CTindex - Christian Today UK Interactive Catalogue
Society

Council bans would-be foster carers over smacking

Posted: Tuesday, April 8, 2008, 14:37 (BST)
Font Scale:A A A

A Taunton couple is being prevented from fostering children because they believe in occasionally smacking their 'birth-child' as a last resort, if judged in the best interest of the child.

David and Heather Bowen, who have been married for 11 years and have a nine-year-old daughter, decided to apply to foster after the death of a second child, Jonathan, from the rare condition thanatophoric dysplasia three years ago.

Their application initially proceeded well and they were approved by the social worker and her line manager. When their application came before the fostering panel last December, however, the council challenged the use of physical chastisement, and the social worker's line manager changed her mind and issued a further report to the panel not recommending the Bowens. The panel later rejected their application.

Mr Bowen, a chartered surveyor, said: "I am a parent governor at a local school, my wife works for the school PTA, has been a special needs careers advisor and now works in the school and we both assist with children's work at our local church.

"Based upon the evidence presented to the council, we cannot understand why we are unsuitable and it seems that we have been excluded on the basis that we physically chastise our birth child, in accordance with our beliefs and UK law."

The issue at stake was the Bowen's view of physical chastisement. Mr Bowen added: "To put this in perspective, our birth daughter is only chastised physically as a last resort amongst a whole range of other forms of behaviour management strategies which include rewards and sanctions.

"We have been made by the council to feel that we are bad parents and yet we do nothing that hundreds of thousands of parents across the UK do as loving and responsible parents."

On March 6 the panel met again and refused to accept the Bowens as Foster Carers.

Mrs Bowen added: "As the outcome sank in we began to grieve again - feeling a tremendous sense of loss that we would not be allowed to complete our family and provide a loving home to a child in need.

"It was very upsetting for us, we learnt of the outcome in the reception area at County Hall, given the bad news by social workers on their way out and we were given no opportunity to question the panel.

"As we walked away from the council offices empty handed, it reminded us of the loss we experienced some three years ago when we left hospital without our son, Jonathan. We are very grateful that we have a beautiful daughter and our faith gives us much strength."

Mrs Bowen called into question the council's motive in turning down their application to foster.

"We do understand the sensitivities surrounding Looked after Children and agreed from the outset that we would not physically chastise a looked after child. If the council will not accept applicants that physically chastise their birth children then it should make this clear from the outset," she said.

"We cannot understand how the council can reach this conclusion when it has no policy to say that parents will not be accepted if they physically chastise their birth children and all the evidence in our form F application pointed to us being very good foster carers."

The Bowens believe Somerset County Council is out of step with the vast majority of parents throughout the UK, the electorate within the county, faith groups and English law.

"We are very concerned that the broader implication for parents throughout the UK is that if councils are permitted to reject parents, for fostering or adoption, on the basis that they physically chastise 'birth' children, then tens of thousands of damaged children will be denied access to perfectly good homes and parents. Surely this is not putting children first," said Mr Bowen.

The Bowens have lodged an appeal with the council and are consulting the Christian Legal Centre in connection with filing for a judicial review on the issue.





The comments below are readers' personal opinions and are in no way intended to reflect the editorial opinion of Christian Today.

Added: Thursday, April 10, 2008, 13:28 (BST)

As a Social Worker that assesses applicant foster carers for a council, I think a bigger picture needs to be looked at when considering this case.

In law, yes, parents are permitted to chastise their children. This is your choice, do as you will, however you do not have the right to be a foster carer (‘carer’, not ‘parent’). Councils have good reason to not place children they are responsible for in the care of a family who chastise their own children. They need to know they are safe and secure and can anticipate a consistent response from their carers, not someone who may get angry and lash out. Or who treats one child differently to another.

This couple have had a recent bereavement, it seems clear their preference would be to conceive their own child again but as this has not been possible they are choosing foster care. I would be questioning their motivation. In addition, they seem to have views of looked after children as being ‘damaged' and who would be privileged to be in their care. This seems very old fashioned and patronising. Just being a professional who attends church is not enough. In fact a lot of children and parents would be intimidated by a family with a fancy house, are these people really in tune with the needs of the families they will be working with? It could be setting this family and children in their care up to fail.

I take huge offence to you mentioning criminals and single mothers in the same negative sentence. Many of our great carers are single females, why shouldn’t they be? And perhaps someone with real life experience of going through difficult times, perhaps having criminal convictions (non violent and not related to children), and coming out of that strong, is the best person for the job?

Councils are not desperate for carers, they are desperate for GOOD carers. I am pleased to see a council taking their responsibility to find the right people for the job seriously and not just letting ‘he who shouts the loudest’ become a carer

Gillian, Edinburgh

Google Advertisement
Externally generated - Report offensive links here
World Headline
Italy government to appeal ruling on classroom crucifixes

Italy government to appeal ruling on classroom crucifixes

The Italian government is to appeal a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights last week determining that the...
Sponsored Features
Bible Educational Services is committed to telling the next generation the praiseworthy deeds of the Lord. Psalm 78: 4. To download free bible lessons or learn about Postal Bible Schools visit Enrich your love life, marriage and relationships through education and counselling. Train to become a certified marriage and family educator and change lives for good. 16,500 native missionaries reaching the most unreached with Christ's love. Get your free book today.
Google Advertisement
Externally generated - Report offensive links here