Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Pregnancy & ParentingAdoption · 1 decade ago

Foster care vs. residential care homes?

I was quite surprised today to meet someone who suggests that residential care homes can be better for kids than the foster care system - based on her observations of working within the system, and so when I got back, I had to do some Googlin' to find out what she was on about 'cause all she could remember was that it was the system that the Germans and Dutch use.

In the Googlin' around, I tripped over http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/21/chil... - which from what I can see makes a pretty decent case for backing up me mate's argument about the residential care home being a better option than foster care, but I figured I'd throw it open to you lot anyway ... foster care or residential care homes - which do you think is better, and why?

Update 2:

@Cleo: What about when Home Intervention isn't enough? Also, how are you defining Home Intervention?

4 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favourite answer

    The best option of all would be not taking children away from their families and instead providing any "support" which the family might need.

    The cases in which children truly NEED to be taken away are, in fact, a lot fewer than the cases in which they ARE taken away. Social "Workers" act like little tin gods sometimes. Snatching kids from their families because they are obese FFS? Thats garbage - taking children from their loving families like this causes them way more damage than being overweight. Unless you are looking at situations of REAL abuse (ie as in Baby P) that child does NOT need to be taken away, and certainly not so that someone with a saviour complex can "enjoy" being a foster "Parent".

    There was one of them on the news the other day, whining about how "families are given too many chances" and how she "wishes she could get her hands on more children and sooner". It made me feel sick.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Sonja
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    We've been foster parents for around 13 years. In that time, I can honestly say I can think of only one child who would actually have benefited from a residential care environment.

    This child was extremely traumatized, to the stage where she suffered bulimia, self harm, attention seeking behaviours such as throwing herself through glass windows at school, had killed many small animals and had actually attempted to kill her infant sister. In this case, both the child's best interests, and the safety of others, would have been best served by an around the clock treatment facility.

    In basically all other cases, children belong in homes, with families.

    Source(s): Adoptee, AP and foster parent.
    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    They both have a place in society. Foster homes resemble more the home the child has came from--with one or two parents and sometimes other children. Residential homes are more for the troubled children and youth who have profound behavior problems.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    with out having been in iver i can't really give you an answer

    Source(s): my head
    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.