…no not the Obama thing, as great as that is…
Seriously… ish… I was amused and confused to see that Redbridge council has voted to ban potential foster parents who smoke from adopting children.
There is an health n safety type issue here, its proven that second hand smoke is particularly damaging to a child – so why should they place them at a higher risk location?
Because there is a huge recruitment crisis for foster parents, and what is worse? Potential damage from second hand smoke? Or living in life threatening danger in an unsafe home? Or possibly no home? Being shifted around from pillar to post because there is no other accomodation available to you? Grr. This is really missing the point of providing childrens services. I could go on….. I won’t though…
much as i whole heartedly agree wiv ur point about second hand smoke i do not agree wiv this decision.
my aunt fosters and smokes, but as most parents do (foster or not) does so on her doorstep.
and even if this wasnt the case im sure that if u ask any child, or adult, that has at any point been involved in the care system (myself included) id b suprised if they’d agree wiv this council decision, given the choice of sum pikey crack addicted, prostitute mum, or a 10 a day smoker, surely this is obvious, if nothin else crack smoke has got to b more damagin right????