Posted on 11/29/2006 7:26:03 AM PST by Froufrou
Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services has approved a new rule that will prohibit any family that has foster children living with them from smoking in their own home.
"The rule prohibits foster parents from smoking in their homes, as long as there are children assigned to their homes," said Darrell Azar of the TDPRS. "It also bans foster parents from smoking in their cars if there are children present in their cars.
It is believed to be the toughest anti smoking rules in the country, and the first rules ever approved that prohibit smoking inside detached homes.
Azar said visitors to the homes will be prohibited from smoking in the homes as well, and he promises inspectors will check to make sure the rule is being followed.
"If we were doing a monitoring visit and we came out and found that there were cigarette butts in the ash try, that would mean that somebody was smoking in the house, and that would be a violation."
He says the dangers of second hand smoke, especially to children, are well documented.
He says the no smoking rules will be part of the contract adults sign to get foster children in their homes. The rules take effect January first.
More clamps on smokers ping.
Houston PING
Yes, keep those irresponsible smoking parents away and let's give these children to the types who'd beat them and lock them naked in closets
Will they continue to support a ban on foster children in same sex couple households?
Obviously the state believes they have a compelling interest to protect children from harmful influences.
So if the butt is a clove cigarette, violation yes/no?
How about just the roach left over from a nice fat marijuana joint, violation yes/no?
Banana peel cigarette, violation yes/no?
How about a dried grape vine, violation yes/no?
American indian halucinagenic herbs, violation yes/no?
Nope, only tobacco. Want to make a million bucks? Breed a plant close enough to tobacco to taste identical when burned but far enough that any plant expert would class it as a different species (or even genis).
Yes. You take their money, you have to play by their rules.
That is why many people are in the business. Money. They don't give a damn about the kids. So they smoke outside and feed the kids nothing but Spam.
Great.
Some don't while others most likely do.
Foster care is a type of home-based employment, and like any other employer, the state can tell you what to do while you're at 'work'.
IMHO, it seems like children were better off while we still had orphanages instead of being shuttled around from foster home to foster home. At least that way they had a stable environment.
What the DPS is effectively saying is that secondhand smoke DOES cause health problems. They don't want their Medicaid costs going up.
No, what they are 'effectively saying' is that since foster parents receive public monies, they must adhere to the same rules as other public accommodations.
If you haven't seen where the court threw out the study on secondhand smoke because Federal District Judge William Osteen said the "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun" and the "EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information", then either you haven't been around FR long or you have an agenda.
I know all about that. No doubt, some smoking foster parents will use it in the ensuing lawsuits.
And no doubt, the state will have their guns loaded with stats proving medicaid expenses among smoking households are greater than in nonsmoking ones.
What you are overlooking is that medicaid comes with foster care. You didn't actually think medical care for foster children was at the foster parents' expense, did you?
Well of course not. I am fully aware the children have Medicaid. My post was in response to the fact everyone is still jumping on the second hand smoke bandwagon that, according to a Federal judge, never even existed.
Any foster parent smoking in a foster home after January 1st will be 'in violation' of their contractual agreement, but I doubt seriously children would be removed from an otherwise suitable home because of it. To my knowledge, there's not exactly a plethora of people lined up waiting to be foster parents.
The foster parent will probably be ticketed for being in violation (just like you would for smoking in any other public accommodation) and the state will get some of their money back.
Good point, and one that had not occurred to me. How do you punish the responsible party without also punishing the one you're purporting to protect? Makes you go Hmmmmm.
-----
Also, I wonder how many infractions they're planning to allow before pulling the kid(s.)
The article IS woefully short of specifics.
-----
While you are correct that people aren't exactly standing line to be foster parents, it likewise needs to be said that many of them aren't actually fit to be foster parents.
Amen!
-----
As with other entitlements, I'm betting it will be three strikes and you're out. This is their way of clamping down on expenses.
Possibly, but I can't see a bit of difference between the expenses as they are now and the added expense incurred by needing extra manpower, man hours and materials (i.e. bureaucratic forms in triplicate) in order to enforce this new regulation that results in violations... or sanctions... or whatever.
LOL!
We are speaking the same language. One big reason I resigned from welfare was that every time a worker resigned they split the caseload among the rest of us! They actually think it will work to have clients reporting changes and recertifying themselves!
I hate to tell you, but they LIE! [I know, it must be shocking.]
Bottom line: it will cost the people most who can bear it the least - you & me taxpayer and the kids. :o(
I'm just so {not} SHOCKED! :-)
The only experience I had with that sort of thing was many years ago when my (now) very EX husband's sudden lack of enthusiasm for his role as breadwinner forced me to get food stamps so the family could eat.
My caseworker got irate because I refused to sign up for every other 'freebie' under the sun. She apparently thought I was defective for only taking what I felt was absolutely needed to survive.
-----
Bottom line: it will cost the people most who can bear it the least - you & me taxpayer and the kids. :o(
Again, agreed.
I still never figured out why todays foster care is supposedly better than the orphanage system of our parents and grandparents generation, though.
I was on the other side of the desk before, too. They turned me down and, like you, I dumped the deadbeat.
I saw a few ladies who were proud to return the money when they were on their feet again. Very few.
It was my pride and joy to have the best 'arrest' record in my day...not real arrest, but I was able to send out investigators to see if the dad was in the house or not. I never missed and they would talk about us [workers] like kids talk about their teachers.
I'm proud to say those assigned to me dreaded it, with good cause. I used the taxpayer's dollars to weed out as many as I could.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.