[wannafostersoon]

We've read about them in the paper, we've seen them on Dateline and 20/20, but I actually met one. A career foster family. What do I mean by "career foster family"? I mean a family that makes a living off of their foster children. And now they are teaching other, normally ethical people, how to "get over" as well.

I went to work today to drop off paperwork and I asked a colleague for a reference for my foster/adopt application. She got VERY excited and told me that she was considering becoming a foster-only parent herself. With our new-found common goal in mind we decided to go to lunch together and talk about the process. She is a little further ahead of me.

Long story short, we go to eat and she tells me how she got into the idea of fostering. She is doing a private duty case in a house in a very affluent suburb along with other nurses, each working with other clients. My associate's client is the biological child of the parents and has a condition that requires 18 hour nursing care per day. The other three clients are foster children/young adults that require 24 hour care. 1 is on the bipap and 1 is vent-dependent. I'm not sure about the third but she's a baby that is new to the household. I didn't get to meet her, she was at a program.

The mother of the brood, whom also has three other children without special needs confided in associate that the main reason she was doing foster care was because it afforded her a way to stay home with her own four including her own special needs child. She gets $1700 a month per child, SSDI for her fragile bio, plus she is a Medicaid RN so she covers a shift with one of the foster children and bills for her time. That is an additional $33.71 per hour or $269.68 per 8 hour shift.

Now, when associate is telling me this I am in disbelief and awe, but as far as I'm concerned it's hearsay. Well, associate likes how it sounds to get $1700 a month in foster care payments and then bill Medicaid $1887.76 per week by covering one of the approved nursing shifts herself. So, while she has no real desire to be a mom, she does like the idea of having a child in her home on county $. Associate tells me that another nurse in the house is going to do it too and mother of the family is walking them through the process and teaching them how to get DHS to waive their normal restrictions and allow multiple high-tech medically fragile children to be placed in their homes.

Then, associate says there is an opening on one of the cases for a per diem PDN and would I be interested? I say, sure, honestly out of curiosity, and she calls mom (who of course is home) to ask if we can stop by so I can meet her and the client.

We go to the client's house and I meet the client on the vent and mom. Mom and I spend a while chatting before I have to get home and I tell mom that I am in the process of becoming a foster-adoptive mother too and plan to open my home to a medically fragile child. She tells me how it would be the best thing I could do for my children financially; how she makes over $7000 a month and is able to stay home with her kids and still get them the lifestyle she never had, etc. She says I should try to get two or three medically fragile children so I can be better situated financially; how it doesn't matter if I feel that I can't handle that many children because if they get 24 hour nursing care it's the nurses caring for them anyway. I told her no, I was looking to adopt and I know my limitations. I wasn't rude, (I don't think ) but I know she got my point that I strongly felt her motives were absolutely wrong.

The whole time she is talking I want to THROW UP. I am utterly disgusted. I want to report her, but she's not doing anything wrong and the children are admittedly getting excellent care and their rooms are very nicely set up. In fact, I can tell that she is putting a lot of money into the foster children as well. They all seem happy and healthy, and I know in the long run that's all that matters. But it just seems so wrong. Then she is perpetuating the "fraud" by openly encouraging other nurses to join her.

I do like the client I met and in any other circumstance wouldn't mind proving care to care but I could not allow myself to work there even on an as-needed basis. I am probably completely blowing this out of the water but I can't get it out of my head.

I did make an anonymous call to the dept of health to see if she could legally bill for caring for her own foster children and I was told emphatically that the child is entitled to a certain number of billable hours and if an unrelated family member (even if they reside in the same home) who is certified provides care then there is nothing wrong with that. I guess that's why she hasn't adopted. They have to be unrelated.

Am I wrong for being so outraged?

[arubagirl]

no you are not wrong, I think it is wrong to take in Foster Children for the $$!! Some people just dont get it!! I dont ask for any other money then what is sent each month, some people get money for transportation, cribs, etc.

[tvs4]

I don't think it is wrong to be a bit outraged but she has "played by the rules" and sadly there are not very many foster homes which will take in medically fragile children. It does seem odd that you can bill for hours for a child already in your care that you are recieving some type of compensation for their care and maintance but if it is legal then I guess it is legal. I can't believe that is legal but if it is I it is.

