General / Off-Topic Children in care should stay until 25

[Surfinjo]

Vulnerable young people should be allowed to stay in care until they are aged 25, the government's children's commissioner for England has said

............................................

A Department for Education spokesman said the government was "committed to improving the lives of care leavers".

"That is why we have introduced a comprehensive series of reforms since 2010 to help and support them.

"We welcome the survey's findings that the vast majority feel they live in the right place, are treated with respect and feel part of the family.

"But we are not complacent and will continue to work to make sure all young people, whatever their background, have the best opportunity to achieve their full potential," the spokesman added.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33438003

This may seem an unusual topic for these forums but I feel very strongly it is about time. I hope others will as well.

In the 70s I spent a number of years working with Social workers and such, (in a very amateur capacity). Seeing young people literally being dumped onto the street the day after their 16th birthday was so tragic. Most were simply incapable of caring for themselves and supprot was rare and difficult to find. Some also may recall there were a number of organisations which we might now call cults, very ready to welcome many of these children.

The reality is, most simply knocked their way from one brick wall to the next, ending up with miserable lives often with a few kids.

I do realyl hope these proposals are not watered down. These kids do deserve full support until they are 25. 25 is a good limit.

 

[Adept]

Absolutely. Vulnerable children getting dumped to fend for themselves at 16 or even 18 is not right in any way. It's far from cost effective as well, since they will most likely have a lot of problems which end up costing a whole lot more than taking care of them until they get properly on their own feet.

 

[FuzzySpider]

I foresee a big flaw with this plan. Without getting into too many personal details I moved out of my families house at 17. I had, let's call them, reasons.

Would I have been eligible for care under this scheme at that age? Or what if I had moved out at, for example, 22?

I'm not saying I disagree with the principle - I think vulnerable people of any age should be cared for - but what about this problem?

 

[beelbeebub]

I think it's a good idea, as fuzzyspider mentioned, there may be some devils in the detail but overall a good idea not to dump 16 year olds into the world, especially as they are unlikely to have the support network people who haven't been in care might have.

 

[Surfinjo]

I honestly can't say.

I know that social work departments would take on child cases up to 18 in the early 70s if the need presented. I would hope this would have been extended by now, at least to 21.

But whatever, it will depend upon the assessment of the social workers.

There are various charities which aim to cater for young people with specific needs, from simply not haveing sufficient maturity to cope, to dealing with gender identity and such. Social workers generally depend upon these and did so even in the 70s. It's just a basic reality that voluntary orginsations tend to do these things better than governments.

The biggest problem dealing with teenagers is, when their environment breaks down they are often left quite angry. This can be very difficult to deal with. Teenagers are just children, whether they accept that or not and don't have the maturity to manage environmental breakdowns. One the other, they are very strong not to mention wilful.

I haven't worked in that area for nearly 40 years now and had and have, very little training in it. Adolescents, those between about 6 years and 21 are a very specialised sector. They do deserve so much but priorities are a factor.

What this is aimed at is ensuring that young people who have been dependant upon care don't find that care suddently withdrawn.

 

[GJ51]

Yes, by all means. All governments should be wiping our fannies for us from the cradle to the grave...

 

[Arry]

There are a number of issues here.

In care, should mean just that, but it is not the definition of what really happens. They are just placed into a place that can be found, a place that cannot even contain them, let alone care or prepare them for adult life. To even think about doing what 'should be done' requires cash and the full cooperation, of all the bodies in place to take on this task. Truth be told, these kids are lost, written off and it is just a matter of time, before they become a part of the judicial or mental heath systems.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, by all means. All governments should be wiping our fannies for us from the cradle to the grave...

A really nice constructive comment there, why not stick to slagging off the game, as this issue involves real peoples lives and in this case, some of the most vulnerable people society creates.

 

[Adept]

A really nice constructive comment there, why not stick to slagging off the game, as this issue involves real peoples lives and in this case, some of the most vulnerable people society creates.

Exactly. The social-darwinist, neo-liberal callousness seems to have no limits to some.

 

[jabokai]

Gut feeling - 21 standard, up to 25 in special circumstances. 25 as a default setting seems rather high... but then I haven't lived through any of this kind of thing so am probably talking out of my butt.

 

[Surfinjo]

I've known a number of SW over the years, in various professional capacities. They aren't fools. They know who needs what.

Equally, if the cut off age is, say 18, then after that age, SW can't legally offer any further support.

By putting the cut off age at 25, it will ensure that almsot everyone who is likely to need support will be able to get it. Such support will still be at the discretion of the SW.

I strongly believe we must, as a society, accept full responsibility for these children. Those that may need support into their 20s should be able to get it.

Many of these children have had very tramatic experiences. Example, you come home from school expecting dad to be watching sport, mum to be making dinner and yelling at dad. perfectly normal. But one day, you are met by a SW who tells you your parents are dead and you must go into care. Leaving behind your life, your possessions, your friends.

This is a hypothetical and extreme case. The facility to provide up to 25 is designed for such extreme cases.