Fostering v SGO

[Kate]

Pigletshouse, I missed your post before posting my lengthy one above, where you apologise, not specifically for the words I had raised in my post, but nonetheless it was an apology. It's easier to say this in another post than attempt to edit the other one.

I do also understand better where you are coming from, from your post referring to your own experience as a looked-after child.

[mumof3now]

Kate

Not sure what you are trying to say about the age really....what difference does it make how old we are we are still entitled to an opinion. Yes you are right we may not be bringing up our children's children but that doesnt mean we can't have an opinion does it. A grandmother/or grandfather could be in there 30/40/50/60/70/80 - age is a number and should never be discriminated in anyway - which I have not done or aware that anyone else has done. yes I may been younger than others but there again I may not be, as I never generalise on someone's age just because they are grandparents. but regardless we all are tired and have all had to endure a fight to get where we are and we all have one thing in common with bringing up children who for whatever reason can no longer with their parents.

For me I am tired and weary in my battle with my nephew I also have other responsibilities, yes I am younger than some I am in my 40's for what it is worth carer for my nephew, look after my 2 children, carer for my father who had a severe stroke 5 months after we took my nephew on, carer for my mother who is fighting cancer and work part-time and the only earner in my household and had to fight for any financial assistance at all from the very same LA or risk my children living in poverty. thats why i gave my opinion.

I would like to think that maybe the ones that have more to say may have been the ones like myself that had just come out of this whole nightmare of the Final Hearings, and had to fight so hard for any finacial support rather than just classed as a younger member of this forum, as that would also be ageist.

but regardless we all are tired and have all had to endure a fight to get where we are and we all have one thing in common with bringing up children who for whatever reason can no longer with their parents - lets not forget this.

Mumof3Now

[Diane]

.

[Diane]

.

[Kate]

mumof3now, I'm sorry at how my comments came over. I will try to express myself better (and as briefly as possible!) over the weekend as I'm half asleep now so would make an even bigger hash of it. I absolutely didn't mean to be ageist, and reading of all your responsibilities nearly made my eyes pop out.

If I can think of a better way to express myself I'll start a new topic as it's a different issue from the original one here.

[Diane]

.

[Nana]

Even after reading all the posts here I have to admit to still being very confused!

The original question was Can they force us to go for SGO? the answer to that for me is.....No one can force anyone to do anything they don't want to!

However from what I have read the child lives with both the Grandparents and Father and as stated the placement is secure and going well...any/all interference from the maternal side of the family has obviously been dealt with accordingly when/if it has happened so surely lessons have been learnt as to how to deal with them, which in turn surely informs the carers of what would need to be done in the future i.e contact the Police.

I can understand the financial implications, we all know how expensive bringing up a child is but as stated the Dad works, he not only works but also plays a major part in the child's life and upbringing and in the great scheme of things surely that is how it should be...just as no matter how young any parent is when a child is born when they start earning or reach an age of responsibility it should be.

The Father has money deducted from his wages! So in effect he is paying the LA to pay his parents to look after his child, surely he could just pay this direct to them? As for the birth Mother not contributing anything then she should be reported to whatever body and also be 'asked' to contribute.

Obviously no one knows the full story, therfore judgements can not be presumed but from what has been posted it is more than obvious that the only reason for the care order to continue is for financial gain...to me, with the little knowledge I have this is glaringly not in the childs 'best interests' and could have the potential to stir up very different issues for the child as she gets older. It's certainly stirred up emotions on here!!!

Perhaps if we were all so lucky in getting such a high level of support there would be no reason to comment but as it stands we know it is a postcode lottery just as we know the majority who find themselves in the same/similar position don't get the support needed.

BUT I have never come across such a situation as this one...To me it feels like Dad is being rewarded and given privelages that many in his situation don't recieve and/or that the parents are treating him like the immature 15 year old he was when the child was born when in fact he is now a responsible adult with a responsible and demanding job (that we all admire) he needs to step up to the mark and take responsibility for HIS child instead of allowing others (his parents) to be left open to critisism for doing what they perhaps feel is right. It must be nice to be able to build ones career without the added complications having a child brings to that equation but that is real life and what most/many do and no doubt will continue to do for generations to come.

[Diane]

.

[Help 1870]

Now who is being offensive.

I have to point out that it was you Diane who brought up the subject of finance. By your own admission there are 3 sets of earnings coming into your house, the combination of at least 2 must be fairly sizeable if you dont qualify for child tax credits. This child isnt being kept on a care order to protect her, shes being kept there to maintain a certain lifestyle that the local authority are paying for.

Nana makes a very good point, the childs father could pay the 15% he is currently paying to the LA direct to you. It may not equal the full fostering rate you are receiving now but it would be better than nothing.

With the recent budget cuts many LA's will be looking at kinship carers on CO's who they may have previously left bimbling along but who are perfectly able to move onto other orders. Foster care allowance is just the tip of the iceberg in cost to the LA. There is the cost of LAC's, PEP's, Medicals, statutory visits, maintaining files and probably a whole host of other things that we arent aware of.

You grandchild may not feel the effects of being on a care order yet, but she will, those effects have been very clearly explained by pigletshouse who has been through the system herself and can give a first hand view. I can add to that caring for 2 young teenagers who were LAC until their residence orders were granted. They hated it, they hated the intrusive nature of the process, they hated feeling different and being treated different to everyone else. They hated living with the uncertainty knowing that the only person legally responsible for them was some faceless local authority employee who was responsible for making any decisions for them without even knowing them. It does impact on children and for that reason it should not be allowed to continue further than it needs to be.

In answer to your original question, I can only repeat what I have said in previous posts. They cannot force you to take an SGO.

But the LA also has the option to discharge the care order if it feels it is no longer required or necessary. Should they decide to do that, good luck fighting them in court, I very much doubt the court will be impressed given your circumstances that money is being put above the welfare of a child.

[youngagain]

Harsh but true