If there were a willing abundance of home to take the fragile children without trying to "profit" obviously that would be better but I'm not sure where else these children would be placed. so, I guess in some ways having a nurse as your foster mom taking good care of you even if she is making some money from it is better than some alternatives.

I think the part that bothers me most is her attempt to "recruit" others. I mean, if she found a way to make the system work for her and her family and the children in her care are well taken care of then I guess I could deal with that... but if she is trying to recruit others for something they may not be ready to handle or deal with then I think that is where the line gets crossed (at least in my mind).

[Hadley2]

Honestly, at first blush, anyway, it doesn't bother me.

It sounds like a good placement for the kids. Compensation that recognizes the value of good care is long overdue in the foster world. Teachers, coaches, and others who work with children and other caregivers, including pedi nurses, are paid and no one yells "fraud!" or accuses them of "only doing it for the money."

If fostering were more affordable through more sensible subsidies, there would be fewer children suffering emotional neglect and getting abused by their peers in group "homes."

It's the "only" that is both judgmental and really doesn't seem credible when you think about the time, effort, and stress of taking any extra child into your home and life 24/7, 52 weeks a year.

I don't see much difference between this situation and a group home or medical residence except that I would think this home is probably safer, more family-oriented, intimate, caring, and better for the foster children while probably more than a bit more stressful than the usual household for the bio children.

There are seven children, presumably the four bios come and go from school and activities, the three medically fragile have multiple appointments per week as well as multiple and changing providers in and out of the home daily, and an 8-hour shift is an 8-hour shift whether you're "home" or not if you are focused on a particular job. And from what you said, the children are not neglected in any material or emotional way, either.

Even with visiting nurse help, it sounds as if this lady is working REALLY hard and is not laying around watching soap operas and eating bon-bons. If she is making this work and all the children are healthy, happy, and thriving, my hat is off to her!

I can't imagine having three medically fragile in the home and working outside the home. Even one healthy fc takes up so much more time and energy than I thought possible. This lady is very well qualified for what she is doing and she has found a practical way to do it while giving these kids a good family home.

So, no, I don't see anything wrong with it. I am only surprised that the state seems to be paying such a generous subsidy--not that it might not be warranted, IDK, but my experience with "the state," any state, is that it usually pays very little. Here, for example, I would make more money babysitting one child two hours a day than taking in one healthy fc. That is the real fraud, IMO.

[Happy123]

On one positive note, at least they are being well taken care of...I hope. I know career foster parents whose children look horrible and are treated the same.
I have one who gets a large stipend and will get a paid nurse soon. But, I could not do more than him even if I was in this for the money.
Happy123

[jackiesbooks]

I don't understand how they get approved. In MD, we have to prove that we can proof that our income without the foster payments is sufficent to live/pay our bills.

[ATXMOM]

Yea, here in TX we have to have proof of adequate income. I know for a fact that I could not treat these kids the way they need to be treated if I looked at fostering like a job. I have actually spent more on our last foster kid than we will make off of him, since he will be leaving us so soon, and I always go way over board on my kids.

[Lorraine123]

he children are admittedly getting excellent care and their rooms are very nicely set up. In fact, I can tell that she is putting a lot of money into the foster children as well. They all seem happy and healthy, and I know in the long run that's all that matters.

I don't see anything wrong with it. The children are getting great care. Isn't that what matters? My daughter was in a foster that did it for the money. I had no problem with it. Her foster parents were not in it to adopt. The were purelyl foster and their "job" was to care for the kids that were placed with them. They were able to stay at home and take care of the kids as a result. Is it better for the parents to put the child in daycare if they need the money? People do in home daycare for the money. I assume they take excellent care of the kids, so is paying them wrong? I don't think so.

If you are going to get upset about something, get upset about the homes where the children are not taken care of. Why report someone who is taking good care of foster children?

[FullQuiverMamma]

In TN and CA someone has to work and bring in money outside of subsidies.

This is an interesting thought though, what about single moms? Wouldn't it be better for a single mom to pay the bills via subsidies and STAY HOME with her foster children??

[paigeturner]

If I'm reading this correctly the fmom is a registered nurse. Three of the children receive nursing care and so she takes a shift and gets paid to do so.

Sounds like an ideal situation for these children to me. The OP states that the children are getting excellent care and that the fmom appears to spend a lot of money on the children. I don't see this as fraud. I don't see it as a problem.

