Why aren't traveller children placed in foster homes?

Mrs OBumble

FWIW I saw a brochure the other week looking for Traveller families to foster children. So some of their kids must be put into short term care.

I know a few Travellers who are nothing like the picture painted here, btw.

Omackeral

I'm betting the OP saw this thread going a lot differently.

PARlance

If you're going to ask that question then it deserves the response, Why aren't most children placed in foster homes?

We've been doing a spectacularly bad job at it of late.

Loveinapril

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

FWIW I saw a brochure the other week looking for Traveller families to foster children. So some of their kids must be put into short term care.
.

Some of every ethnicity of children go into care.
It is obviously preferable for the child if they can go somewhere where the family are familiar with their culture but this can be rare. I know plenty of settled Irish families who foster traveller children (as well as Muslim, African, Eastern European etc.).

In reference to the OP, children are only taken into care as an absolute last resort. There needs to be clear risks, neglect or abuse for this to happen. Breaking up a family because they don't live in a house/ apartment is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

One eyed Jack

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Because it is a disgusting idea that should appall anyone with the vaguest knowledge of history or morality. Because it would represent a grossly inappropriate empowerment of the State. Why should we tolerate children being raised in racist homes? Or religious fundamental homes? The State should break up these families and place their children with people deserving of the chance of reproduction.

We already had a referendum to give the State exactly the means to do just that -


"In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such an extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child."


Source: Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland

Widdershins

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We already had a referendum to give the State exactly the means to do just that -


"In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such an extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child."


Source: Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland

That was a bit of a deceptive referendum, I think?

Glenster

Loveinapril wrote: »

Breaking up a family because they don't live in a house/ apartment is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

May parents would be like, "they live in an apartment? That's basically child abuse!"

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

FWIW I saw a brochure the other week looking for Traveller families to foster children. So some of their kids must be put into short term care.

I know a few Travellers who are nothing like the picture painted here, btw.

There's a good lot of fostering of each others' kids goes on. It's worth a few quid if you do it right.

One eyed Jack

Widdershins wrote: »

That was a bit of a deceptive referendum, I think?

Absolutely people felt that it was deceptive alright, particularly for the reason as jobsbridge mentioned above that there were many people who weren't too keen on giving the State that much power.

But, the thing that most appalled me at the time was the low voter turnout -

"The Children's Referendum has been passed with the support of 58% of voters, with just three of the country's 43 constituencies rejecting the proposed amendment.

However only 33.5% of those eligible to vote yesterday did so, which was the lowest turnout since the referendum on bail in 1996."

Sam Kade

Ubbquittious wrote: »

I saw a great documentary there a while back about a fella who got stuck on mars and lived self-sufficient growing his own spuds and all. Maybe they can go and live over there instead

Did he take the bag of seed spuds with him? What did he eat while waiting for the spuds to grow?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But, the thing that most appalled me at the time was the low voter turnout -

"The Children's Referendum has been passed with the support of 58% of voters, with just three of the country's 43 constituencies rejecting the proposed amendment.

However only 33.5% of those eligible to vote yesterday did so, which was the lowest turnout since the referendum on bail in 1996."

I had a laugh at the turnout tbh. It wasn't long before that that there was a campaign to have votes on Saturdays because it would more people (students etc.) and then that happened.

Katgurl

What a disgusting, arrogant and ignorant suggestion.

Op seeing as you're a movie man go watch Rabbit Proof Fence.

JoeyPeeps

wakka12 wrote: »

If all traveller children were taken to foster homes , then travellers would essentially die out

That's the whole point

TheQuietFella

JoeyPeeps wrote: »

I'm sure may of us wouldn't like our children raised on a halting site yet it is regarded as an acceptable standard of living for travellers. Why do we allow it? I think if more traveller children were placed in foster homes we would have far less problems.

Well Christ was born in a stable and look at all the trouble he caused!!!