Strollerderby : foster parenting

Smokers No Longer Allowed Foster Children

Brett Singer — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:45:00 GMT

The East London borough of Redbridge will no longer allow smokers to be foster parents.

From The Scotsman:

The ban, which was passed unanimously at a cabinet meeting of Redbridge Council last night, means that children in the east London borough will not be placed with foster carers who smoke after January 2010.
Councillors say the move is crucial in protecting children.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, children shouldn't be inhaling second-hand smoke because it is a health risk. On the other hand, this is discrimination, isn't it? I'm actually a big smoker's rights guy in certain areas. For example, I think it should be legal for me to start an airline that lets people smoke – Up In Smoke Air. Make smoking illegal on commercial flights, fine. But why can't I start a business where the whole point is to give smokers a place to go? (I'm not a smoker, but I was for many years.)

Another publication, Business Report, has a little more info on the ban:

"Some people will feel it is an intrusion on personal freedoms," said councillor Michael Stark. "But we also know that smoking increases the risk of serious illness in childhood.
"On balance, we have decided children in our care shouldn't grow up breathing second-hand smoke."
...
A spokesperson for Forest, a pro-smoking group, said: "It's going to exclude people who could be outstanding foster parents.
"It sends out an insidious message that smokers in general are unfit parents and I don't think any politician has the right to do that."

Look, it's a nasty, unhealthy habit that has proven to be unhealthy for children (and everyone else) to be around. But is it better for kids to stay in a potentially worse situation? And if this ban is OK, doesn’t that open the door for banning other behaviors? I'm slightly surprised at my reaction to this story, actually. What do you think – is it OK for a government to ban smokers from being foster parents? Or is that going too far?

Source: The Scotsman, Business Report,

Image: Church Times

Guy Changes Name to Captain Fantastic

Incredibly Good Homemade Halloween Costumes

Barack Obama Asked If Bill Clinton Was The First Black President

The Candy That Time Forgot

About Ann Nixon Cooper

109 Year Old Daughter Of Slave Votes For Obama

Babble Podcast for November 3, 2008

Is The Incredible Flying Baby Video Real?

Jay Thomas Reunites With Out of Wedlock Son

Arkansas Adoption Ban Passes, Fails to Eliminate Queers and their Spawn from the Earth

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:01:00 GMT

The saddest thing about the anti-gay ballot initiatives that passed Tuesday in California (banning same-sex marriage), Florida (banning even same-sex civil partnerships) and Arkansas (banning foster care and adoption by unmarried couples ie: same-sex couples) is the effect they have on the children of same-sex parents.

I don't think my partner and I would feel much need for legal marriage if we didn't have children. If we didn't have children, I'd be working full-time for my own benefits and wouldn't need hers. I'd have my own retirement security, probably be able to make the house payments if anything happened to her.

But we have two children and being able to both be their legal parents is critical to their well-being. As adoption attorney, Jennifer Fairfax points out in this article from US News and World Report,

"Adoption gives the child two legal parents, two people who have to support the child, two people that the child can inherit from. If the parent dies, the child can get security from either."

Considering the high value social conservatives place on stay-at-home parents, one would think that helping families support a stay-at-home parent by making sure that either parent can provide health benefits and other legal protections to the family's children would be a priority, leading to support for same-sex adoption and/or marriage.

My partner and I are lucky. We were able to adopt in one of a handful of jurisdictions that have strong court precedents for granting same-sex co-adoptions, though this jurisdiction does not have a law protecting these adoptions specifically. As such, either of us can give our children what straight parents take for granted. Our children can rely on the fact that if anything happens to one of us, their lives will not be further disrupted by legal questions about the status of their surviving parent.

Marriage would grant these rights automatically, as married couples always have the right to petition to adopt together and a married woman who gives birth can automatically name her legal spouse the child's other parent--regardless of whether or not the second parent is biologically related to the child. Marriage would also save us between $50,000 and $100,000 in taxes and other "fees" associated with cobbling together legal protections for our family over the years of raising our children. College fund, anyone?

When people oppose same-sex adoption, what they oppose is an idea that falls short of their ideal of two married, opposite-sex parents. But the plain truth of fact is that millions of children do not live in these kinds of families already. Banning their actual family structures from legal recognition and protection does not help those children magically attain the two-opposite-sex-parents ideal, even if you want to believe (against the word of authorities like the American Academy of Pediatrics) that ideal really is best.

