So; this week I broke a long-term pledge.
Americans would say I "snapped a streak". I hear a lot of Americanisms in our kitchen. My other half likes Country and Western music. I love him in spite of it.
My pledge was this; from Day One in fostering I tried to never say "No" to any child in need of a roof over their head.
In the decades that I've fostered I'm immensely proud to have clung to that.
My Blue Sky social workers have ALWAYS reminded me that it's my right and privilege to - if I reckon a potential placement might be wrong for my home - decline a child.
It's happened more than once that Blue Sky's placement team and our Blue Sky social workers have identified that there might be a perfect fit, and decided to involve us in thinking about the possibilities, but we all sensed a general unease.
In my case the issue was often how a new child would fit alongside our other foster children; we've sometimes had as many children as one's allowed.
I remember a recent occasion when we were approached to take a young person for respite care. It would have been for school holidays; two weeks at Christmas and Easter and six weeks in the summer. My worry was about one of our existing foster children, and the possibility that there could be some antagonism.
I believed we could work around any heirarchy jealousies, but I could also see that the young person being assessed might be a perfect match for a foster home with no other children to fit in with.
Before I was asked for a definite "Yes" or "No" came the news the young person had been allocated a respite home nearer where he was being fostered, leaving everyone happy and my own personal commitment intact.
However.
I (and my family - blood and foster) have agreed to Blue Sky's nudging that we invite Parent and Child ("P+C") placements. We topped up our training and two weeks ago were good to go.
Our first two possible placements went elsewhere. This happens aplenty across fostering, one has to learn not to be disappointed or feel rejected.
Our third offer looked on paper to be especially challenging, and I had to get serious about what I can and cannot do.
I'm not able to give any details about the case that might result in someone recognising the young people involved, but I believe I can outline enough to give you an idea of the dilemmas without unmasking anybody.
The Parent was a teenage girl. The Child was a newborn baby.
Blue Sky's P+C head honcho had, a few days prior to the offer of the young lady and her baby, invited myself to a digital pow-wow with a group of other carers who specialised in Parent and Child. I struck up an instant friendship with a lady who loved P+C and knew the ropes inside out. She told me that for her the most important word in the world of P+C fostering is…"No" - to all manner of requests. And she'd been doing P+C with huge success for nearly ten years.
Back to the placement I was given to consider;
The mother, Blue Sky upfronted, had several mental health issues. She was on the spectrum of a well-known condition, had a mosaic of another, and couldn't concentrate for any length of time. The father (and I believe I can tell you this much as he's never likely to read it himself) is an unaccompanied asylum seeker from an African country, who speaks no English.
Well, me and my other half sat up late discussing the whole kiboodle.
We were emotionally compelled to say "Yes", out of humanity and pride in our fostering.
But there are limits.
We talked about whether the father was truly under 18 years old (the definition of "unaccompanied", as I understand it). I've read about some desperate middle-aged souls masquerading as teenagers in order to benefit from the compassionate provision our dear country makes. We even talked about whether those whose job is to consider all possibilities might have no option but to try to ascertain (if it were conceivably possible to do so) that he may have facilitated the pregnancy to strengthen his case not to be deported. Equally, he might be the most noble person ever, but the professionals must consider all the possibles, however unsettling.
Mama Mia.
We ended up agreeing that this particular case was not the place for us to begin our new role in P+C.
The minute we'd made up our minds I phoned Blue Sky and told them. They accepted our decision beautifully. They ended by telling us that the case was going before a court and a positive outcome was on the cards involving a professional residential environment where the mother and baby could be observed round the clock, and the father could be managed.
I felt a bit down. My other half hummed a Kenny Rogers song about poker and life. And how to play the cards you're dealt. He sang (off key):
"You gotta to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em..
Know when to walk away, know when to run."
A bit of dramatic overstatement there, that's the lovely Yanks for you...
Anyway, like hubby said; we aren't running away from anything, we're running towards something. Our first Parent and Child.