Friday, April 16, 2010

Holy Woah.

A friend of mine sent me this:

This is so not cool. Not cool at all.

In my training class, we had a conversation in which a vegetarian was criticized by our trainers for not being able to serve culturally relevant foods to her prospective child. (I supported her and said that my house is kosher, and that's just the way it is.) My psychiatrist implied that the fact that I wouldn't take future foster children to McDon@ld's was some big problem.

Maybe I was lucky to be licensed?


  1. The media doesn't always report these things accurately. It could have had less to do with the fact that the woman wouldn't have pork in her home and more to do with perhaps that she portrayed herself as religiously inflexible or intolerant.

    It's hard to tell in these cases. We made it clear that we have a Jewish home and therefore no Christmas tree, and nobody gave it a second thought.

  2. Yeah, um not giving a child McDonalds should only be a big deal to the child - not to any professional. I posted my comment on the article but here's what I said:

    As a foster care caseworker this outrages me. If this issue was the only thing she was "inflexible" about - it is absolutely discriminatory. As far as I know there are no children who are "required" eat pork as part of their religion. Therefore, it would not be infringing on any of their rights to not serve them pork. If a family was vegitarian and could provide all of the foster children in their homes with appropriate, healthy meals that shouldn't be a big deal either. Kids will eat lots of other foods in other places - school, friend's homes, etc. Eating pork isn't worth denying a family who wants to take in foster children - there aren't enough as it is! Ridiculous.