A tax supported program whereby complete losers who aren't smart/competent enough to use birth control can have full-time babysitting services provided for up to 3 years before deciding to be a somewhat responsible parent.
This program also provides many benefits to the "loser", AKA bio-parent, including visits with the children at the loser's convenience (they don't have to show up if they have something more important to do, like sleep), free phones, subsidized rent, groceries, free health care, etc.
The foster parents, meanwhile, are attempting to teach the wild animals, er, offspring of these loser bio-parents to be civilized human beings.
At the end of the 3 years, the bio-parent, if they decide that it's not too much trouble, can make a sudden effort to appear responsible, in which case they get their offspring back on a permanent basis, and the loser pattern is extended another generation.
Well, we've had these kids for almost three years, and now they're going back to "Mom", so they can live in the house and ride in the car, and go to the doctor, all paid by our taxes.
At least "Mom" stopped smoking crack a couple of months ago. Maybe she won't leave the 5-year-old at home alone when she goes out to get more drugs. Or maybe they'll end up in foster care again.
AGAINST: a way of punishing children through the ages of infants to 18 (and sometimes older) for what their parents did
FOR: a way to get children out of destructive homes and away form irresponsible parents
DOESNT MATTER WHAT SIDE: being a foster child is not amusing. foster children often can not socialize the way other children do
children under the age of sixteen stay with foster parents until reintegration with biological parents
sixteen year olds can choose if they would like to stay with a friend
congrads to all the fucking 16 yr olds
non-f-kid: my dad yelled at me for notmowing the lawn
f-kid: my dad wont let me live with him and my mom spent my chil support on crack if that helps with the pain
State sanctioned concentration camps- Children in foster care are "taught" "proper" behavior (and if that means beating them senseless until they go to confessional with you..so be it). 2/3 of homes are abusive in one way or another.
Then again, foster homes do save lives, they can help people, and the other 1/3 may be just what you need.
Which is better? An abusive home, abusive foster care or an abusive home with a relative? So many options...