Foster Care: A convoluted idea

House Bill 3145 is an interesting example of how something that started out with the best of intentions (trying to optimize foster care) can get so convoluted.

Rep. Ruth Kagi's bill initially aimed to certify foster parents who deal with children with more intensive needs. Sounds great, right? But the latest version of the bill comes with an amendment we can do without. It allows foster parents taking on high-needs kids to become unionized state contractors. Granted, parents can choose to enter the program, which provides them with specialized training, oversight and an additional $500 a month, but there's something about making parents contracted employees of the state that sounds strange and unnecessary. Why does the additional financial support and training -- which would no doubt benefit a child -- come with strings (such as union dues) attached? It seems the program would create a new kind of state employee -- a label Kagi rejects -- a hybrid of a foster parent plus and a social worker lite.

We understand that foster parents may want a collective voice independent of the state's and we certainly like the idea of matching kids with higher needs to the appropriate household. But we find the idea of unionizing what is essentially parenthood to be odd and perhaps unnecessarily onerous.

Foster parents do much more than simply make lunches and drop kids off at school or the dentist. Those are just the mechanics of basic care and don't get to the heart of what a rich, vital role a foster parent can play in a child's life. We're having a tough time seeing providing the stability of a home, love, support and family -- things so necessary yet intangible (because they can take so many forms) -- as contracted labor.