[Emily222]

Originally Posted by OakShannon

As far as haircuts - my understanding is that we are simply not allowed to change the appearance of a foster child.

That sounds reasonable to me, unless the "current style" is unkept, ratty, hanging in their eyes.

Originally Posted by OakShannon

But, umm - what does being American have to do with whether or not you take a child to a Buddhist temple? Some Americans are Buddhist. Some Americans are Latino. American does not equal Christian and it does not equal white. Americans are a diverse and many-cultured group of people. I like us that way.

Being American has NOTHING to do with taking a child to a Buddhist template. That is exactly my point. If I had a foster child who was INTERESTED in Buddhism for some reason I'd be willing to take them to a buddhist temple if I'd looked into it and found nothing wrong with the teachings there. But I would not assume that because my foster child was of a certain ethnic backgroud that it was my obligation to push a culture from a foreign country on them.

Being diverse and interessted in lots of cultures and traditions is fine. Using culture to be divisive and separate children based on their background is cruel IMO.

My point regarding America is if the child is American, why would we ever assume they have a different culture than their foster parents? Or that they want to be treated differently based on their ethnicity?

When an innocent child finds themself in a situtation where their biological parents can't raise them I think it's dangerous to assume the "ways" of those parents are in the best interest of the child simply because they have the word "culture" attached to them.

[bethy724]

America is a melting pot with diverse cultures & religions. There are plenty of Americans that are Buddist, Catholic, Prostant, Jewish, hispanic, asian, african american ect...

You have to respect the childs foundation or you can do a lot of damage to them & their self esteem. If you can't take a child to the church they may have gone to (temple, catholic mass, protestant mass) or cook them food that they have been raised with (kosher, hispanic dishes, cuban dishes) than tell your social worker ASAP. As a fp the child is not legally ours either & we should not take them to a church w/ out their parents permission. I've stated I would not attend mass at a temple or mosque (sp?) but would be willing to take the child there w/ the cw's permission.

Just curious - what religion is "American"? What food is "American"? What haircut/clothes/piercings are "American"? FYI-Some children in foster care aren't American as a matter of fact but they are still in the system-I personally know a girl from Pakastan, a child w/ Chineese citizenship, & many Mexican children - that are not Americans in the sytem.

If you have a set opinion about bio parents before you've even met one you should not be a foster parent-maybe a child advocate or volunteer-this is not meant to insult but to advise - you'll have a lot less stress & be able to do some good where you can handle it.

[Scrapsathome]

It seems to me that a lot of people "say" they are willing to support the faith/beliefs that a child comes from and are quick to say that a foster parent shouldn't take a child that comes from a belief/faith system that they think is harmful to the child, but in reality they probably have a mental list of which religions they consider to be okay and which churches/temples/groups they'd be willing to take the child to. I'm guessing, though, that if the kids' parents were white supremecists or radical Muslim extremists or something along those lines that those same foster parents wouldn't be encouraging that and might have a hard time not showing any disapproval of those beliefs. They'd probably justify to themselves that it's not really a "cultural" thing or actual "faith" per se.

In my opinion, the best you can do is let the agency or county know up front what your beliefs are and how you plan to parent. Then, as a parent, you do what all parents do which is decide what's best for your family and what's not. I think, too often, we fall into the trap of thinking that as foster parents we are somehow not "real" parents and have to throw out our own common sense and values and make them subservient to the state or the birth parents. For me, though, it's like when you have your friends' kids staying the night at your house. You take their preferences under consideration, but in the end, it's your house and you are the parent in charge who will have ultimate responsibility for any decisions made.

Jess

[Shelly77]

As a Roman Catholic, I can definitely understand the desire for the mother to have her child baptized.

While this is not necessarily your responsibility, attending the baptism could be a very positive event for you, the birth parents, and the child.

Perhaps you could volunteer to video or take some pictures (non-flash is usually the only requirement during the service). If you did this, you would know photos were taken, AND have copies of them.

If the child returned to the birth parents or other member of the family, they would likely cherish those photos. In the case of TPR, if you were to adopt the child, this could be part of their life book and a chance for you to explain (when and as appropriate) the bridge between their heritage and their life with your family. If you adopt the child but not only have these pictures but took them, at some point your teenage or adult adopted child may realize that this shows how much you cared about HER that you went even though it wasn't your religion.

I would say that someone from the agency or CASA should be there, mostly so that there isn't an issue later with anything you said/didn't say/did/didn't do that turns into an issue with the case worker.

[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by AmahMama

As a foster parent of several different cultural and racial children - and yes - several at once - I do not believe nor will I participate in extremisn or fanaticism for any of the children in our home. I will not deride or be negative regarding any of them - but I also will not be active in pursueing it = if I feel uneasy about them.

Extremism? Fanaticism? Scrapsathome's kids are only participating in their culture's religion and folk traditions. That's neither extreme nor fanatic.

