It's a shame, but I have personal experience with shit-tier foster parents who "took care of" my own adopted children whose birth mother is an absolute piece of human waste and whose fathers were never identified.

My toddler was brought to us at 11 months without the capability of turning himself onto his stomach. He had hair missing from the back of his head because he laid in a crib all day long.

The other one was physically and verbally abused by the children of the foster parents she was staying with. This is after being taken out of her original household because her mother had a tendency to live and do drugs with pedophiles. Other than her school clothes, all the rest of her clothing was too small for her, so she's got photos of a Disney trip (the foster parents were "Disney adults" who would save up foster money to go on trips) in her school uniform while the biokids were in normal kid clothes.

It was stories like this that made me realize that I don't have to be a super-parent to be a good foster parent. I can be a regular good parent and still be way better than the alternatives that would otherwise exist for a child that's placed in my care.

Realizing that there are kids out there that need someone to take care of them and that I don't have to be perfect to provide that care is what really got me thinking seriously about foster care, instead of thinking about it as "something other people do."

Kids aren't interested in how much you have, or where you came from. They won't necessarily be "grateful" in what you provide for them, because they don't quite get that "being provided for" isn't supposed to be the norm. They show their gratitude by growing and thriving, and eventually when they grow up, they'll finally "get it" and know. Love them, provide for them, survive their moments of immaturity, console them when they need it, guide them even when they don't want it, and they'll be come a reflection of what you want the world to be.

It's the foster kids who become permanently adopted who are a little bit different. They're the ones who understand that love isn't to be taken for granted, and so they appreciate it when you become the parent who will always be there for them, in ways that people who have never been so alone will ever fully understand.

I'm very sorry to hear that. It breaks my heart when this happens. (it's why we got into foster care!)

Luckily, we bought and were gifted so many clothes for our foster kid that our own bio kids are now wearing them after they left.

I understand very little about foster parenting and I've considered it, so please pardon a possibly dumb question: Why not adopt kids instead?

There are essentially zero kids "available" to adopt outside of foster care. And foster care is (correctly imo) focused on reuniting children with their parents when possible, so the typical case of adoption being possible is when the parents are truly unsafe.

This. Foster agencies lead you to believe that fostering leads to adoption. It gets more people into the system (more $ for them!). But the state's goals are to reunite children with their parents or a relative. Even movies that feature fostering in a realistic way often end with adoption, which is completely unrealistic.

It almost never actually happens that children you foster will go to adoption, since it is literally a last resort. Even if a child ends up in adoption, it will be years later and probably with someone else since those children are the worst case scenarios and are routinely replaced with family before re-entering the system.

California, for kids under 3 is a bit of an exception. The laws have changed to favor permanency ASAP (which means about 2 years) and it's usually this order of priority:

1. Reunification

2. Adoption by Kin

3. Adoption by someone else

All 3 of the foster kids we adopted were under 3 when they entered the system. One reunified, and then was placed back with us a year later.

In our experience meeting other foster parents at trainings and such, around half were fostering with the goal of adoption.

Fostering can definitely lead to adoption (and in particular there is a need for parents willing to adopt teenagers) but it can be a long process with no guarantees. On the other hand, it's much cheaper than other paths to adoption, either domestic or international.

In our case we are open to adopting (and the more kids we foster, the more likely it is that we end up in a situation where adoption is on the table) but we are mainly fostering because we know there are kids out there right now that need parents, even if just for a few weeks, months or years.

You can't adopt the kids if the parents still have a chance to get them back. That either ends via legal action by the state, or voluntarily giving up rights. This often happens when parents go to prison, for instance, since there's no chance of them caring for their kids. You also have to exhaust all relative chances first as well before they can be adopted (Indiana), so this can take 1-3+ years. In English, there's a need for kids to go somewhere that can't be adopted yet, and around half go back to mom and dad or family anyway. We had one kid for three days, and two for six weeks, so not every kid is years long anyway.

> I never suggest anyone get into foster care. It's a broken system.

The good foster parents doing get into it for the system, so how bad the system is doesn't matter. They get into it because they want to help a child.

At some point it gets bad enough that you look for other ways to help children...

Have you found other ways that you would recommend?

Actually, I still recommend being a foster parent; as long as you have some idea of what you are getting into and both parents are on-board it's incredibly rewarding.

If that doesn't apply to you, there's still plenty of things you can do to help out; I ended up on that list from being a foster parent, but I'm sure if you contact whomever is in charge of foster care in your area you can get on the list. Usually whatever local version of child-welfare/social services you have will know what the needs are. Where I am, providing transportation is always a need (e.g. kids to school when they've been moved too far for a bus; kids to and from visits with birth families, &c.)

Another option for families that are not in a position to make a long-term commitment is respite care. Basically being available to take kids for a night, a weekend or a few weeks. It can allow foster parents to have a break (or sometimes an emergency comes up and they need a few weeks to deal with it) and it can also provide kids with a place to stay when they are between foster homes and there's a gap in availability for whatever reason. Or when they have to be removed from their birth family suddenly and there isn't time to find a long-term placement option right away.

Yes! Respite care is hugely useful. Typically the only real commitment involved in doing so is you'll need to child-proof your house (plus maybe taking a couple of classes). If you have small children already, there likely won't be many changes you need to make.

In our area you basically have to go through the same licensing process as regular foster parents. Glad to hear it's an easier process in other places :)

Thank you! It’s good to hear that it can still feel worthwhile despite the many downsides.