Should smokers be allowed to adopt or foster kids?

[Cyclone]

If you can somehow identify that trait then you could restrict fostering to those who won't smoke in front of their children.

I don't know of any way to identify that in advance though.

[DragonofAna]

If you can somehow identify that trait then you could restrict fostering to those who won't smoke in front of their children.

I don't know of any way to identify that in advance though.

 

So you advocate that for a few 'bad eggs' everyone must suffer. Really good thinking that.

[Cyclone]

No, I agree with the policy adopted that children shouldn't be placed in a house where there is a known risk to their health. You advocate placing children at risk, really good thinking that.

[DragonofAna]

No, I agree with the policy adopted that children shouldn't be placed in a house where there is a known risk to their health. You advocate placing children at risk, really good thinking that.

 

You're talking nonsense. There is no known risk if the smoker does not smoke in the house or in the vicinity of their children. What are you on about?

 

Your arguement that there is no way of knowing if a person does or does not smoke in the house so no smoker should be allowed children is really poor.

 

Some people abuse children. By your logic no-one should be allowed because they may abuse a child. Absolute nonsense.

[mojo1]

I grew up around the corner from a Childrens home. Two of my best friends were in care there and to be honest I think they would have much preferred to live in a family home where they were loved and had a sense of normality than to remain institutionalised until they became adults, even if that meant living with an evil, satanic, child poisoning smoker.

The fact that 8 out of the 12 kids in that home smoked at around that time without the influence of the evil smoking fosterer breathing it into their faces while they slept should also be mentioned.

As the younger kids grew up, the older kids got them into cigs, as they were the only real role models available and so the cycle went on.

 

I would also have thought that the smoking in the work place rules applied to a foster home. They certainly do in my mother's house, she's a child minder and day fosterer (no she doesn't smoke, but I do, and no I wouldn't smoke indoors around children anyway as I'm not stupid).

 

As for finding out if the person wishing to foster is the type of person to smoke in front of a child, I suppose the only way to find out would be the same way they find out if a person is likely to hit a child or psychologically abuse a child.

Interviews, home checks, references... what ever else is involved in the procedure.

 

Is it really fair that kids should have to give up the chance of the closest thing to a normal family life they may ever have because foster mum or dad likes to slip out into the garden every couple of hours for a smoke?

[Cyclone]

You're talking nonsense. There is no known risk if the smoker does not smoke in the house or in the vicinity of their children. What are you on about?

And I already pointed out that it's impossible to tell whether someone is going to smoke around the children or not.

Unless your psychic and intend to sell your services to social services?

 

Your arguement that there is no way of knowing if a person does or does not smoke in the house so no smoker should be allowed children is really poor.

How so? Do you know of a way to tell?

 

Some people abuse children. By your logic no-one should be allowed because they may abuse a child. Absolute nonsense.

A children wouldn't be placed in a household where a risk of abuse could be identified. Why should they be placed in a household where a risk of 2nd hand smoke has been identified?

 

You're making a lot of noise, but not actually explaining why children should be put at risk, or how you can identify a smoker who won't smoke around a child.

[DragonofAna]

Cyclone - you do not even see the error in your own arguement.

There is no way of knowing if a person would smoke in the presence of a child or not. There is no way of knowing whether that religious person who has never broken a law or upset anyone will turn round and in a moment of anger slap a child across the face.

There is no way of knowing if that nice couple who are always so polite and charming and live in that lovely house will never abuse a child.

[Cyclone]

There is no error, if there's an identifiable risk then a child shouldn't be placed there.

Which bit of that do you disagree with?

 

Saying that anyone is capable of violence is not identifying a risk, saying that someone smokes and may smoke around a child is a real risk and can be easily avoided.

 

Mojo might be right and maybe interviews could identify which smokers would stop smoking in their own house, but as an executive in child services would you want the risk of being sued in 20 years time by a previously fostered individual who now has lung cancer?

Risk avoidance and minimisation is their duty, and by not placing children with smokers they have completely eliminated one risk.

[shane39]

There is no error, if there's an identifiable risk then a child shouldn't be placed there.

Which bit of that do you disagree with?

 

Saying that anyone is capable of violence is not identifying a risk, saying that someone smokes and may smoke around a child is a real risk and can be easily avoided.

 

Mojo might be right and maybe interviews could identify which smokers would stop smoking in their own house, but as an executive in child services would you want the risk of being sued in 20 years time by a previously fostered individual who now has lung cancer?

Risk avoidance and minimisation is their duty, and by not placing children with smokers they have completely eliminated one risk.

 

Well if that's your way of thinking,they may as well stop fostering altogether.

[DragonofAna]

There is no error, if there's an identifiable risk then a child shouldn't be placed there.

Which bit of that do you disagree with?

 

Saying that anyone is capable of violence is not identifying a risk, saying that someone smokes and may smoke around a child is a real risk and can be easily avoided.

 

Mojo might be right and maybe interviews could identify which smokers would stop smoking in their own house, but as an executive in child services would you want the risk of being sued in 20 years time by a previously fostered individual who now has lung cancer?

Risk avoidance and minimisation is their duty, and by not placing children with smokers they have completely eliminated one risk.

 

IT is an identifiable risk that anyone with genitals could sexually abuse. It is an identifiable risk that anyone who takes a child to a playground could result in the child having a bad accident. It is an identifiable risk ... and on and on.

 

Bold: What a pile of rubbish. The child goes to school and stands with his/her mates who smoke. The child walks through the street passing people who smoke. The child stands at a bus stop and breaths in smoke from others. It goes on and on and on. The child could still get lung cancer and could still die from it.

And if you ban smoking altogether do you think cancer will suddenly disappear?

 

How narrow minded you are appearing to be.