Talk:Foster care/First Hand Insight

Australia
Not that most English-speaking countries haven't done this BUT, this article and the one on aboriginal policy, needs to have some brief statement or link to the former policy, long since reversed, of "integrating" aboriginal children. This didn't work and was discontinued maybe in the 1970s?


 * This was Stolen Generations, now linked, but maybe not too well integrated into article. May be better linked somewhere else. Student7 (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

US
There was a section on "constitutional" issues, where some gadfly lawyer sued the state and won $3 million, which is penny ante for the state, big time for the lawyer, who had nothing better to do, apparently. He first deducted his fees, which were undoubtedly a good portion of the $3 million, then removed 40% of what was left over for "himself." The editor thought that this was charitable of him. Actually, this is pretty much how US lawyers earn their money most of the time and why the US wastes a good deal of its time and money in court as opposed to all other Western nations. "Contingency" is typical in cases where the lawyer figures he can win. In cases when he can't win or there is nothing to win, he charges for his time. You sue your neighbor, no-good brother-in-law, etc. Then he wants to see his money up front, because there won't be any later. American lawyers do not run charities. Student7 (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not a lawyer, I am a software programmer from Europe, but I have lived in Oregon for over 10 years and have seen on the TV about this case. When police crashed into the foster home there was video of the dried excrement in the children beds and dirty cribs covered with chicken wire. Boy had a shunt put into his head at birth to drain fluid, but the foster parents did not care to clean it, so kid was had almost died. "The Oregonian" is a main local newspaper in Oregon, so as you can see from the article "Gresham foster kids abused despite DHS checks", it took over 2 years to finish the case, and all these years lawyer worked for free, because contingency basis mean "no win no fee" i.e. if lawyer lose, then he gets no pay for his time at all (read first the definition of "contingent fee" or talk to any lawyer). Normally lawyers are hard to agree to take such a risk and often demand 50% when working on contingent fee, but in this case he took 33% (not 40%) after the case was settled which is actually includes all his fees for the over 2 years. Also the case was settled for $2 millions, not $3 millions, so about $1.32 millions went to the twins (which I think they totaly deserve). In Europe it would of been much more scandal to such an outrages case, but here in US some social workers prefer to hide the facts and blame a lawyer, instead of working on the source of the problem. I also heared stories from people in our immigrant community about kids taken away from mothers just for couple bruises on their legs, but then these kids was abused 100 times more when they got into the foster homes. You have deleted foster kids comments from this discussion page about their first-hand experience with abuse in foster homes because you do not belive them. But this is Wiki vandalizm to remove dozen of other people work, also this inhumane to remove child comments when they tell about abuse and rape in foster home. I have put their comments in archive, and I will stand for that, because I also have kids. Nobody belived children who was telling about the priests abuse, until the abusers got cut on video, the ignorance of adults is what led to the problem. P.S. English is not my first language, so forgive me if it sounds like I was trying to promote the lawyer. I have removed phrase about him working on contingency basis, so it will not confuse readers who do not know what "contingent fee" means. A contingency fee arrangement provides access to the courts for those who have no money at all (like kids) or cannot afford to pay the attorneys fees and costs of civil litigation. Also there is a Federal Rule that parents or friends cannot represent minor children in court, only lawyers can do that (see Pro Se in Fed Court).   Innab (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The US does not have a homogeneous society as does much of Europe. We have a code of law derived from England, not Napoleonic. Courts are therefore stages for lawyers; games people play with justice. In Europe, the judges would decide to investigate Foster Care on their own. Early on. This cannot happen in the US. So bureaucrats play games, lawyers play games. Justice takes a back seat.
 * This, however, is irrelevant to the thousands of cases that are brought before the courts, some of which you may see in Europe. It is impossible for the bystander to decide who is correct. The bureaucrats who are wrong either way they choose; the parents?, the foster parents?. Kids lie as well in order to play their own games. Sometimes they are wrongly believed and their parents or foster parents are jailed or punished.
 * We don't have to decide any of this. We can report whatever the media decides is "news." Whether it is or not is another matter. Small cases are not really news. A billion dollars would be a big deal to any state. A couple of million dollars may make someone who is bored a headline, but it is hardly classic. Next year, who cares? Let's stick with important stuff.
 * Half of the kids in America are born into families with only a mother. Many of these wind up in foster care. The sheer volume is overwhelming the bureaucracy and the foster care system. Judging who is right and who is wrong is quite impossible, even after the courts have "decided." For example, see Oprah Winfrey's concern with the trial in South Africa with an adult molesting children. She felt justice miscarried. It often does, not just in the US either.
 * Lawyers in the US normally take cases on contingency when they feel they can win. They don't when they feel they will lose. Normally, someone large (like the government or an institution) will pay a lawyer to "go away" at worst, so they can't really lose their time even when they are totally wrong. American lawyers are not nice guys. They pick everyone's pocket to live. And we have many many more lawyers per capita than any other country. And they are mostly living better than the rest of us. And the law is in sorry shape. Student7 (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Another point. About 4% of molestation cases were religious (including more than half non-Catholic), less now with zero tolerance for priests. Most of these make national headlines; about 15% of cases are teachers. There are about 1000 school districts in the US. We average about 1 teacher a year in each. They normally get off lightly since the victim can't or won't testify or the prosecutors don't think they can win the case and it doesn't go to trial, or the teacher plea bargains for something minor. The initial case does make local headlines though. The other 80% are parents, foster parents, siblings, uncles, cousins, friends of the family, etc. Almost none of these make headlines because so little of it is reported until long afterwards. The media has no idea how to report it or even discover it. This is from research and polls. I would assume this is happening in Europe as well, though maybe not to the same degree. Student7 (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, when 15-years old giving birth to a child from her foster father, I believe she was not lying. When you see these acts catch on video, then I also think kids are not lying. When social workers themself are admitting that foster parents deceived them, then I think it was a problem. It is just amazing that there is still people who can find reason to blame these kids instead of their abusers. I think adults who cover abusers are almost as bad as abusers themselves. You said in your first post: "He [lawyer] first deducted his fees, which were undoubtedly a good portion of the $3 million, then removed 40% of what was left over for "himself." Every statement here is incorrect: lawyer did not get paid for over 2 years until very end, so 33% he took from the $2 millions of the recovery included all his wages and fees, and reimbursed his risk of working for free for 2 years in the civil rights case. Most of the lawyers that I know, would of not take such a risk.
