"We can no longer offer our home, our love and our experience to a foster child"

Tina Richards* relates her family's experience of fostering and of adoption

My husband and I have fostered and adopted. In 1986, having met two sisters in the children's home where I worked, we were interviewed as usual and completed a Form F so that we could foster them. Over the next few years we fostered five more children, aged 4-15, generally regarded as awkward cases, including for two years, an 8 year-old child who was physically disabled and emotionally damaged following serious abuse when aged 2.

Our relationships with all but two children (who left the area) continue and the first two sisters are unofficially adopted into our family. I believe we earned a reputation with social services for being co-operative, committed and prepared to go 'above and beyond the call of duty' especially regarding contact with birth parents, liaison with other parties involved with the children and in supplying a warm, creative but disciplined environment.

Adoption

We subsequently applied to adopt a younger child and completed yet another Form F. David came to us in September 1990 aged 7 months. In 1993, after a process again of interviews, written 'essays' about ourselves and the usual probing questions, we completed an application to adopt a second child.

We have always been open and honest about our views on discipline. We have a fairly informal household with few rules except the obvious ones regarding respect, consideration and safety. These rules we uphold by employing praise, encouragement and reward for acceptable behaviour and, where behaviour is unacceptable, withdrawal of privileges etc.

Where necessary we are also prepared to use a smack, always followed by discussion, a hug and reassurance of acceptance and love for the child. We certainly don't feel every child needs to be smacked but we could not, in all conscience, agree to a blanket undertaking not to smack. We genuinely believe we have the experience and sensitivity to detect a child who could only perceive physical discipline as further physical abuse.

Love and security

We disagree with the claim that physically abused children will always interpret a smack as further abuse. From our personal experience and that of others involved with traumatised children, it has been seen that an atmosphere of love and security dispels the likelihood of 'flashbacks' or further trauma. 'Flashbacks' more often occur when a child feels helpless, rejected or in the presence of uncontrollable anger or hatred.

A child of any age placed with us would have to be with us for some time before we would even contemplate smacking. We would first have to get to know the child and the extent of damage caused by his past and also build a secure relationship. We are convinced that a child should never be smacked outside a stable relationship of trust and open affection.

When our 'second opinion' social worker visited us, she asked a series of questions regarding our Form F which she was unhappy about. One concerned our ability to keep our children safe when we have 'lots of strangers' in and out. We do have a wide circle of friends and a large family. We also run a church youth group but none of the teenagers in it are strangers. We worship and socialise within our families regularly.

No-smacking policy

But the biggest problem seemed to be about smacking. The social worker asked us to detail our methods and was concerned that our habit of apologising when we have been unjust or grumpy undermined our authority with a child, whereas she also felt we were 'authoritarian'. She then told us, 'Your views on smacking could well jeopardise your chances of adopting another child.' She warned us that when we went to panel we could well be asked to sign a form promising not to smack as 'the County's policy is that foster carers, childminders and adoptive parents DO NOT SMACK.' We were shocked and told her that social workers had never forbidden us to smack in the past.

The panel did come back to us, perhaps not surprisingly as the social worker concerned sat on it as adviser. At first, we took her word for it and were convinced that we would not be able to adopt or foster again as we could not lie and neither could we forgo our principles. We were devastated and even feared that David our son could be removed from our care.

Challenging the policy

In the end, we set down on paper our views on discipline to demonstrate that we are not abusers and to challenge the so-called policy. The panel approved us to adopt but we were very upset that a social worker honestly believed that adoptive parents were not allowed to smack and had advised us wrongly. We were also disappointed in that we assume we can no longer foster, as we had intended to foster again later on.

We don't know exactly what took place at panel the second time. Our original social worker had retired and, although our old foster placement social worker stood in, she had been physically abused as a child and found the whole issue distasteful and threatening. Having said that, she was supportive. To our surprise the chairman of the panel visited us with our file so we could see that the negative remarks made by the second social worker were a small part of an otherwise positive and complimentary file. She reassured us that our file would not 'gather dust as a result of our views,' although we still feel that as smacking is politically incorrect, many social workers would personally eliminate us from the running.

