Question by Beware the Jabberwocky: Why is there a higher rate of child abuse in foster homes than in the general population?
Children in foster care experience high rates of child abuse, emotional deprivation, and physical neglect. In one study in the United Kingdom “foster children were 7–8 times, and children in residential care 6 times more likely to be assessed by a pediatrician for abuse than a child in the general population”.[14] One study by Johns Hopkins University found that the rate of sexual abuse within the foster-care system is more than four times as high as in the general population; in group homes, the rate of sexual abuse is more than 28 times that of the general population.[15][16] An Indiana study found three times more physical abuse and twice the rate of sexual abuse in foster homes than in the general population.[16] A study of foster children in Oregon and Washington State found that nearly one third reported being abused by a foster parent or another adult in a foster home.[17] These statistics do not speak to the situation these children are coming from, but it does show the very large problem of child-on-child sexual abuse within the system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_care#Abuse_and_negligence

Best answer:

Answer by frockney
First, the children who are in care sometimes come from families where they themselves may have been subjected to some form of bad treatment ranging from being left to their own devices when the parents (or single mom) is out or being emotionally or physically abuse or all of this at once.

This is not to say that all kids removed are justly removed.

Furthermore, the people doing foster care are people who want to adopt but cannot afford the huge sums asked for by agencies (starting from $ 30,000). They may have a lower level of education. They may be considering the child as the “third best option” after failing to conceive naturally and not having the money to adopt a womb-web baby from an agency.

However, this is not to say that they are not decent people.

Also psychology scholars have found that there is an instintive, physical “safety catch” that stops natural parents from hurting their offspring and having sex with them. Admitedly, this “safery catch” does not function with every one, but it is just not present in non-blood related foster parents.

So the combination of these three factors means that kids in care end up falling from the frying pan into the fire.

In the 60’s, children’s homes fell into (well deserved!) disrepute. Now, there are some new solutions where these institutions are better structured, better staffed, where child psychology is better understood. Children who have problems should not go to problem families.

All this is meant to save money. Money would be better saved on proper, and timely, sex education and free contraception.

@Sammy Gabbie:
I would never take on one or more foster kids. I help these kids by donating to institutions who employ fully qualified staff. I am not qualified to deal with temperamental children who right or wrong have been separated from their parents.

I prefer to concentrate on my lovely, pretty, intelligent daughters. Natural children also need looking after, so they don’t become foster kids in the first place.

@angel face
This question was posted in US, so what I wrote fits. Also, in UK, the SS is very heavy-handed and take kids away for no reason whatsoever, they snatch kids at birth without giving mothers the possibility to prove their parenting skills, they take children into care on simple hearsay.

I would NEVER be complicit in SS crimes.

@Sammy Gabbie AGAIN
You will insist on invariably getting the wrong end of the stick. There is none more deaf than those who refuse to hear.
Anyway, in case you want a bit of bedtime-reading in your mobile home, I’ve selected some decent piece of research for you:
http://fixcas.com/scholar/impact.pdf

What do you think? Answer below!