 * Also, I did not understand your statement about "billion dollars would be a big deal", but millions not. - There have never been a case that get "billion dollars" for sex abuse. Most of the abused foster kids never get nothing at all, because there is nobody to go to court for them. It is not about money, anyway, it is about holding foster care and social workers responsible for kids safety when they are taking the kids away from their parents (who are the natural protectors) into the care of the total strangers. Governments in Europe do not take kids away from the mothers first time for couple bruises, like it happens here in US. In Germany and most of EU there is only fine for it the first time, so it is much less foster kids there. Innab (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was attempting to explain to you the nature of reporting abuse in the US. There is no "fair" coverage of the topic by the media. Whatever gives a nice sound bite that night. Oregon might be on one night. The following night Idaho might have a worse case, but it wouldn't get reported because of the Chilean miners. The only "fair" and accurate reporting is much much later by researchers from universities perhaps who are independent and have no axe to grind. Not a bunch of lawyers and plaintiffs screaming "foul" and getting a great audience because everyone hates the government anyway. No one knows (nor cares) what the real facts of the matter are.
 * As I tried to explain earlier, America is not homogeneous. In Germany, I can send a worker to a house and find out what the real facts are and get them reported back through a cultural filter which everyone understands because they are normally dealing with fellow Germans (yes, there are Turks and others, but most are German). In the US, this isn't true. I send a worker who is often a minority herself, maybe Latino. The family is Afro-American. The bureaucrat can filter nothing because her hands are deliberately tied by bureaucratic protocol. She has to follow the sheet. If the kid shows a beating, he is taken then and there. We have had headlines about children being killed when a social worker was supposed to be tracking them. So the system trusts nobody. No one wants to testify to the media or their legislature as to why they let a kid die. And the Latino is unable to determine, because of cultural bias, whether the child is being "loved" or not. Latino families are traditionally close and protective. She assumes the worst for an Afro-American child in poverty. Anyway, she has no choice. Lots of the rules are media-driven. That is to say, because they are trying to avoid negative publicity, some less bad outcomes are inevitable, like foster family abuse as opposed to being killed by your own family.
 * For starters, don't believe what you see on US media. It is usually heavily biased. We should wait for researchers in this area. There is history back to the 1970s and earlier. The media will try to tell you it is "all new" but it is old stuff. The media is simply trying to shock the public into watching them so they can sell space for more money. So everything is reported in a WP:POV manner which is usually questionable if not downright false. Student7 (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not too sure why the Oregon text keeps coming back. This was doubtlessly reported on a slow news day someplace. This is no big deal. Maybe in some Oregon article on Human Services/Foster Care, but not in a Worldwide article. Others here may justify their existence though they don't seem to be notable either. No article. Student7 (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not belong to you only, so do not try to be a WikiNazi. You are removing dozens of other people comments, that is pure WP:VAN "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Also: "Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own is generally considered vandalism." The lawsuit in Oregon was a largest in history of DHS there. Also $30 Millions in California was one of the highest recovery for sex abuse in that state EVER. The class-action in NJ started a Foster Care Reform there. I do not understand adults like you who can still blame these kids of lies after the court decisions, unless the adults themselves involved in the covering of the child abuse. Kids whose comments you was trying to remove was not able to stand for themselves in front of their abusers, because they are too young to know that they can go to Federal court when their Civil Rights violated. Wikipedia can help these abused foster children most of whom do not know their Constitutional and Human Rights. Innab (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've explained in another section, this is off-topic.
 * Also, our purpose here is not to "help" anyone, as you word it, but to report material germane to the WP:TOPIC with discussion here.
 * Also, you said "...adults like you who can still blame these kids of lies.." Huh? I would like to see the facts about foster care reported here, which is the topic. Okay to point to another article about abuse but it should be scholarly, not just "rant" about the system. The media tends to rant, which is why it is not a very credible source for this material. We need a detached viewpoint. The media does not have it. They are currently on a rant against abusers as a scapegoat for all the world's ills. This current rant will end when they find a new scapegoat for the public to hate. It is not detached. Student7 (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Non topic text
I think the material relating to suits is, if not constitutional, then it's non-topical and perhaps WP:COATRACK. It has nothing to do with "foster care" per se, but is rather under another topic which is child abuse, which is hardly "foster care." Can have pointers from this article to another article on abuse in foster care or somesuch. This article is about foster care. We need to stay on WP:TOPIC. Student7 (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not try to drug irrelevant shortcuts into the discussion to amuse people with WP:GAME and hide your own WP:VAN. All the lawsuits are notable and relevant to Foster Care. There is absolutely no promotion of anybody in the lawsuits, I even removed on your request the mentioning of the fact that lawyer worked on contingency basis. This information is much more verifiable and relevant to Foster Care then questionable "Neurodevelopment" or "Epigenetic effects of environmental stress" blocks in the same article. Innab (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As I tried to point out before, the news media is a poor source of material for this section when it comes to "headlines." They print some and skip others. This is best done in a separate article. BTW, this is done for all other topics as well. If you read an article about any political or governmental topic, it is separated out into a "criticism" section. But this is clearly "abuse" not foster care. I could really care less about the topic. Mark me down as "neutral." I can't even remember why I started watching this page, but it is not high on my list of interests. And I don't even like Oregon, which is left wing. Which is why it is unlikely they are the major offenders in foster care. This is typical media hit and miss.


