this country is heart desease and we all know (or should do) the reasons for that.
If you break cancer down by sub groups and look at the causes it is clear to say that lung cancer is the highest for mortality rates, but then enviromental factors have a sharp increase in those mortality rates. More people smoked in the 40s and 50s than do now and yet less people died of cancer? (I wont go into the studies but will email anyone interested) The same can be said of the 70s and 80s although cancer was on the increase.
Breast, prostate and ovarian cancers have all flourished (these are not linked to smoking) as has skin cancer, which all point to external environmental sources such as above.
So to say smoking kills and not look at the previlence of your arguement is wrong. Without weighing the pro's and con's of an arguement how do you come to a decision, which is what I was doing .Drinking kills. Driving kills. Being a couch potato kills. Eating a bad diet kills and yes smoking kills, but what is the lesser of the evil, leaving a child to fester in care or giving them the chance of a loving family who smoke outside the house.
I wonder how you can do your job effectively with such a one sided attitude to the world and circumstance. I also wonder how you got a degree without being able to look from both sides of an arguement.
Personal insults about my qualifications / abilities etc. say it all - the smokers last retreat. You really are doing your 'cause' immense harm and it just demonstrates that you can not argue from a position of absolute hopelessness. This thread, to repeat, is about foster carers and smoking.