Children apprehended by the government come with complex care needs, far beyond that of children who have not experience such major disruptions in their early years. These needs come with increased costs, for health care, for therapy, and for many other kinds of support. These families, by adopting these children, take over the government's responsibility to ensure these children experience a loving home family life at considerable expense. The government is abandoning its responsibility to these children by dropping this support.
B
Brooke hannah
1 year ago
This is a need for so many reasons !
D
Darcy Holtman
1 year ago
Please do the right thing to help the children.
D
Diana Manrique
1 year ago
She so great with kids.
L
Loralee Nepoose
1 year ago
Taking on a child with learning, behavioral and cultural needs can be expensive. Do lack of cultural training by workers, supervisors and managers we only accept basic funding. Now because we can afford to provide a better live for our child the government wants to take what like funding we do get away based on income. Really? Wow.
M
Melody Baird
1 year ago
Income testing does not take into account so many factors.
Permanency options for children will decrease leaving more children in the foster care system. We know that the government does not make a good parent.
$180K is not taking into account factors like: Size of house required for larger families costs more. We, for example have 2 adopted, 2 lifelong aged out foster youth/young adults, and 3 foster children with one more potential to be adopted. Our mortgage to accommodate this is MUCH higher than most peoples'. Our heating bills are minimum $800/month. Our grocery bill is exorbitant and I am frugal doing gardening, buying half a beef, etc. We can barely stretch to make ends meet and do not live a lavish life. But we do feed a lot of mouths, clothe a lot of people and work very hard to meet these children's very exceptional needs. All have trauma histories. All are prenatally exposed. we have 2 with autism. Three with FASD. Almost all have high sensory needs that require special attention and engagement with professionals that are not covered by our plans or are limited. One has a life long life threatening illness but we were willing to commit to her. Now we question if permanency is a valid option as our supports that would have been used to meet her exceptional needs that are not covered will no longer be covered with the Basic fees.
Further if this is the first cutback we do not trust the system to NOT cutback further and deeper with each cut, leaving us with children who have exceptional needs and our ability to utilize Basic Fees (SFP funds) to ensure they are kept busy and additional supports is taken away.
Another factor not being considered is that this is extremely invasive to have the government reviewing our income tax each year. When we adopt we assume that we now get to live a life free and void of government intrusion. We commit to these children with the belief that we will have supports to meet their needs, even as we
M
Michelle Drost
1 year ago
We are providing a vital service to the province by caring for the vulnerable children placed in the governments care. Imagine the incredibly over full department if foster families did not offer permanency. We love and support their entire extended families and with very little help. This step seems to be doing much more harm than good and in all honesty is confirming for current foster families like mine that we should not pursue permanency due to the fear of SFPs future not being secure.
K
Krusty
1 year ago
SFP cuts should not be happening in any form to such vulnerable children/families. Full Stop!
C
Carlene
1 year ago
Featured
SFP needs to improve not get less. Our children adopted from foster care have so many hidden needs/disabilities due to trauma and attachment disorders. We shouldn’t need to fight this hard for the supports we were offered to us when we agreed to provide them with a forever home.
C
Crystal Troeger
1 year ago
Thank you!
We pursued PGO and then Adoption within the last year. And when the caseworker and foster practitioner brought the idea to us when our foster kiddo was 6 months old, the SFP document confirming supports was the first thing provided to us. At no point were we ever told that these supports could be taken away. And the supports were very much part of our decision making process knowing the needs and future endeavours we would have given her predisposition. It has been less than one year into permanent guardianship and now this!
So we took on her childcare bill as were we told working full time families- daycare expenses were a privilege to be working. We were told to apply for daycare subsidy but were denied. And no now maintenance to assist her along the way? And we know she will need support. More than SFP’s 10 counselling sessions and babysitting hours. Her need are so high- the babysitters we find don’t always want to come back.
So what’s next Mr. Turton shall we take from our teenage children’s university fund? Because we don’t get supports from anywhere else?
Petition signed.
S
Stephen Quin
1 year ago
The Minister should be ashamed. Maybe he should speak with his cabinet colleagues regarding the matter. The 5 at the forum we attended seemed to agree this was not given enough thought. The Minister makes the trip around the province to speak with Foster Parents but at no time mentioned he was planning to cut them off at in the knees. Next time spare us your fake sentiments and put the money you spent towards the Real adoptive parents.
K
Kate Steidl
1 year ago
Many children adopted through Children's services come with extraordinary needs. For the average person to adopt they will require extraordinary supports and services.
N
Nicole Harriman
1 year ago
This is an appalling overreach on the government’s part. Where is the justification and accountability for just making a Carte blanchedecision like this?We deserve answers.
K
Kevin evans
1 year ago
This is ridiculous these children need homes and support throughout there lives and it’s costly why attack our children.