If you can't support these kids in their own culture, you shouldn't take children who have religions or traditions different from yours.

[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by Scrapsathome

I think there are some assumption being made here that need to be corrected. First off, I never tell my foster children that their family's religion is "wrong" or disrespect it. I simply do not promote it. ....

On a final note, we do not "force" the kids to go to church. If they were adamantly opposed to it they could request a transfer to a different foster home. They are actually having a great time, making lots of friends, and gaining self-esteem through the patches they earn on Wednesday nights and the special awards they receive sometimes on Sundays like "Super Star" badges for good behavior and participation. So, I'm trying to understand what the alternative would be. Should I keep them home during all the special events that the other kids get to be part of every week because they aren't Christian kids? How would that be better for them?

Jess

With small children, indocrinating them doesn't have to be done by force or over their objections. You just have to refuse to foster their own culture, while making yours happy and fun. Soon enough, they'll believe what you believe, and will have lost a belief in their own religion and traditions.

If I were the bparents in this situation, I'd be extremely upset. This is a grossly inappropriate placement---so much so, that I believe it violates the children's First Amendment rights and the parents' Fourteenth Amendment rights. The GAL should be throwing an absolute fit about this.

I'm sorry, Jess--I know you mean well. But the state of Colorado can't take kids away from their parents because the parents aren't white, middle class Americans. And you have no right to inhibit the practice of their own religion and culture. Being Hmong or Cambodian is not a form of child abuse.

[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by Emily222

Being American has NOTHING to do with taking a child to a Buddhist template. That is exactly my point. If I had a foster child who was INTERESTED in Buddhism for some reason I'd be willing to take them to a buddhist temple if I'd looked into it and found nothing wrong with the teachings there. But I would not assume that because my foster child was of a certain ethnic backgroud that it was my obligation to push a culture from a foreign country on them.

Emily, it's not your job to evaluate a child's religion or to decide whether or not they can practice it. The child has a Constitutional right to practice religion, and the parents have the Constitutional right to say what religion that is.

The idea that "we're all American" and thus all participate in white, suburban, middle-class culture is just wrong. There are many cultures in America. These kids clearly are the children of immigrants. They are not part of white, middle-class, mass-market culture. To pretend that they're "American" and hence have the same culture as you is a violation of their Constitutional rights.

My point regarding America is if the child is American, why would we ever assume they have a different culture than their foster parents? Or that they want to be treated differently based on their ethnicity?

There has never been a single "American" culture. I don't share a religion with Jess. I probably have lots of cultural beliefs that vary from yours. And I'm white, middle class, and suburban. Hmong/Cambodian immigrants have a dramatically wider variation than this. To force religious beliefs on foster children in the name of being "American" is a form of violent cultural assimilation. We've ruled that it's unconstitutional for Native American kids, which is why we have ICWA. This situation is no different.

When an innocent child finds themself in a situtation where their biological parents can't raise them I think it's dangerous to assume the "ways" of those parents are in the best interest of the child simply because they have the word "culture" attached to them.

Being Buddhist, Cambodian, or Hmong is not a form of child abuse. If this indeed why these children were removed, I think a grave injustice has been done.

[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by Scrapsathome

For me, though, it's like when you have your friends' kids staying the night at your house. You take their preferences under consideration, but in the end, it's your house and you are the parent in charge who will have ultimate responsibility for any decisions made

Jess,
I really do know what a good heart you have, and how much you care about these kids. I know you want to do what is right for them. But I am not sure you're getting how serious this is in terms of the law.

Fostering doesn't give you the right to override the First Amendment. It's not your decision to make whether or not you think the child's church or temple is okay. The child has the right to practice their own religion, no matter what it is. Buddhism is hardly extreme, but even if the kids were part of First Church of the Creator (an Aryan supremacist group) or Wahhabi Muslim, the Constitution says that the state may not deprive anyone of the free exercise of their religion. You're a state agent, because you're a contractor with DSS. If you will not take the child to worship in their own faith---if you insist on violating their Constitional rights--than you should not take the placement. Nor should Adams County have given you the kids.

Adams County should never have put these children with you. I think this is a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.

[MommyAlysia]

I don't understand what Scraps is doing so wrong and how she is violating any amendment? I agree the first post she wrote sounded bad but she clarified on it and once she did I didn't find anything offensive by it. She said what she thought was child abuse was refusing medical treatment for her very sick FD. Her FD almost DIED, just because it was in the name of "religion", does that make it ok?

She is taking them to church, not against their will. The oldest is 13, its not like she is brainwashing them.

[rm2000hg]

This thread has brought up a couple of questions...

First, in the case of young children who can't explain to you their own beliefs, how common is it for the religious preferences of the family to be outlined to you when a child is placed?

