Foster Care & Group Homes: What’s Happening To Our Children

FOSTER Care – the good, the bad and the ugly.   For the most part, foster care is a temporary situation.   Approved by Social Services, a shortage of foster care givers has plunged the system in crisis.   Shortages mean the government departments start allowing critical measures to fall short.   In Australia alone the shortage is estimated to be roughly 40,000 homes.   In Sweden “Social” has been accused of taking children without the proper authorization having simply relied on a ‘snitch’ or Karen to then remove children from their homes. In the US 1 in 17 children enter foster care.

Foster Care is a revolving door. Children arrive with a small bag of belongings and leave months or years later with a small bag of belongings.   Often deadened to their fate, these children grow up with psychological disorders and different brain development.   In Mexico, the foster system was dissolved completely as a result.

Once a child turns eighteen – they are deposited on the street. Homeless.   They are either picked up by a gang or turned into prostitutes.

Migrant children coming into western countries seeking a home are further burdening an already strapped system.   And many simply ‘disappear’.

A relatively new study of prison populations found that 85% grew up without a father.   By the age of 26, 70% of former foster children are arrested.   The importance of a family can not be underscored.   The decaying of the family in favor of state owned or controlled children is exasperating the already burgeoning crime stats within western countries.

According to the Foster and Adoptive Care Coalition, more than half of foster parents quit within the first year and by the second year only 40% remain.   As a result, children are disposed into psychiatric institutions and group homes where they can become sexualized.   As children transition from home to home they become more hardened to their reality and can act out aggressively making adoption an impossibility.

Although Social Services claim to ‘train’ their foster parents – too often the level of trauma experienced by a child is NOT compatible with the training.   And Social Service departments are negligent in relaying the necessary background information to prospective foster parents. Leading to a failed home environment.

In Mexico, orphanages are the primary means of homing children who can no longer live with their biological parents.   Most are privately funded – and all must register with the government.   What they provide that a revolving foster care environment does not is stability.

The US no longer provides orphanages.   They have been replaced with adoption and foster care/group homes. After WWII the government began funding foster care. As a result, by the 1950’s orphanages began to phase out in favor of group homes, foster care, and psychiatric institutionalization.   Yet foster care is in crisis. Group homes have been implicated in trafficking.   And the children are left behind in one of the world’s leading societies.

There are roughly 430,000 children in foster care in the US with only 100,000 eligible for adoption and half of those being adopted.   Group homes are a type of orphanage.   But group homes aren’t necessarily only for orphans and can include drug addicts, juvenile delinquents, and impaired children.   Thus the exposure is significantly different than a traditional orphanage.

Follow The Money:   Group Homes are funded by HHS and State governments reaping the rewards of over $10,000 per bed… per month.  But these homes have come under their own crisis model involving abuse, lack of staff, untrained staff, assault, negligence, and neglect.

Foster Care homes are paid upwards of $40-$100 per day aggregating upwards of $14,600 to $36,500 per year.   By comparison, in a new 2022 study done by Brookings, the cost to raise a child is roughly $18,.000 per year.

The obvious conclusion is that Government initiatives are pushing children into expensive group homes to the detriment of permanent foster care protection.   There are 8700 group homes in the US.   They are considered ‘businesses’ operating for profit.   Each group facility houses upwards of 12 children each year or roughly 104,000 total.   That would translate to upwards of $12.5 billion in Group Home government and charitable spending.

In 2013, an FBI statistic stated that 60% of trafficked children in the US came from group homes. Children that had gone missing.

In 2018, the Trump administration introduced Family First Prevention Services Act to limit federal funding of group homes to two weeks per year with specific exceptions.   In Colorado, 35% of foster children are still living in group homes permanently.

While we are led to believe all these children are better off, in places like Australia and Sweden, children can be taken from their parents for minor issues.   And some are taken for nefarious purposes.   The taking of children is not always related to instances of abuse or neglect.

Many reports in Sweden indicate that the vast majority of ‘taken children’ are from immigrants.   In Australia, over 50% of indigenous children make up the demographic of group homes.  A form of government genocide.  The rates may be significantly higher given that as of 2019:   State and Territory jurisdictions have aligned with a new national definition of out-of-home care which excludes third-party parental responsibility orders.

They are not counted.

In both Sweden and Australia, there are numerous reports stating foster children are not allowed contact with their parents or siblings. A form of Child Abuse! In Sweden immigrant families take their children and flee!

A family of five reportedly fled Sweden in 2019 fearing their 3 children would be confiscated by the Swedish authorities over a legal dispute. They found refugee status in Poland.   Today the family escaped Poland over fears of reprisal and sought refuge in Russia!

State Control of our children isn’t just thru school indoctrination ideologies, or runaways, it is inherent in the government system.   When the orphanage concept of Foster Homes and Group Homes becomes a for profit enterprise – the criminal logic is to fill every available trench with a child.

Stolen Children – Australia Shamed

Australia is in the throes of a critical increase in the number of children held in foster care! Currently, that number exceeds 40,000. At the same time, there are huge shortages of people willing to foster children, so they have lifted any potential obstacles to being approved to be a caregiver. Children find themselves shuttled from home to home, abused, lost, unattached, or institutionalized due to lack of available homes where abuse is rampant, and sometimes placed in an orphanage when there is no other available bed or housing facility.

Social Services claim a severe shortage of available employees and are over-whelmed by the sheer numbers. Anyone and everyone is encouraged to make a notification if they suspect abuse or neglect.

Between 2012 and 2013 there were nearly 273,000 such notifications with only 53,000 being substantiated, less than 20%. Still, the number is severe enough for the government to become concerned and question why the spike.

