That'd be interesting. I'd like that.

Celivia, I'm not close enough to it to know how the screening works but have gathered some impressions about the types of issues which are likely to contribute.
- No screening process is perfect.
- If it's like some other government organisations in QLD funding is probably required for glossy brochures, management performance pays and dealing with the crisis which make the papers.
- The kids needing foster care are often already traumatised, that may be externalised by significant behavioural issues meaning that a limited number of families are willing and able to take on their care. It's a big ask to have someone living in your home who is angry and hurting and who will lash out unexpectedly.
- It can have a significant impact on employment if you routinely have to leave work to attend to a child who is creating an incident at school. Likewise to take the time to deal with the other issues involved.

R0bert

I've posted this on the Nanny state article as well but the Courier Mail had a relevant article today. Some might find it interesting.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21579659-27197,00.html

R0bert

RObert, what an excellent article! I am glad that it addressed smoking in cars with children because this is very worrying.

I’ve always found it such a cliché when people use the term ‘nanny state’ in relation to child protection. Obviously, if a big group of parents are irresponsible and abusive then the states need to take over. Children need protection and if the state has to act as a ‘nanny’ so be it.

We need laws to protect our children, whether it is about the speed limit in school zones, smoking around children in cars, or smacking children. A few weeks ago in a shopping mall I saw a mother smacking her little 2 year old on the bottom for falling! Smacks for FALLING!

These laws need to be backed up by clear, hard-hitting TV/media campaigns to ensure the message will sink in so there will be less reason to enforce them.
Unfortunately, policing and enforcing penalties seem like an almost impossible job and many parents will still get away with it.

About fostering families, I can imagine that there are a lot of difficulties for carers. Because being a carer is not financially rewarded it doesn’t attract professionally trained or skilled people, however well-meaning and loving most of these people may be. It’s hard to deal with difficult children and situations. I have the impression that once one becomes a foster parent, one is not well supported or monitored or supervised.
I believe that this sector could do with resources for training carers. I read somewhere a while ago that foster carers numbers are in decline, while the number of children in need of care is increasing.

I wonder what new plans there are to improve this neglected sector- obviously children are suffering and they should be a priority. If their parents can’t cope with life (and receive no help or training) and there is not much incentive and assistance for foster families, then this is a recipe for child abuse. In fact it looks like foster carers are hardly valued - no wonder the reduction in numbers

Celivia, I think a part of the frustration with the Nanny State thing comes from the bit that the government so often gets it wrong for the children in it's care and then tries to tell others how to live. As I mentioned earlier (this thread or another) the canings I recieved at school were generally misplaced whereas when I got smacked at home it was done with more care and responsibility.

Rainer mentioned kids being taken out of bad situations and placed in worse situations. The institutional harm done to kids in years past is very distressing.

We also regularly hear politicians talking about holding parents accountable after teenagers have done something particularly damaging to public assets, the same politicians who seem to stay strangly quiet about schemes which provide financial incentives to teenagers to move out of home if they don't like their parents restrictions.

From my perspective there is also the suspicion that they will target just one area (smacking) out of what I percieve to be an emotional response rather than the result of serious research into needs and priorities.

R0bert

RObert,
Yes, I too feel the frustration that the government often gets it wrong and then tries to tell others how to live. I was looking at the nanny state thing a bit differently. (Did you say there is a discussion on topic this somewhere?) I'll explain.

I don’t really want to disregard a good idea just because it comes from a crap source. I look at the idea for a campaign against child abuse as an idea on its own, not connected to the source of the idea.
A campaign which (hopefully) provides information that will help parents to become more aware that there are more positive and effective ways of dealing with child raising difficulties than smacking them is, in my view, a good idea.

Yes, our child protection system is ineffective and needs urgent attention; of course you are right to say that this is more of a priority and that just targeting one area (smacking).
I don’t disagree with any of this, but in addition I think that spending just $2.5 million on an anti-smacking campaign is something positive because it will more likely than not (knowing that past campaigns that have been successful) help a percentage of children grow up in a more child-friendly environment.

I don’t believe that running this campaign will take away from finding solutions or affect the way the child protection system is working. If the government is willing to do something about the child protection sector, the campaign won't be an obstacle to work on this.

I look at it as two separate issues and both need attention. One is a much more difficult and costly job to fix than the other, but both need to be fixed.