Fostering services should not be run exclusively by the State as is being suggested in the new Child Protection Bill, according to the director of the Church’s children homes.
“We have a big problem in Malta because of lack of foster carers, which in turn puts immense pressure on residential homes.
“At the moment, anyone in Malta can set up a fostering service after going through the necessary procedures. However, the new Bill states that fostering should be run exclusively by the State agency,” Andrew Azzopardi, who heads the Children’s Homes Commission, told this newspaper.
“I strongly disagree with that. If the Church, as an organisation, can help provide additional foster care placements to support the existing service, why stop it,” he asked.
Mr Azzopardi was contacted after the Child Protection (Out of Home Care) Bill started being discussed by a parliamentary committee earlier this month.
Discussions will continue, and one of the issues that Mr Azzopardi is hoping to discuss is fostering.
We have a big problem in Malta because of lack of foster carers, which in turn puts immense pressure on residential homes
If the new law allows for it, the Church is willing to start a service to recruit, train and provide ongoing social work support to foster carers. This would increase the number of possible placements available, a win-win situation for all stakeholders. The decision about a child’s placement would still be up to the State agency.
Asked about the ongoing debate, Mr Azzopardi said one issue that not all stakeholders seemed to agree on was whether there should be a specific time frame for support provided by social workers to families.
“I agree there should be guidelines, which include timescales, but in cases where the child is still at home and no court proceedings have been initiated, the timescales should be set by professionals or by the agency rather than the law,” he said.
“Some families might need two years, while others 10. It does not make sense to set a deadline for families who are coping because of social workers’ ongoing support. What happens once you stop the support because you have to abide by a time frame?”
On the other hand, he agrees that the law should set specific time frames both in cases of court proceedings and also when children need out-of-home care. This would avoid children being “lost in care”.
Referring to England and Wales, he said court cases there had to be concluded within six months. While at present this may not be realistic in Malta, setting a time limit of a year, or 18 months for exceptional cases, was already better than what was happening at the moment.
“The law should create a framework within which professionals can work. It is then up to the agency and professionals to decide on the best practice.”
Asked about introducing time frames to free up children for adoption, Mr Azzopardi insisted on even tighter time frames for those aged under five.
While reintegration with the family was always the number one aim, adoption should be the priority for babies who could return home, he said.
The Maltese Association of Social Workers (MASW) also believes there should be clear guidelines when it comes to the adoption of children whose reintegration with their family is not possible.
“Considering that Malta is a small country and local adoptions are not easy to conceal, there should also be open adoption for children of all ages. Some parents would accept the concept of adoption if they were given the opportunity to retain contact with the child,” Joseph Antoncich, chair of MASW said.
“Adoption opportunities for children under the age of five should be a priority when reintegration is not possible,” he added.
Meanwhile, MASW believes that while the law should bind social workers with the responsibility of setting a time frame for the care of children, it should not specify the length of this care plan, as this should be left at their discretion.
However, the law should lay down restricting time frames for children in out-of-home care who cannot be reintegrated with his family.
This means that when a child has been receiving out-of-home care for two years, a team of professionals has to decide where that child is going to continue receiving care permanently.
These time frames should have been discussed during the consultation process ahead of the parliamentary committee discussion, Mr Antoncich said, but MASW was grateful that politicians seemed willing to listen to the stakeholders.
Both Mr Azzopardi and Mr Antoncich welcomed the introduction of permanency into the Bill, which they have been calling for over the past months.