|
She is talking about putting holes in a baby. Holes in a baby for whom she does not have legal custody and whose future is uncertain. Cultural or not, decorative or not, I'm not judging, but bottom line it is by definition an unnecessary mutilation. It does require aftercare, and I know from my dd's experiences (at older ages) that some individuals are particularly susceptible to metals in the body, etc. I don't see why an fp should be responsible for that. Personally, I do not think it is something the parent should be able to dictate when she does not have legal custody of her daughter. That said, social services will make that call.
Baptism is entirely different, it does not involve mutilating the body. If we honored every cultural/religious tradition, then we would have female circumcisions and that isn't happening, either. Less extreme, scarring isn't happening, either, and that is traditional in some cultures, too. I do not mean to equate ear piercing with circumcision or scarring except that all are medically unnecessary mutilations of the body.
Or, if you stick with piercing, suppose the mother wanted her lip pierced, or eyebrow, or navel. What's the difference, really? But who would think that would be something she could dictate? Probably not many.
What I do know is that you cannot be ordered to get it done or to have a baptism done, for that matter. If social services wants to provide the parents the opportunity to make decisions in those matters, then social services must facilitate getting it done, not you. If you want to facilitate a baptism, then fine. Be sure, though, that if birthfamily attends, social services has approved and is providing proper supervision just as for a visit. If you don't want to be involved, though, you don't have to beyond making the child available to social services for transport.
So often I see so many questions fps have re what the parents want them to do. We do not work for the parents. We are in loco parentis, without legal custody or rights of guardianship, for the children and we answer to social services, which has legal custody and rights of guardianship of the children; we don't answer to the parents in any way. I don't mean to disrespect the parents or not honor them, but they really do have to and should have to go through social services for their requests--we have no way of knowing the background or context of anything they say they want or anything they do and if it hits the fan, we should not be the ones left holding the bag. (sorry, ykwim). Redirect them and their requests to social services; if you get in the middle, social services will sometimes be all too happy to abdicate responsibility and put it on you. Some parents have already talked to social services, been refused, then try to manipulate the situation by playing on the good nature and sympathy of the fps. However it happens, it's not a good thing for anyone in the long run for the fps to start taking on decision making that belongs in the hands of the legally responsible party--social services.
|