T
Tanis Miller
1 year ago
This support should not be tied to income testing. This will harm families and prevent long term placements. Families entered in an agreement with the province and to change the rules now, it's despicable.
J
Jodi Struger
1 year ago
Please reconsider this on behalf of thr children that may not get permanency due to this and the on going care of the ones that have been adopted based on the knowledge they would have this support.
These children are our future
Sometimes we don't have a voice
Children apprehended by the government come with complex care needs, far beyond that of children who have not experience such major disruptions in their early years. These needs come with increased costs, for health care, for therapy, and for many other kinds of support. These families, by adopting these children, take over the government's responsibility to ensure these children experience a loving home family life at considerable expense. The government is abandoning its responsibility to these children by dropping this support.
This is a need for so many reasons !
Please do the right thing to help the children.
She so great with kids.
Taking on a child with learning, behavioral and cultural needs can be expensive. Do lack of cultural training by workers, supervisors and managers we only accept basic funding. Now because we can afford to provide a better live for our child the government wants to take what like funding we do get away based on income. Really? Wow.
Income testing does not take into account so many factors. Permanency options for children will decrease leaving more children in the foster care system. We know that the government does not make a good parent. $180K is not taking into account factors like: Size of house required for larger families costs more. We, for example have 2 adopted, 2 lifelong aged out foster youth/young adults, and 3 foster children with one more potential to be adopted. Our mortgage to accommodate this is MUCH higher than most peoples'. Our heating bills are minimum $800/month. Our grocery bill is exorbitant and I am frugal doing gardening, buying half a beef, etc. We can barely stretch to make ends meet and do not live a lavish life. But we do feed a lot of mouths, clothe a lot of people and work very hard to meet these children's very exceptional needs. All have trauma histories. All are prenatally exposed. we have 2 with autism. Three with FASD. Almost all have high sensory needs that require special attention and engagement with professionals that are not covered by our plans or are limited. One has a life long life threatening illness but we were willing to commit to her. Now we question if permanency is a valid option as our supports that would have been used to meet her exceptional needs that are not covered will no longer be covered with the Basic fees. Further if this is the first cutback we do not trust the system to NOT cutback further and deeper with each cut, leaving us with children who have exceptional needs and our ability to utilize Basic Fees (SFP funds) to ensure they are kept busy and additional supports is taken away. Another factor not being considered is that this is extremely invasive to have the government reviewing our income tax each year. When we adopt we assume that we now get to live a life free and void of government intrusion. We commit to these children with the belief that we will have supports to meet their needs, even as we
We are providing a vital service to the province by caring for the vulnerable children placed in the governments care. Imagine the incredibly over full department if foster families did not offer permanency. We love and support their entire extended families and with very little help. This step seems to be doing much more harm than good and in all honesty is confirming for current foster families like mine that we should not pursue permanency due to the fear of SFPs future not being secure.
SFP cuts should not be happening in any form to such vulnerable children/families. Full Stop!
SFP needs to improve not get less. Our children adopted from foster care have so many hidden needs/disabilities due to trauma and attachment disorders. We shouldn’t need to fight this hard for the supports we were offered to us when we agreed to provide them with a forever home.
Thank you! We pursued PGO and then Adoption within the last year. And when the caseworker and foster practitioner brought the idea to us when our foster kiddo was 6 months old, the SFP document confirming supports was the first thing provided to us. At no point were we ever told that these supports could be taken away. And the supports were very much part of our decision making process knowing the needs and future endeavours we would have given her predisposition. It has been less than one year into permanent guardianship and now this! So we took on her childcare bill as were we told working full time families- daycare expenses were a privilege to be working. We were told to apply for daycare subsidy but were denied. And no now maintenance to assist her along the way? And we know she will need support. More than SFP’s 10 counselling sessions and babysitting hours. Her need are so high- the babysitters we find don’t always want to come back. So what’s next Mr. Turton shall we take from our teenage children’s university fund? Because we don’t get supports from anywhere else? Petition signed.
The Minister should be ashamed. Maybe he should speak with his cabinet colleagues regarding the matter. The 5 at the forum we attended seemed to agree this was not given enough thought. The Minister makes the trip around the province to speak with Foster Parents but at no time mentioned he was planning to cut them off at in the knees. Next time spare us your fake sentiments and put the money you spent towards the Real adoptive parents.
Many children adopted through Children's services come with extraordinary needs. For the average person to adopt they will require extraordinary supports and services.
This is an appalling overreach on the government’s part. Where is the justification and accountability for just making a Carte blanchedecision like this?We deserve answers.
This is ridiculous these children need homes and support throughout there lives and it’s costly why attack our children.
This support should not be tied to income testing. This will harm families and prevent long term placements. Families entered in an agreement with the province and to change the rules now, it's despicable.
Please reconsider this on behalf of thr children that may not get permanency due to this and the on going care of the ones that have been adopted based on the knowledge they would have this support.
Stop this
Please reconsider this change. N