Replies

Orphanages are probably better than foster families -- many of whom are not normal, married couples and too many of of whom are in it for money.

I agre. There are not many people available to take on this task;the social service agencies do a terrible oversight job;citizens and volunteers can be named to provide regular oversight in orphanages which they cannot do in private homes. Orphanages may not be ideal, but in many cases they beat the alternative.

The population of American foster children in institutional settings is quietly growing, they say - not due to any concerted social or legal effort, just a pieced-together system that affords comparatively few services to families in need but offers fiscal incentives to take children away.

Here in the article is stated the future of the American "family."

Now here is another quote from the story that is very important: ...proposal that would allow states to take their annual foster care money - currently the only bottomless pool of funds available for poor kids - in an up-front sum that could be used for family-preservation services. The child welfare community is divided: some Bush detractors actually support the proposal, citing its potential to strengthen family services; many institutional care providers oppose it.

This trend will continue. In fact, it will pick up momentum and and snow-ball over the next few years. All of this will be brought to you by states looking to, once again, fatten their general funds by destroying families. I'm not talking about the abused kids here. I mean children who's parents are divorced or in some cases never married. I know I will be jumped on by the usual crowd for daring to question the motives of people who are just looking out "for the children", but I could care less about them.

This will all be brought to you courtesy of the divorce industry. No fault divorce laws coupled with the bias in domestic relations courts in favor of mothers at the fathers expense have help to greatly contribute to the current 50% divorce rate. Mothers are awarded custody in about 90% of all contested custody cases, and with the children goes most of the assests and and good portion of the fathers after tax income. The states get over 4 billion dollars from Washington to enforce support orders. The states' federal funding for this is tied directly to the amount they collect, giving incentive for states to set the support guidelines higher and higher. How will this impact the growing foster care rolls? When mothers file for divorce, they give the courts (re: government) a tremendous amount of power to remove the father from the family...power that free of concerns with violating due-process and parental rights because the sheep at the voting booth will sign on to anything when they are told that it's being done "for the children." The money and power hungry in state and federal legislatures as well as the agencies and companies who profit from destroying families will move in to save the day. The same system that (by no means all) women have used to get rid of their husbands will turn on them. Where the kids go, so goes the funding...from the father and the feds. The reason for taking the kids from the mother will be likely be that the children will be better off in loving, caring foster home where married people can provide a stable environment instead of being stuck in the center of a divorce and custody fight. At this point, the support money that was going to mom will go to social services so they can pay the foster families, while keeping a little more for administrative costs, of course.

Think it won't happen? Children have been the tool of big government types for a long, long time. Don't think that they will stop using them now. [/soapbox]