[jbee]

[quote=Lorraine123]I don't see anything wrong with it. The children are getting great care. Isn't that what matters? My daughter was in a foster that did it for the money. I had no problem with it. Her foster parents were not in it to adopt. The were purelyl foster and their "job" was to care for the kids that were placed with them. They were able to stay at home and take care of the kids as a result. Is it better for the parents to put the child in daycare if they need the money? People do in home daycare for the money. I assume they take excellent care of the kids, so is paying them wrong? I don't think so.

this is kind of what we do. we have older teenagers with no intention to adopt them. we are getting them ready to be out on their own. dh and i both stay at home and are full time parents to them and our own kids, and run a daycare from home. fc is the majority of our income but it is a 24/7 job. i am taking strange kids with problems under my roof and getting paid for the job i do.
but i can see why you are upset with this lady, just the numbers make it seem shady, it just seems like so much money.

[Chancey]

I think the children are getting great care and in a home environment. If they were not in that home they could be in a facility somewhere... and you know those facilities make money!! My hat is off to her for managing to provide a loving home where the children can thrive to the best of their abilities.

I am sure it is not easy -- the appointments alone are daunting for basic foster children, not to mention medically fragile.

[buttascotchbaby]

I read the OP earlier this morning and have been thinking about it a lot since then, trying to figure out how to put my thoughts down here. I think it is kind of a non issue since the OP stated that the kids all appeared to be happy, well cared for, etc. Someone already stated my first response which was, if the kids were not in this foster home they would be in an institution, who. would. be. getting. paid. (probably even more!) to. care. for. these. kids.

I am a full time, single mom and foster mom. When I first decided to foster I had a very successful online, home based business. Throughout my life I have worked to care for children, in one capacity ot another... I have run home based child cares, run child cares for businessess, etc... not to mention being the oldest of 6. I always say that my brother was born 20 months after me, I was at his birth and I have been taking care of kids ever since!

I have one bio son and would love to have a bigger family and do not feel any great need to give birth to any future children. This is the initial reason I began to foster. Along the way I realized that I also wanted to do straight foster, as well as adopt if/when the right situation came along (right now finalization for 2 of my kiddos will be in Spetember).

A little over 2 years ago I had a pretty severely abused infant placed with me. She required so much attention and time that I ended up being unable to continue my home based business. Unless I was to put her in day care. Now, not only would I not have received enough from the state to cover the day care expenses, I strongly felt that that was not in the best interest of this child -to be entrusted to me and then I turn around and put her with someone else 8-10 hours a day.

So, I figured, that with what the state was paying me for fostering (and providing an AWESOME home to the kids who are in my care!) the kids that I had (at that time 3) I could squeak by and afford to stay home and "just" be a mom. We have had to make some sacrifices and find out how to do things cheaper and take advantage of every freebie that is offered but we get by. I get so mad every time I hear someone say "I know so-and-so, they are fostering and they are in it for the $$!". I always respond with: "Can you please tell me how?? Cause I would really love to know how!". In my state it breaks down to 73 CENTS AN HOUR! And it is 24/7. We are the cheapest child care the state can find! I KNOW that there are people who are less than honorable foster parents; feeding the kids dog food, having way more kids than they can handle or give good care to, not doing anything for them, etc., etc. However, I truly believe that the majority or doing it for the right reasons; the kids.

And, BTW, that little girl was just reunified with her bio family 3 weeks ago and she turned into an incredible, well adjusted, happy, attached, out going little person. I truly believe that it was due, in no small part, to being with me all the time. I had a friend babysit her once a week so she could be around babies/kids her age and also to learn to be OK with being away from me. The biggest problem we had in transitioning her back to the bios was her attachement to me.

I find it incredibly sad that in this country being a parent is so undervalued. Even more so when it is by someone in the foster family community who makes those comments. In my state the foster board rate has not increased in over 20 years, and yet, out cost of living has gone through the roof. Rents increased by over 20% in the last THREE years. There was a recent nation wide report that I read where, I believe, only something like two or three states paid foster parents as much as it would cost to raise their own (bio) child!

OK, *climbing off my soapbox* sorry for the rant and thanks for reading It is all JMO! I respect others' opinions but enjoy the opportunity to put forth my thoughts on this matter as I think there are so many out there who are under some pretty severe misconceptions when it comes to foster care. Oops! There I go again! LOL

[Hadley2]

I thought about this all day, and now I am a little disturbed that...

