Mother angry after her son dies in foster

SeattlePI ^ | 12/18/02 | Associated Press

[mbynack]

Foster parents aren't state employees. They aren't even reimbursed for the total cost of taking care of the child. Most people do this because they love kids and want to help save a child from an abusive or unsafe environment.

[ladysusan]

Please prove that she is ultimately to blame. Why exactly were these children removed?


The most proximal cause of death is the negligence of the foster parent.

[ladysusan]

Except the ones who warehouse kids, take in a tidy sum each month, get the kids for slave labor, let toddlers wander off and drown, and then hide behind confidentiality laws. Sure. Wonderful, caring people and an efficient system that is a model of ethics and morals.

[mbynack]

There are strict limits on the number of kids that a foster parent can take in. The foster parents are required to go through an initial screening and then a renewed screening every three years. The law requires periodic no-notice inspections of the foster care facilities.

You've read a lot into a couple of paragraphs describing an accident. There's nothing in the article to indicate that the foster parents are "warehousing children and take in a tidy sum of money". Had you read my previous post you would have seen that the average monthly allowance for foster parents is about $200. It costs more than that to raise a child.

My wife and I volunteered to be foster parents and money never entered into the decision.

What would you suggest. If a three-year old comes into an emergency room suffering from a cocaine overdose from eating his mother's stash would you send them back to the same house? If a five year old comes into the emergency room with a fractured skull and broken arm and evidence of long-term parental abuse would you send them back to the same environment? Supposed a single mother of a two year old has to go to jail for prostitution. Do you just leave the baby on the street while she serves her time?