The closest corollary is the change in defining ’emotional abuse’. This category would seem to have the largest number of cases at 38%. But what defines emotional abuse is the real worry. Emotional abuse could be as loose as a parent yelling at a child, or a parent yelling at another parent which is then classified as ‘domestic violence’. These dysfunctions are now ruled as ’emotional abuse’ and warrant the immediate confiscation of all children from the household and placement in foster care.

A foster parent receives an allowance ranging from $910 per month to $2720 for a child with a disability. In addition to this allowance, foster carers are reimbursed for clothes, education, daycare, supplies, activities, hobbies, medical, travel, therapy, establishment costs, life story work and respite. These enticements are offered in order to increase the number of carers willing to engage in the raising of the children as a licensed foster home. As residential parents refuse to come forward, these subsidies are paid to institutions.  In addition, NGO’s have been rapidly coming to the forefront as the government offers adoption subsidies for every child placed ranging from $30,452 to $44, 217. These are considered ‘facilitation costs’.  Post adoption subsidies may also be paid based on the adoptive parent’s income.

The business thrives on dollars and available children.

But there is a growing consensus that these same homes and institutions have an unsurpassed rate of physical and sexual abuse within their system. Some claim the perpetrators are the children themselves, others claim it is the adults, either way, the point is the system that is supposedly built to safeguard children is proving to be – the perpetrator.

The Royal Commission has been called to investigate, however their response has been weak, filled with inconsistencies, and flawed. Little has been done to right the wrongs, and the state is now themselves creating the abuse at a far more prevalent rate than the abuse they claim to mitigate. Children report being prostituted, raped, subjected to abhorrent violence, provided illicit drugs and worse. These children in the foster system are shown to have the highest rates of depression, anger issues, behavioral issues, mental health issues, dropping out of school, and are profoundly more apt to become victims of sexual exploitation, pornography and prostitution.

This is the fix, the government has instituted. In Australia, once a child is placed in foster care, the parent(s) lose all legal right to make any decision with regard to that child. Their medical, educational, housing, are all now transferred to the foster caregiver. If a foster caregiver deems the child should not ever return to the birth parent, the child is offered to the NGO for potential adoption.

The highest proportion of foster children are under the age of one – making them the most likely age group to be adopted. Coincidence?  Studies show that the increase in numbers in foster care is also in proportion to the fact that few children are returned to their parents – ever.  Parents are required to prove their innocence rather than a caseworker proving an allegation. Most of us think of abuse in terms of bodily harm, but in fact, the number of cases in which a doctor assessed physical harm were minimal. According to the last statistical data available, 2001, there were 476 hospitalizations of children that they categorized as having suffered some form of assault. Of those, 57% were attributed to the parents. That means that 271 cases could have resulted from parental abuse. Yet there are 40,000 children in foster care, the discrepancy is vast – .6%.

The second highest category which necessitates foster care is neglect at 27.5%. Cases have been lodged for such unqualifying negligence as running around without shoes, dirty, playing outside without a parent’s supervision, etc…  While these may normally be construed as simple childlike ways, today they constitute neglect and can be cause for abduction of the child and placement in an institution.

So why are caseworkers so intent on labelling and classifying some inane action as child abuse? Could it be as simple as meeting a quotient? Or could it be laziness in reviewing cases, following up on cases and searching for a better solution? Is the system broken?

It would certainly appear that is most definitely the case.  Despite scrambles to put band-aids on the open wound, the bleeding continues.

Monetary incentives are not the answer. This sort of solution is ripe for creating even greater fraud and corruption as the child is valued as property rather than as a living human being. Despite the government claiming that residential careworkers are highly trained and in a rigorous 3 to 6 month course, a recent study found that the carers lacked even rudimentary skills. Residential care has decreased dramatically, replaced with institutions and daycare facilities that operate in conjunction with each other. These facilities have transitory care with high turnover rates. The children are subjected to a far worse scenario than what they had at home and the monetary curve powers the pockets of just a few.  It is a system in chaos.

When there are not enough beds in orphanages, institutions and homes, according to this report, there are instances in which children are housed in motels and trailers. The risks are formidable.  The absurdity is incomprehensible.

The government has continued to try to distance itself from the situation through the utilization of NGO’s. But the initial claim stands as being made by a Social Services employee and subsidies are made without much verification or data.

In an effort to relinquish legal disagreements, in-home day carers have created contracts upwards of seventeen pages which contain language that may be considered questionable,   “The Carer may transfer, assign or novate this agreement to a third party by giving written notice to the Parent (but without needing the consent of the Parent).” This clause may constitute the sum of grievance many parents express as it implies the assigned caregiver has the right to assign the agreement to a foster caregiver without consent. The agreement for childcare also suggests that a third party right to ‘benefits’/payment is enforceable and inclusive. Therefore, a child under the initial care of an in-home carer may transfer their agreement to a foster institution as a third party. It also states the carer and any third party are immune from any legal suit or proceeding.

“If the Carer believes that another Care Provider Type (other than In Home Child Care) is more appropriate then the Parent agrees to do all acts and sign all documents to enable the Carer to transition the child the subject of the In Home Child Child Care to that other Care Provider Type as determined by the Carer.”

The effect of the above clause is to place the absolute right on a caregiver to intervene and make a judgement decision on behalf of the child as to whether they may live at home or be transferred to a different type of care such as foster care. Once in foster care, the child may be adopted out.

Stolen children. Stolen childhoods. A Crumbling Crumb of a system…