Foster children

Putting babies on the market

Robert Holman

Robert Holman, a lecturer in the Department of Social Administration at the University of Glasgow, discusses here some of the urgent questions arising from his research into the fostering of children, private and official, undertaken while preparing his study, 'Trading in Children' (Routledge and Kegan Paul).

In 1870 a private toster mother was executed for murdering her foster children and claiming the insurance on their lives. Her famous trial, and subsequent exposure of similar deeds, captured public attention and led to the first Infant Life Protection Act. Then private foster children — those children cared for by persons who are not their relatives, guardians or public officials — virtually passed from notice for a hundred years. However during the 1960s the numbers of known private foster children increased rapidly to a peak of over 11,000.

Local authorities in England and Wales have, at any one time, some 30,000 children whom they have received into care and placed in foster homes chosen by social workers. They are financially supported, visited and controlled by the Social Service Departments. Why then do other children find themselves on a private market? Consider the following cases: 1. A Nigerian student, having exhausted his grant, relied on the weekly E10 earned by his wife (who also studied part-time). They lived in one room and sought day care for their child. No day nurseries could be found and the local social 'worker refused to take the child. The parents then placed him in a private foster home.

2. A student nurse met difficulties in caring for her illegitimate baby. Her relatives were not nearby while daily minders and day nurseries were not open during her evening shifts. Consquently, she made a private fostering arrangement.

These natural parents may be considered typical of the users of private foster homes for the study found that some 60 per cent were West African students while the remainder were mainly deserted spouses or unmarried mothers. They sought care in order to be free to study or work. A half had first approached the local authority but were told they were capable of making their own arrangements. Others sought unsuccessfully for adequate day care. Most then turned to private fosterings as a last resort.

Free market forces govern the operation of private fostering. Contacts are usually made through local advertisements although chance meetings in shops or at bus stops can also result in the transfer of a child. As virttrally no constraints are placed on who takes children, it is pertinent to question the suitability of the foster parents and the wellbeing of the children.

On a variety of measures, 63 per cent of the private foster parents had at least one unsuitability feature. At worst, they included persons who had been imprisoned for child neglect, who had committed offences against children, and whose own children had been removed and placed in public care. Nineteen women had taken up private fostering after local authorities had refused their . application to foster for them.

' At least the private foster mothers were highly motivated towards fostering. The vital part played by father figures in child development is increasingly recognised yet many of the private foster fathers had disengaged themselves from the fostering situation. Over half never bathed and 18 per cent never played with the younger children. A quarter took no interest in the hobbies of the older ones while over 40 per cent never took them out alone. Many wanted no part in fosterings which their wives alone had initiated.

For instance. One private foster father apparently did not recognise the existence of two foster children both of whom began to present problems. The elevenyear-old girl was found begging and making adbances to strangers. The boy soiled and was tremendously fearful of being made to leave. They were being used as ammunition for the foster parents' marital battles. By ignoring the children, the husband could hurt his wife.

By contrast, the local authority foster mothers were generally satisfactory and their husbands fully involved. Social workers had investigated their suitability before placing a child with them.

The lower standards of care were associated with difficulties of

an acute kind. Two thirds of the private children (as against one third of the local authority) displayed extreme and consistent aggression, anxiety or withdrawal. Nearly a half had suffered bronchitis while over a quarter had been backward in speech or motor development. Of those at school, more than a half presented behavioural problems.

These adverse experiences of the children should not be used to overlook the positive features of the private foster mothers. Nearly all had a deep affection for children. Many persevered with highly disturbed youngsters. Some did provide care of an acceptable standard. But suitable or not, two characteristics of private fostering meant distinct disadvantages. for the foster mothers. Firstly, the fees received from the natural parents tended to be low and often irregular. Some declined to ask for more knowing the parents could not afford it. Others feared such a request might provoke parents to end the placement. Consequently, some foster parents appeared in severe financial difficulties. By contrast, the local authorities regularly paid their foster parents generally higher fees plus allowances for birthdays, holidays etc.

Secondly, the private foster mothers often had no idea how long or even if they would keep their children. Many lived in fear of the knock on the door signalling a sudden removal. One told of the natural parents who called to take the child to the photographers — and never returned. For the foster mothers the system could mean constant insecurity and consequently some attempted to bribe natural parents not to remove. For the private foster children it could mean short, multiple and sudden placements. The local authority fosterings — where the social workers often negotiated between foster and natural parents — were less liable to fears and experiences of this nature.

Local authorities possess no effective powers to control or help private fosterings. As a result, the social workers feeling they had little to offer, tended to withdraw from the situation. Thus their statutory duty to visit from time to time" was interpreted to mean minimal contact. Some 15 per cent of the private fosterings were not seen at all in a twelve-month period, the children rarely saw a social worker for a private talk, and over 90 per cent of the natural parents were not contacted at all. By contrast, the local authority children received a far superior service in terms of visits, financial help and counselling.

Local authority foster homes, being in short supply, could never provide for the present private foster children. It follows that reform must attempt to reduce the demand for private fosterings while also raising its standards. Numbers of the natural parents would have preferred day care.

If local authorities (or voluntary bodies) supplied a comprehensive service of day care centres with flexible opening hours, many children could remain in the care of their parents. Beyond this, local authorities need a duty to visit private fosterings as frequently as local authority ones, powers to help financially the participants, and, if necessary, the right directly to remove a child from an unsuitable placement (instead of the present difficult court procedures). Such powers and resources would push social workers, private foster parents and natural parents into the relationship which is now missing. The social workers' skills could then be employed to raise the foster parents' standards, to protect the children, and to encourage the natural parents to make wise and stable placements.