Political correctness gone mad?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph....ue-to-two-cigars.html

Should this couple have been banned from fostering children because the husband has smoked 2 cigars, in 18 months?

The council's policy is for them not to allow persons who smoke, to foster children under five.

Since the couple already have two children one aged 5 and another aged 3, should they now be taken into care?

[emmie]

no to both, totally idiotic.

[Mamyalynne]

Absolutely utterly ludicrous decision.

[emmie]

same as the policy, and i have seen the advertisements for the council, that only black families are wanted to adopt black children, cobblers, children need a good home, and it shouldn't matter what colour you are.

[Zeuhl]

Why do people trot out this silly term 'political correctness'?

A policy that prevents children being fostered with smokers is simply Correct - not Politically Correct - just Correct

Appropriate/Reasonable/Sensible etc

It is a measure to protect the children placed in the council's care from being placed into a potentially harmful environment. Seems reasonable to me.

What is at fault here is that the Council has used a very poor definition of 'a Smoker'. Someone who puffs on one cigar at a wedding is not an habitual smoker - and his GP has confirmed that. So the decision should be reversed as long as the guy provides reassurance that he will not repeat is dabbling at home or anywhere near any children placed in their care.

This of course has no relevance to their own kids;

<<two children one aged 5 and another aged 3, should they now be taken into care? >>

The council have a particular responsibility for the children they are putting up for fostering or adoption that they don't have for other children.

[anotheoldgit]

Yes totally agree em, there are far too many little mites waiting to be adopted or fostered.

Perhaps these councils and their social services would be better employed seeking out those children that have to endure many unspeakable horrors, in the hands of some monster couples.

[anotheoldgit]

/// The council have a particular responsibility for the children they are putting up for fostering or adoption THAT THEY DON'T HAVE FOR OTHER CHILDREN. ///

Isn't the council responsible for their social services, which of course includes child care issues?

[Zeuhl]

<<Isn't the council responsible for their social services, which of course includes child care issues? >>

What does that actually mean? LOL

If someone has children and smokes that is, currently, not illegal nor does it constitute abuse and unless social services are engaged with them for some other reason the council will not get involved.

I would have thought it is obvious that it is very different when a child has been placed into the cate of the council in that they are then responsible for the situation in which they then place that child.

[Zeuhl]

I would have thought it is obvious that it is very different when a child has been placed into the care of the council in that they are then responsible for the situation in which they then place that child.

[cathfromsaron]

they obviously have far too many loving couples, singles and civil partners crying out to foster???

no?

[emmie]

it seems rather an over reaction from the council, it may not be termed PC, but let's say some jobsworths really need to sort themselves out.

[Zeuhl]

so let's say a single mum needs to go into hospital for several months for cancer treatment and her children are fostered.

when she comes out of hospital she finds her kids have been placed with a family of smokers.

Bearing in mind the irrefutable evidence of health damage from secondary smoking, particularly in children, would it be a surprise if the council was then successfully sued for damages by the mother?

[Zeuhl]

Agreed em

the policy is good - but their definition of 'Smoker' is very poor.

[emmie]

agreed, if the man or woman for that matter had been chain smokers, they wouldn't have been considered in the first place, but because the poor man was being honest, and a star for doing that in this day and age, then they should reconsider. Children need a good home, with loving parents.

[roxie_09]

Excuse my naivity (if that's a word lol) but surely the basis should be that it is a good home for the child, smoking could maybe overcome, for example, only smoke outside? My mum for example will only smoke in her conservatory, away from my sisters that still live at home. Hope that makes sense x

[emmie]

roxie, i think many councils try and place children with non smokers, and have some fairly stringent rules concerning fostering, or adoption.

[roxie_09]

Don't get me wrong, I know the importance of settling the child into a home where their health is not at risk, however, there are so many people who do smoke that could be the ideal candidate for that child, other than the smoking obviously lol. I just don't understand why there are so many children needing homes, and this option not being considered. Maybe it is because it is hard to monitor? x

[Zeuhl]

roxie - true

but whilsy you might be choosy in making decisions about children of your own, you would probably be a lot choosier if you had to make decisions for someone else's children.

And that is the position councils are in.

[emmie]

perhaps, but i don't know why councils see fit to tell potential foster, adoptive parents that they can't adopt a child of a different colour, race. I have heard the arguments, that the child would need to have a sense of identity, but seeing how many children are waiting in care someone out there must see that a child needs a home, with good people, no matter the colour. I read, though i can't say with 100% certainty, that there are more black children in care than any other, so the poor mites could be waiting a long time before finding a suitable family.

[roxie_09]

Yes I can understand that, especially in the 'sueing' culture that we have got ourselves in they have to be even more careful.
It's just silly about the colour difference, at the end of the day surely they should be making sure the child is in a safe and loving home regardless of race. If this was such an issue (please don't take this the wrong way) why let same sex relationships adopt x

[carolegif]

When you think of where some children have been fostered and abused, it seems senseless!