 * Really need a university written document here that is WP:RELY. Headlines are not reliable guide to content. Content "selection" using only the media is WP:BIAS and WP:OR. And it is off-topic. Student7 (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a Federal Lawsuits with millions of dollars reward behind them, what do you need more reliable? I work myself in large state university, and I can tell you that almost any graduate student can publish his research online now days. Federal Court ruling would be a much more reliable then many PubMed publications that used as citations in this article. Law Schools are using Federal Court rulings for their tutorials. Also there US States largest newspapers are totaly fine with WP:RELY, there tons of them on Wiki. If you trust only PubMed, then read first their policy: "MEDLINE is the largest component of PubMed (http://pubmed.gov/), the freely accessible online database of biomedical journal citations and abstracts created by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM®). Approximately 5,400 journals published in the United States and more than 80 other countries have been selected and are currently indexed for MEDLINE." I can tell you that Federal Judge opinion is much more reliable with WP:RELY then grad student research feeded into PubMed. Are you realy believe that Federal Judges are subject to WP:BIAS or WP:OR? This is a disrespect to the court and WP:GAME. Innab (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As a taxpayer I can understand Student7 attempt to save the state some money by hiding from foster kids the information about Federal lawsuits, so the other abused kids will not go to court also. But I agree with Innab, it is constitutional right of people to defend themselves, and this is not the lawyer fault that kids must have someone to represent them in court. So-called "money-savings" should not be done at the expense of the innocent children and to the delight of abusive foster parents or negligent social workers. I think the information adds value to the article. Yaroslav K (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not "hiding" anything. I really have no dog in this fight. If you are trying to make Oregon look bad, that is fine with me. Except it has to be convincing and in the right article. This is not it.
 * Also, the source is questionable for this purpose because it is the popular media trying for a headline. It is correct, but it skips a general review, which is needed for a topic of this magnitude. The popular media just isn't adequate to address the overall issue. It will have to be done by some genuine researcher, not hit and miss off the television. Please stick to WP:TOPIC which is "foster care." Okay to address "Problems or Criticism of Foster Care" but that is a separate article. Student7 (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oregon DHS itself recognized the social worker negligence and proposed settlement to the kids. Also, newspaper did not started or investigated the case, the Federal court did. Newspaper only reported on the Federal Court ruling, this is what newspaper supposed to do, because court itself do not own any newspapers.