My fear is that many people have few resources to draw on in this sort of situation. We have several foster carers and adoptive parents in our church, as well as social workers and solicitors etc. We also have a wide network of loving, practical support, so we didn't give up or hesitate to question policy.

How many people are prevented from giving quality care to children in need because of this kind of misinformation or even prejudice?

Something to offer

Without boasting in anything other than the grace of God, I can honestly say we have something to offer needy young people, something that is acknowledged by social workers even if they do not always see eye to eye with us on all issues.

We are trusted to the extent that we are invited by social services to speak at various seminars and groups about our experiences of fostering and adoption and I was even asked by them to speak about adoption on local radio. Yet we can no longer offer our home, our love and our experience to a foster child and we still feel our chances of adopting a second child have been jeopardised.

Below we print an extract from a social worker's report on Tina and Gareth Richards, which illustrates the loss to needy children being suffered as a result of the regulation in the Children Act 1989 which forbids the use of physical discipline by foster carers employed by local authorities and voluntary organisations.

"They have offered a secure, welcoming, friendly home environment and the children/teenagers do seem to have benefited greatly from this. They also have maintained contact with teenagers who have left their care and continued to provide support, advice and practical support.

"At the point at which the last adoption panel met I was arranging some odd days respite care for a teenage girl with Gareth and Tina. Tina had responded with her usual enthusiasm and interest. However, we suspended this work after the panel when Tina and I had a discussion on discipline. Until that point I had not been aware that Gareth and Tina had a policy of smacking children although on reading their Form F I found they had written, 'punishment would be in the form of losing privileges although if they were younger a smack would probably underline the point.'

'In recent discussions it has become clear that smacking is seen by them as "loving discipline". I have no doubt that any child placed with them would be loved a great deal. Based on their religious beliefs, however, they believe this is shown by firm handling which is a form of love. Both are honest people with clear convictions who would never express anything other than their beliefs regardless of whether this gains them the outcome of a second adoptive placement or not. I have experienced them as clear, direct and open in a disagreement with the Department in the past. They have also been professional enough to continue to work with the teenager in question despite all the obstacles and their personal disappointment.

'They have been a valuable resource to Family Placement.'

* All names in this article have been changed to protect the identity of the * author's family.

THE LAW AS IT STANDS

On Fostering...

Under the Foster Placement (Children) Regulations 1991, any foster carer working for a local authority in England or Wales is required to undertake "not to administer corporal punishment to any child placed with him."

Private fostering arrangements are not covered by the Regulations, but by Department of Health (DoH) guidance. The guidance states: "The social worker should explore the foster parent's view on discipline, including a preparedness to accept that corporal punishment is inappropriate for children who are privately fostered."

The DoH has confirmed to local authorities that its guidance "does not prescribe legally required standards for registration. It draws attention to factors that need to be considered and offers a point of reference."

On Adoption

The same law applies to adoptive parents as to natural parents so far as moderate and reasonable physical discipline in concerned.

This article was first published in the Families for Discipline newsletter no 4 of Spring/Summer 1996

Editorial comment

Even longstanding and valued foster carers like Tina and Gareth Richards are now legally prevented from fostering simply because they are unprepared to give a blanket undertaking never to smack a fostered child. It is also concerning to note that some social workers are demanding a similar undertaking from prospective adoptive parents.

This merely serves to underline the validity of Lord Mackay's warning seven years ago that many first-class foster carers would be lost if they were prevented from administering even the mildest form of corporal discipline to their charges. Local authorities and voluntary organisations are losing out, but even more importantly, needy children stand to lose out.

The people who are most likely to be put off fostering by the current blanket regulation against physical correction are not the abusers, but people of honesty, principle and integrity - the very people that fostered children most need.

Copyright © 2001-2007 Families First. All rights reserved.