How much is parenting worth to a child??

[Chris]

According to the latest figures issues by Docs by the time a child gets to age sixteen the answer would seem to be not a lot.

For reasons that make no sense at all, the rulers of the Social Services have decreed that at age 16 foster parents to carers must be reduced by the same amount that the child is eligible to receive from their Youth Allowance (somewhere around $100 a week). Not only that, but their tax relief is to be cut by a similar amount so, basically, anyone helping both the state *and* society by opening their homes to children in need are about to be slugged by $200 a week for the privilege.

The response from Docs is to tell foster parents they must 'negotiate' with their charges to recoup some of the losses by getting the child to pay them! I wonder if whoever made up this crazy rule has ever tried to 'negotiate' with an unruly and belligerent 16 year old over money?? I'd say *not*!!!

I can understand that to some the current situation looks like 'double dipping' but there must be a better approach available than the one that was chosen! To me the common sense approach would have been to disqualify foster kids from claiming the money until they have left their foster parents care! This way there would be no change in the balance of power within the family until the child was either old enough to take care of itself i.e. when Docs care ended at 18, or when the child voluntarily decided to leave the foster home.

The decision has all sorts of ramifications apart from potentially damaging the relationship between foster parent and foster child, but it could also drive a wedge between the foster child and any natural children of the family. I can forsee all sorts of arguments exploding over why this *one* child should be getting so much 'pocket money' when other kids in the family don't (I'm assuming here than most parents *don't* give their kids $100/per week pocket money).

The legislation to stop foster parents receiving the cash they so badly need was easy enough to pass... so why wasn't the Youth Allowance legislation changed instead?? This really makes no sense and is a slap in the face to all those people who've opened their homes and hearts to help children when they needed help most.

The only reason I can that might make economic sense (of a sort) would be if the Foster Care Allowance was paid by the state, and the Youth Allowance was paid by the Federal Government.

It's disgraceful.

[piersdad]

the foster parents should just charge the child $100 a week board,
thats if they can,  but the govt just change the allowance as board in stead of foster care and  only when the child leaves the family do they get the $100 a week

[Crankenstein]

Get family tax benefit instead of youth allowance?

[Chris]

Get family tax benefit instead of youth allowance?

Not sure how that work... esp if neither foster parent works as is often the case!

It's the problem of negotiating with a child to get some of 'their' money out of them that'll cause the biggest rifts I reckon! It's a ridiculous cost cutting idea that will cause more problems than it cures!!

[Crankenstein]

It seems silly on the basis that it's going to cause tension and arguments between the carer and child. Something that I think would want to be avoided in these situations...

[jen]

Maybe the negotiations needs to go along the line of... you are responsible for your clothes/shoes/entertainment (or whatever). Then you don't pay for those things, rather than you need to pay board. I have had a similar situation, how do you govern what they take from the cupboard? What they wash themselves with? It makes life difficult for everyone around them, without really making a difference for them! You can maybe cut somethings that they like to eat...and suggest that they buy their own or put some money toward the family purchse (say, pizza... no money, no pizza) You know the old...we would love to have you but...

Good luck