Someone would, under a false pretense of friendship, gain the confidence and recommendation of another person to, under the false pretense of wanting a job interview, gain entry into a private home and waste the time and energy of a hardworking mother of seven, three of whom are medically fragile, just so that she can satisfy her curiosity and sit in silent and superior condemnation of that mother, never having done the work the mother does herself. Then vilify that mother for the valuable thing she does and for trying to show other highly qualified, caring, presumably child-oriented people (pedi nurses) that they can give these very special foster kids a good home, too?

That does disturb me.

I don't know what the alternative is. Go to work outside the home, abandoning helpless children alone in a house to a string of hired hands coming and going without any overall coordination or supervision? Hire full-time medical case coordinators in addition to everyone else? Institutionalize the children? Only allow independently wealthy people to foster multiple kids at a time? Or make it worthwhile and affordable for a highly qualified, caring adult to take these children into a SAHM family situation, provide for them, care for and about them, and coordinate their special care 24/7?

Not to mention there is a LOT more to foster parenting than what the visiting nurses do. The nurses don't keep clean linens, laundry, prepare meals (special food?), keep house (special sanitary?), transport to or track other medical and service appointments, or take the parenting role in working out EIPs, IEPs, occupational therapy, speech therapy, mental/emotional health therapy, behavioral stuff, etc., etc. and, of course, be mommy, too. Oh, and let's not forget visitation--how does that work? Must she open her home to the parents? Transport three kids three different times/week to three different visitations? Whatever happens, it can't be easy!

If you look at the money, too, like many things, I think you'd find it reduces fairly quickly: Take 24.5K/year off the top for her own family health insurance policy; take off another $5.5K/year for the extra portion of FICA she must pay as a self-employed contractor on the shiftwork; subtract actual expenses for three medically fragile children--$10K/year for food, $2K/year for clothes, $2K/year transportation, some amusements; extra utilities (lot of electric, heat, and cooling that you wouldn't otherwise need) $2500/year; other incidentals, $2K/year; reduce one of the subsidies dollar for dollar for the SSDI and add in extra time to chase a second pocket for the same dollars--

Now you are down to the $80s, about what a PDN would make with benefits, plus a 401K plan, etc. if employed by an agency. And let's not forget that she is working a 40-hour work week--the same 40-hour work week for which the op would feel justified in being paid $70K/year plus full benefits as a PDN.

But on top of that, she still has three high-mainenance children in her home an extra 16 hours/day, extra professional and foster education and training requirements, extra parenting responsibilities times 3, extra strain and stress on her biofamily, etc., etc.

So--where is the "profit" in doing this over just working and not fostering?

The only benefit is more dedicated parenting time--a large portion of which goes to the foster children.

Just what is it that this foster mother has done that outrages the outraged posters? Would it help if she had a different title--say, "24-hour medically fragile pediatric in-home residence and care provider and special services coordinator"? Then the state would be reimbursing her expenses, paying her rent for the use of her home (which would probably have to be upgraded to institutional standards, thereby raising the rent), paying her a salary based on a 168-hour work week (or 56-hours full-time and 112 hours on-site on-call) and providing her healthcare insurance, 401K/pension, and other benefits. The tab for that would probably be quite a bit higher!

[ca-bigsister]

I don't see anything wrong with paying a subsistence amount of money to foster parents. I get paid a pittance each month for my FD to pay for food, medical expenses, tutoring, clothing, gas, school expenses, utilities. We live in California which is very expensive to pay for rent and expenses.

She has very special needs and this doesn't even cover half of her expenses. I work hours with her every day on homework and driving her to appointments, therapy, tutoring, singing and dance lessons, the orthodontist, her psychiatrist and other places. She is lucky enough that I have borrowed enough money to give her what she needs. I had a relationship with her before I became her foster parent, so I have done everything necessary to give her what she needs. However, if I had two or three of her, there is no way I could afford to do this.

If she was in a group home, the cost would be $5,000 per month. In a private home, the available amount is less than 10% of that. Paying foster parents a pittance keeps many people from stepping up. I know that there is no way I would voluntarily be a foster parent simply because I could not afford to parent the way I think that the children deserve to be. I don't see why foster parents shouldn't be "paid" to drive to all these appointments, etc., not just reimbursed gas fees. Things which should be covered like tutoring and medical reimbursements, at least in our case, are not. I don't see why foster parents should have to subsidize the cost of the child care, etc.