Second, if a child belongs to a religioin different than you, is it adequate to facilitate outside exposure to that religion? Even if I were to research something to become familiar with it, I would not feel competent to "teach" a religion or advocate specifics without first understanding them myself.

[kxl164]

The interesting thing about the faith healing part of this discussion is how it gets used. Some religions do believe in faith healing, and some people twist faith so that they can neglect their kids.

The state says there is such a thing as medical neglect, there is also freedom to practice religion.... but what happens when the two intersect, what trumps the other? In this case I would think the life of the child would trump all other considerations, not the best placement according to white christian standards, the life of the child. Yes you can practice your religion, as long as it doesn't endanger the life of a child, so does that make certain religious beliefs illegal.... or is it OK to endanger the life of your child because of your religous beliefs? The child has no rights to protect their own life in the situation so who decides?

This seems to be a very fine line. What happens when a child has a cut on his eye and the birthparents believe that god will heal the child as long as they rub their spit in the wound. Then infection sets in and the child is in pain, but the parents don't do anything about it, don't even take the basic precautions of cleaning it because they believe that god will heal the child as long as they rub spit in the wound. What if the infection spreads and the child dies. The parent's defense is we thought god would heal him, we don't believe in medical intervention. Is that medical neglect or freedom to practice religion?

Where is the line? Is there a line? Should there be a line?

For the OP of this thread it is earrings and baptism. Cultural and religious issues. The religious issue won't hurt the child, the cultural one could, the possibility is there, what is the birthparent claimed that god is telling her to pierce her child's ears, does that then become a religious issue protected by the constitution?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, just trying to understand where other A- think the line of the law is, and B- think were the line of the law should be.

[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by MommyAlysia

I don't understand what Scraps is doing so wrong and how she is violating any amendment? I agree the first post she wrote sounded bad but she clarified on it and once she did I didn't find anything offensive by it. She said what she thought was child abuse was refusing medical treatment for her very sick FD. Her FD almost DIED, just because it was in the name of "religion", does that make it ok? .

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.

The children may or may not want to attend her evangelical church. 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.

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 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.

[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by rm2000hg

if a child belongs to a religioin different than you, is it adequate to facilitate outside exposure to that religion? Even if I were to research something to become familiar with it, I would not feel competent to "teach" a religion or advocate specifics without first understanding them myself.

You aren't required to teach a particular religion. You are required, as a foster parent, to make sure the child has no impediments to practicing their religion. That means making sure the child is transported to church, temple, or wherever, and that they are supervised while there. You're also required to let them pray in whatever manner they choose, or perform religious rituals in your home.

If you can't agree to those terms, you can't take a kid of a different faith.

[stevenstwin]

Just to chime in on the "taking them to church" issue...It is definitely something you should ask about before getting a placement, if you intend to do this. Before A. was with me, his last placement was with Seventh Day Adventist minister. They made him go to church. The family had a fit, claiming their right to raise him as an atheist. Honestly, from what I know now of the family, they were just trying to make trouble, and he didnt' want to go to church because it was boring. (as opposed to there being any actual deep convictions there). But the foster parents insisted he go, and they DID get in some degree of "trouble" for this. (They had to take additional training in the area of cultural sensitivity before being allowed to take any new placements.)

[greenrobin]

We've been advised that we may take our kids to church with us but also need to be sensitive to their desires to attend services in the faith of their choice. This in no way means that I must stop going to my house of worship or taking the children with me. What it does mean is that I will make the effort to allow the kids the opportunity to be in theirs.

I've never had a teen who asked for a different church. With the littles it does indeed mean that I will sit through a service. I don't think it violates my faith in any way. I am allowing the kids to practice their faith while mine remains in tact. I am not worshipping. For me, there is no conflict.

Morally, we do what we feel we must to honor our committment to the Father. Legally, we do what we must to honor the committment we made to the state. God wins.

But, the original questions were concerning a baptism and an ear piercing, not the practice of faith. While I'm one of those moms who believe that ear piercing is a non-issue as long as everyone is on board--the kids still belong to the mom--the baptism question reminds me of something a preacher once told me.

In a particular denomination, individuals can be licensed to preach at the local congregation. They are not full ministers of the gospel, and so there are sometimes certain sacraments that they cannot perform. This preacher had come to the ministry in this way, later finishing his seminary studies and becoming fully ordained. The four main sacraments in this denomination were considered baptism, communion, marriage and burial. As a licensed preacher, he, at that time, could perform marriages but nothing else. He told me that he never understood how they would deny him the opportunity to bring people closer to God through communion and baptism. He said there was no harm he could do in burying them. But marrying people? Now there was an opportunity for disaster!

This child's mom has very little control over her baby's life--and probably for good reason. But that does not mean that she doesn't love her and has concern for her soul. Why stand in the way of a spiritually important event in their lives? It will give her peace. It will give her hope. It might give her the strength to get her life on track.