 * Yet another problem with the zingers on abuse, is the media lack of data on how pervasive the abuse is. Is it 100% of all cases? That is, does all foster care in the US end in abuse? That seems to be the media presentation, as it usually is on topics of this nature. Abuse is probably much more limited, but the media neither has the statistics on abuse in the system, nor cares about it either, which is why they are unsuitable for encyclopedia reporting on this topic. Student7 (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yaroslav, Wikipedia is not a book to save anybody any money. It is not Consumer Reports. It is an encyclopedia. As far as a "constitutional right to defend themselves", I don't see where anybody's "right" is being jeopardized by reporting the facts about foster care. And separating that, as most high level articles have been, into "abuse" articles, if that is called for. "Foster care" does not mean abuse. That is not the name or the scope of this article. Any more than driving on a highway means DUIs and high speed chases and automatic deaths. The article on Route 66, does not feature somebody's suit against some state for poor maintenance of the highway, with people protesting against "lack of civil rights because the highway was poorly maintained" or somesuch, because, that is not what the article is about! Student7 (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Innab, this is kind of like having an article about SQL. In the middle of the article, I place a well-documented text that says that Yourcompany released a version of SQL with "BUG63" in it (which the reliable source describes and which I summarize). Then when you go to erase this as not really pertaining to the topic of SQL, I say, "You are just trying to confuse potential buyers of SQL so that they will buy Yourcompany's version which had a bug in it" (once). Can you see the analogy? This would really have nothing to do with SQL per se. But software does have bugs in it. And some classic ones in SQL could be documented elsewhere and pointed to from this article perhaps. But SQL doesn't always have terrible bugs in it that are apparent to all users so it would not necessarily be relevant to all cases. Student7 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have checked articles on several major highways, and most of them have mentionings of big accidents on the highways. For example, Highway_401_(Ontario) has mentioning of 87-vehicle pile-up on September 3, 1999. Also article about MS SQL Server had mentioning of bugs in earlier versions. So mentioning of $30 millions highest EVER sexual abuse settlement in history of California is definetely worth mentioning as a bug in the foster care system. Nobody is saying that all foster cares have child abuse, but as study shows, this problem is much more common there then in general population. By the way, thanks Yaroslav K for adding the university studies to the article and moving it into the separate section. Hiding problems and controversies is not a style of Wikipedia, article should definetely have mentioning of both positive and negative aspects of Foster Care. Even kids whose old comments on this discussion page Student7 was trying to remove tell about extend of this problem. Innab (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree for place articles. There may be no other venue for them. What is there to say about a place other than what happened there? Particularly highways. Higher level concepts are different though. But in Teacher I have a minor summary that points to a large article, probably series of articles on abuse. Teaching itself, is not about abuse, per se. Some teachers are abusers and that is documented, summarized at the high level. But I don't say that Podunk Middle School had an abuser for six years before anyone put a stop to him and this is a black eye against Podunk. Nothing wrong with summarizing it in that lower level article. Which BTW has lots of pointers to it. More than just this one. It is truly a stand-alone article.


