[MommyAlysia]

Originally Posted by Boulderbabe

Scraps is acting as an agent of the government, because she is a foster parent for a government agency. If the parents want their children to be practicing a certain religion, and she refuses to allow the children to practice that religion, she's basically acting as the government to prevent somebody from the free exercise of religion. That's a violation of the First Amendment---very serious business.

I absolutely agree refusing to allow them to practice their religion is a violation of the first amendment and should not be tolerated but you are *assuming* that she is refusing that. Who says the kids or her parents even care if they go to a Buddhist temple? I would think if their parents wanted their children to go they would make it known they were not happy about the current arrangements. With the oldest being 13, I would be surprised if her parents aren't aware of where they are going to church or temple. Obviously all this is an assumption on my part, but its a valid one. Not to say yours isn't but point being we don't know the whole story and I hate to see people passing judgment on someone who obviously has the best intentions when we do not know the whole story.

Originally Posted by Boulderbabe

With the implicit disapproval of Buddhism that Scraps is probably showing, and the implicit peer pressure to attend their evangelical church, it's hard to say what the kids do or don't want. But legally speaking, what the kids want doesn't matter. Their parents have the right to make decisions about their religious upbringing. Those rights are intact until the moment that parental rights are terminated. If the parents say the kids go to Buddhist temple, the state (here in the person of Scraps) must ensure they get to Buddhist temple.

Again, you don't know that she is showing disapproval of their religion, in fact she said she was nuetral in front of the children. Just because she expressed her feelings here it doesn't mean that she does in front of her kids. And, again, who says these kids parents say the kids must go to Buddhist temple? Just because someone belongs to a certain religion doesn't mean they actively follow every aspect of it.

Originally Posted by Boulderbabe

In general, foster parents have to be VERY careful to respect bparents' wishes about everything pertaining to religion. One reason we can't cut kids' hair is because both Native American kids and Sikh kids have religious reasons for not cutting hair, and those religious rights have been violated in the past by fparents who demanded the kids get haircuts. Now most agencies just ban haircuts without permission in order to make sure nobody's rights to practice religion are violated.

I 100% agree with this.

Originally Posted by Boulderbabe

I think Scraps' agency has made a very bad decision to place Buddhist kids with her. If she is this negative about Buddhism or about Cambodian animism, she shoudn't be parenting kids of those faiths. The risk of her abrogating their free exercise of religion is too great.

Well, thats your opinion and your entitled to it, though I personally feel that its rude to attack her by sharing your opinion with the whole board when you don't *know* the whole situation.

I honestly am not trying to take sides, I don't know Scraps anymore than I know you. I actually agree with your line of thinking, if everything you are *assuming* is true then, I agree its not a good match and there could be serious issues but I just don't feel like what your assuming is true it seems as if you are twisting her words and making it something its not. She defended her OP.
I am not a foster parent yet, but the agency I will be going through told us we can take the children to church as long as the child doesn't object. We have the right to follow our religion as well, if the FK's need to practice a religion that goes against ours then we do not have to accept placement. I am pretty sure Scraps said she let them know upfront what she was comfortable with and she said she would not accept placements that required her to take the children to religious establishments that went against her religion. So, that leads me to assume her current placements parents do not require that their children must be taken to temple.