What opponents of same-sex marriage and/or adoption do not understand is that these arguments are not theoretical. Banning various people from various institutional protections will not make those people go away. In fact, the "gayby" boom continues boomingly on unchecked. Every young queer high school or college student I talk to these days simply assumes that she or he will someday be a parent. It is not just a double-standard for adults gay rights opposition upholds, but a double-standard for increasing numbers of children (at least 90% of whom, for the record, will grow up to be heterosexual). When you deny me the right to marry or the right to adopt with my partner, you deny my children the same security yours take for granted. You may not like it, but my children are here now and they aren't going anywhere. Don't they deserve the same protection as their playmates?

Image note: Which child deserves the protection of two legal, married parents?

Arkansas Wants to Look Into Potential Foster Parents' Bedrooms

Miriam Axel-Lute — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:00:00 GMT

Dan Savage has said it (over and over), folks. Straight people should care about the anti-gay crazies not just because they are bigots, but because they don't limit themselves to being anti-gay. That's merely a wedge issue for their bigger anti-sex theocratic agenda, and they're going after "straight rights"—to birth control, cohabitation, divorce, freedom of religion, sex toys, what have you—too.

Just take the ballot measure certified in Arkansas a couple weeks ago. Having suffered a legal setback when a court struck down an administrative regulation prohibiting gays from being foster parents, the fundies did what liberals have yet to master: instead of bowing down and shifting toward the center, they just set their sights higher. This ballot measure would prevent anyone "cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of marriage" from fostering.

Voila! No longer discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation. Well, not quite so directly at least. Since same-sex marriage is, unsurprisingly, illegal in Arkansas, the burden still falls much more heavily on queer couples, who wouldn't have the option to marry.

Still, now more opposite-sex couples feel what it means to have the government asking about what they do in bed. After all, how will they prove "cohabiting with a sexual partner" without asking unmarried potential foster parents if they are getting it on? What would they do with two people who were living together and swore they were platonic, but wanted to foster together? Come and look for two twin beds in separate rooms? (Probably they would determine, ironically, that if it were platonic that it also wasn't a stable situation.)

Is Arkansas really facing such a glut of potential suitable foster parents that they can impose what is, in essence, a religious screen on who does it? Arkansas Families First argues certainly not. So does a local cartoonist. Just remember, it's all about values.

Related posts:

Gay Foster Father in Florida Gets to Adopt Son—Other Gay Floridians Not Yet So Lucky

More by this author:

That Name Is So Gay

Fat Guy Gets Go-Ahead to Adopt

Madeline Holler — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:27:00 GMT

A super overweight guy who was convinced that a judge denied him custody of his cousin’s son because of the man’s size has once again regained custody of the little boy.

Now the wheels are in motion for him and his wife to finalize adoption of the now 8-month-old, who the couple began caring for when he was 1-week-old.

The judge denies that the man’s weight was ever a factor in denying custody. At the beginning of the battle, he weight 550 pounds. Now, after a Dallas doctor offered free gastic by-pass, he’s 200 pounds lighter.

Instead, the judge says the man improperly moved the boy across state lines. He was born in Texas, but the family now lives in Missouri, where the case is being adjudicated.

The overweight man has been fighting to regain custody of the boy since this summer, when he was placed with another (skinnier?) family, also interested in permanent adoption.

I’m happy for the big guy and the little boy. Weight shouldn’t be a factor when deciding where to place children, particularly in places like Missouri! Jesus! In Missouri, food is love! So I’m glad this is being resolved. But now I’m sad for that other family.

Being a Foster Parent Pays, But Not That Way

Karen Murphy — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:47:00 GMT

Disheartening news today on the state of being a foster parent these days: it's just not a moneymaker. Not that (ahem) most foster parents are in it for the money, but it seems to me that one of the first steps in revitalizing the foster-care system would be to ensure adequate care for the kids involved.

A new report out indicates that the national average for monthly costs to care for a two-year old is $621, and for a nine-year old, $721, yet only one state out of 50, plus the District of Columbia, inexplicably, pays more than that. Most states pay far less (compare your state here).

And while it's certainly true that the hallmark of a good foster parent shouldn't be their interest in the money received for the job, I would think that covering a family's actual costs would go a long way to ensuring that these kids have a stable and caring home to live in, and possibly would tip the balance toward a resounding "yes" for families considering taking the plunge into offering their homes and hearts. Maybe that extra $600 a month would mean someone could afford a slightly bigger house and the whatever else it would take to provide a home for a kid who needed one.