 * The same with Catholic_Church. Here links are provided in the text. Despite what their critics claim, the church is not totally about abuse in the US or Ireland. There are probably 1500 articles on RC church abuse documenting maybe 2% of the child abuse in the world. The rest of it remains mostly undocumented. This might be a chance to help out there. Student7 (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

heated discussions, idiosyncratic article

 * I see some heated discussions on this page. I added both talk header and Controversial to the top of this page as reminders. In particular, please bear in mind what the topmost template on this page says: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."
 * I have tremendous and deep sympathy for anyone who has had a traumatic life. However, Wikipedia is not the place to discuss those significant and meaningful issues. The place to discuss those significant and meaningful issues is on a blog or a support group website.
 * Moreover, statements, conclusions, etc. based on those life experiences do not belong in a Wikipedia article. I'm sincerely sorry. I know they have tremendous relevance and great meaning to many people across the world. However, on Wikipedia, as per our Five Pillars, we can only include information that is verifiable from reliable sources, and we want to present that information in a neutral manner. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a support group or a blog. I say that with great respect, but it is still the case.
 * The formatting of this article is also looking pretty idiosyncratic. I've never seen those pretty blue boxes in any other article, and I've been around for four years. I feel more than a little doubtful about the odds that they are WP:MOS-compliant. If anyone can find some part of WP:TABLE or WP:LAYOUT (or some other part of MOS) that supports this format, they can stay. Otherwise, out they go. Please don't try to simply tweak the format, either. • Ling.Nut 09:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Framing quotes
Selecting quotes for colored treatment is considered pov. Please follow Wikipedia standards in presenting material in a objective manner. We are not television! Student7 (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Reporting country information as universal truths
In the article, there are several excellent reports that could be used for the country in which the study was made. But the article has extrapolated them to suggest that the same conditions apply universally. This is probably not true unless the study claims (and proves) that. The conditions and laws that administer foster care vary substantially with each country and should be selectively applied unless otherwise demonstrated. Student7 (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Questionable Conclusions
Similar to the concern noted above, the cited information does not go as far as the article does when discussing "Poor academic prospects". In the cited reports conclusions, it states the following pertinent predictor:

"Agency-involved students had especially high rates of high school dropout. Fully 90% of the students who had a juvenile justice placement during their high school years ultimately dropped out. About 70% of the students who had a substantiated case of abuse or neglect during the high school years, had a foster care placement, or who gave birth within four years of starting high school, became out-of-school youth. (Page 5 para 2) |*Unfulfilled Promise: The Dimensions and Characteristics of Philadelphia's Dropout Crisis, 2000-05

The study goes on to state: "It is important to be clear that these high rates of dropping out of school do not necessarily mean that contact with these social service systems caused these students to drop out, nor does it imply that pregnancy, birth, or juvenile justice placements preceded dropping out of school." (Page 33, para. 2)

74.116.154.204 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC) This is not a forum but: as a grandmother of a grandson with unidentified difficulties I first saw at 3 years, and subsequently was a consistant positive influence for, I resisted all state efforts to envigle me take the grandchildren legally through the state which was expressed through legal fines, fees, assesments, and mental coercion. How one can sue for such pressure is unknown, and in fact, it occurred primarily to force grandparents to punish the children while the state acted as a lofty impartial saint. The article does not go far enough in identifying the state coercion that existed. And the children now in shelters with babies are the result of the state-disintegrated absent family and non existant social networks.

