Monthly Payments to Foster Families Going Up

The Provincial Government is strengthening the foster care program in Newfoundland and Labrador through substantial increases in foster care rates. An investment of $1.3 million will be made in 2009-10, with an annualized investment of $2.4 million starting in 2010-11. The Honourable Ross Wiseman, Minister of Health and Community Services made the announcement today in St. John’s. Read More ......

Please readers, if you have not already done so, follow the link above, read the full press release and then come back to my my blog, if after reading it, you believe I am a biased quack, feel free to air your thoughts.

Does the words contradiction, inequality, unfairness and disrespect for welfare or low income kids mean anything to you Ross Wiseman? In his release Wiseman says, "Foster parents play an incredibly important role in providing a caring and supportive environment for children on a temporary or long-term basis." He also says "Our government believes that foster parents should be provided the supports that are essential to delivering quality care to children."

I am having difficulty digesting this information, and even more difficulty in placing any convincing merit on Wisemans "caring and supportive" ideal on foster parents in the province.

Do you want to talk about love and caring Ross? It doesn't require much love and caring while staring at nearly 1000.00 bucks a kid!

Owe up here Ross, it's not about love, support or caring, it's about one simple fact, your whole CYFS/Foster Care and Child Welfare System is broken and you my friends are beaten!

In February, 2008 a Sondria Browne an Eastern Health liaison between foster homes and children's families said at any given time there are 700-800 kids in foster care. Ross at that time you were 300-400 foster homes short, and placing children in hotels and motels with 24 hour home support workers was the only recourse.

At that time Ross you said "Placing children who have been taken from their homes into a motel is far from the preferable choice, but is sometimes necessary." Well according to a quick check Ross, it was necessary about 640 times in 2008/09

Ross, a year has passed, situation is still with us and the numbers has gotten bigger. The reality then, and the reality now is simply stated; with chicken feed remuneration you were offering, was simply not very attractive financial resources for foster parents, but by doubling it, you may just get some extra attention, even though at this rate, it remains an insult.

Ross, release some of the countless horror stories from the hundreds of children that are/were under your departments watch, let the public know, that even your own child welfare definitions of abuse has been known to apply to many children being abused by foster families under your employ.

I am an advocate for equality, and folks this is not a case of anything close. A family not far from me are, in my opinion making a living fostering kids, not because they care, but because it's a freaking income! Albeit a grand announcement, and considering children are a major expense on families, I still have to ask the realistic question; why does it cost more to be a foster kid, than a kid on a families low income or welfare?

Wiseman says "The safety, health and well-being of children in foster care are a top priority for our government." "We recognize that there are a variety of costs associated with caring for children and that is why we are making further investments to assist with initial placement in a foster home and to support families around the holidays. Each of these can also present financial challenges for foster parents and it is important to ensure they have the resources available to purchase the necessary items for children."

I don't have any issue with the increase, in fact it should be bigger, but what I do have an issue with is the slant the increase story is taking.

A child's needs are there regardless of social status. Are we to accept that all children in foster care at 0-12 years old are there because they are unwanted, abused, or in physical danger from their parent(s)?

What about a reality that, children are often surrendered because family income isn't large enough to support the cost of raising them?

Is it your department's reaction step in with a 700 dollar increase to any family, after a suggestions from the Janeway is presented to you, that a child there is reported to be malnourished? or do you send in CYFS to investigate how a family of three could have wasted their minimum wage income, and did not qualify for income support because they grossed $1360.00 a month. After all, they only needed to pay rent, heat and lights, fuel/gas and transportation to get to work!

I believe I made my point, children are children who do not recognize economics, they do not understand rich and poor, however they do recognize when their tummy's are empty, and so should you, you lush!


Brudder