This wiki article suggests that it is foster care that is the reason for poor performance. I recommend that this portion of the wiki article be removed, pending stronger citation of the conclusion suggested in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.6.115 (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed this section pending better citation and/or evidence of claims in this section. No replies to the above statement were received in a reasonable about of time. comment added by Steelpanther24 (talk
 * Well, the data is correct, so it is vandalism to remove it. I think that better course of action would be to change the wording and add links to the original source (which I did). I also added footnote that tells about the scope of the survey. Innab (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK if that is vandalism to remove it pending better or alternate source referencing, I will add the second paragraph to provide a more complete representation of that study, though I believe this is not what the original post was suggesting, namely to show correlation between poor academic performance and foster care. --Steelpanther24 (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is fine with me, even so I personally think that social services do not put as much effort as natural parents to keep the kids in school. Unfortunately nobody held responsible if these kids end up homeless and uneducated. Innab (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a foster parent and believe that there are so many other variables at work in a child's life that contribute to homelessness and lack of education. To lay it all at the feet of social services seems to be scapegoating. However, I also value the free exchange of ideas and values debate among those who hold different opinions, hoping that the solution is a compromise between the two sides. That is I why believe it is important to preserve the critics' intent as long as they do not take studies out of context, which was the case in this particular section. --Steelpanther24 (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I HATE FOSTER CARE
Don't send me to foster, mom! :( 99.172.137.235 (talk) I HATE FOSTER HOMES! —Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot help you with that, only judge can. You can tell your complaints about your foster parents to the judge, and ask the court to re-unite you with your natural mom. Your mom can file appeal to the State Court of Appeals or to Federal Court, if she does not agree with the county court's decision. However, Wikipedia has no judicial power in your case, so please, do not post here comments that are not relevant to this article, or it will be classified as vandalism. Innab (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Foster care in Norway—foster care by nation
There is no article Foster care in Norway. I expect to start a section "Foster care by nation", with text that later can be moved to seperate articles about the various nations.--85.196.118.210 (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we need to split the article?
To user 7mike5000: - Why are you trying to split the article into sub-articles? This article got great traffic and excellent marks from readers. It is within size limits and much smaller than many other artcles on wiki.Many articles on wiki have special sections for different countries. The sub-articles are duplication of context and they drop value of the main article for the readers, confusing the reades. Please do not do such major edits without discussing it on the Talk page first. If you want to put other countries separete, then create new blocks on the main article, do not create bunch of small articles with few lines in them. Innab (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Problems in the abuse section
"These statistics do not speak to the situation these children are coming from, but it does show the very large problem of child-on-child sexual abuse within the system."

This sentence seems to be a non sequitur. It's not followed by a citation and is not referencing anything else in the paragraph above it. Timdwilliamson (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Kinship Care
Informal kinship care is the most common form of out-of-home care for children in the world and is an increasing share of formal foster care systems, at least in the U.S. There is currently a wikipedia article, oddly titled "Grandfamily", which addresses kinship care but I think some reference to it is appropriate to this article as well. Benutzer41 (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Reads like an essay...
and not a particularly good one.

From the "History" section introduction:

"Foster care plays a big role in the lives of displaced children today. At times, it is the only sustainable alternative that a child has. If foster care never came about, these children would be on the street. Sometimes we wonder how and where this program started. Foster care is a world wide program, including the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Japan, among other countries. Usually it is best for children to live with their families, but not all families can provide the necessities for them. Sometimes it is more harmful for the child to stay with the family. When this happens the child’s care depends on the child welfare system. Placing children in foster care is usually a “last resort."

1) What does this have to do with the history of foster care? 2) "If foster care never came about, these children would be on the street."? ? ?

140.211.112.110 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I've removed that paragraph entirely. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Foster care. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100910101345/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gq1yhAPK8txoVpGAPujSMUK9wz5gD9HULPCG4 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gq1yhAPK8txoVpGAPujSMUK9wz5gD9HULPCG4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070708032821/http://www.childtrauma.org/ctamaterials/MindBrain.pdf to http://www.childtrauma.org/CTAMATERIALS/MindBrain.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070221122245/http://www.jimcaseyyouth.org:80/docs/nwa_release.pdf to http://www.jimcaseyyouth.org/docs/nwa_release.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Foster care. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021093334/http://www.voices.mb.ca/assets/anne%20tweddle%20youth%20leaving%20care%20report.pdf to http://www.voices.mb.ca/assets/Anne%20Tweddle%20Youth%20Leaving%20Care%20Report.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113063447/http://www.fostercarealumni.org/resources/foster_care_facts_and_statistics.htm. to http://www.fostercarealumni.org/resources/foster_care_facts_and_statistics.htm.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426010415/http://www.nccr.info/attachments/600_The%20Corrupt%20Business%20Of%20Child%20Protective%20Services.pdf to http://www.nccr.info/attachments/600_The%20Corrupt%20Business%20Of%20Child%20Protective%20Services.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.chlidreninfamilies.org/foster-care/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Foster Children and Substance Use Disorder
There is limited research on foster children’s substance use, despite the extensive research on the effects of parental substance abuse on their offspring. According to childrights.org there are 438,000 children currently in Foster care (also referred to as out of home care) in the United States; of those children in foster care, the circumstances surrounding their removal from the home due to parental drug abuse is estimated to be 34% (92,107) as of 2016. Within this population parental alcohol abuse was estimated to be 6% (15,143), child drug abuse estimated at 2% (6,273) and child alcohol abuse estimated at less than 1% (1,242) (the adoption and foster care analysis and reporting system AFCARS 2016). Vaughn et al., found in their study on Substance use and abuse among older youth in foster care that out of 406 seventeen-year-old foster youth in Missouri, 49% of them had experimented with some form of illicit drug. Marijuana being the most common. Based solely on this study, is not accurate to assume that because a child has been in the foster care system, they will automatically use illicit substances; yet, the ones who are using drugs are at a more serious risk for developing a substance use disorder SUD. In other studies, addiction has been shown to affect families from generation to generation, possibly causing a genetic factor predisposing them to the same problems with substance use, leading to a developmental disease furthering the cycle for future offspring. This has been seen in a previous study by Sparks and Tisch; showing parental alcohol use in mice affected neurobiological damage three generations later. Research has also revealed one of the biggest risk factors for adolescent SUD is family history of SUD. Specifically, parental addiction has an increased impact on offspring development, this risk is amplified when the offspring has had early exposure to the addiction. Foster children are one of the most vulnerable populations in this country due to their lack of support and representation among other factors; there is a tremendous gap in the research on SUD regardless of the abundance of literature on generational effects of parental and familiar SUD. More research is needed in this area to gain a better understating of what is needed to help stop this cycle for Foster youth. Kanisha93 (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail article removed
When I deliberately vandalized and reverted myself in the article, I had to remove a Daily Mail reference because such references are no longer allowed by Wikipedia. Please replace this reference with a better one. Thank you! 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:50A9:61A0:31EB:AC4B (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

We should add Foster care to prison due to many kids from foster care go to prison after leaving foster care.(64.63.171.234 (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC))

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sgreensky. Peer reviewers: Ellenovar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 October 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Annunzij.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Rachel Hiller's findings on foster children and the importance of therapy
This section has been added repeatedly by one editor and removed by a range of editors, myself included. I object to its inclusion on a number of fronts: To prevent the emergence of an edit war, I suggest we discuss in what form the material should appear in the article, if at all. signed, Willondon (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Undue weight: too much content focussing on the research of one individual. The volume of text and its presentation as a section unto itself clearly overwhelms the rest of the article, upsetting the balance.
 * Promotional intent and possible conflict of interest issues.
 * Excessive quotation, and "Wiki voice" problems: a good portion of the content is in the form of direct quotation, and other text not presented as a quote takes on an instructive tone, rather than informational. Example: "While this was a smaller sample study, if we take into consideration that 61% of foster children will be diagnosed with a psychological disorder we cannot rely on their carers [sic] to be their only source of emotional stability, especially when their carers [sic] are not trained or educated in the psychological field." Who is "we"?