CHILD WELFARE

Hokitika Guardian, 5 July 1928, Page 4

CHILD WELFARE

PAYMENT OF FOSTER PARENTS

WELLINGTON, July 2.

When discussing problems of child welfare, Mr J. Beck, Superintendent of Child Welfare Branch cf the Education Department, denied that the payment of foster parents led to what is generally known as baby farming. Air Beck said that natural.y the majority of foster parents could; not afford to take children without some remuneration. Neither was it desirable, that they should, as the child might thereby suffer. Those who could afford to do so adopted children, but in many other cases the Magistrate fixed a weekly sum to be paid for the support of the child. This averaged 15s a week more or Ices, according to circumstances.

“In addition,” said Air Beck, “wo provide medical attendance and school books and the initial outfit. Thu sum is adequate, but not enough to tempt tho cupidity of a person not fond of children. We have framed laws in every way to protect the children and prevent any traffic in babies. For instance, a mother cannot leave her eliild under six yeans for any period longer than seven days, even with a friend, without registering the home with the Child Welfare branch. That may seem unnecessarily stringent, but tho law was framed in the interests of children in general, and not to meet isolated cases.

“If a premium is paid when a child is adopted, the lump sum is left with the Department and paid out by weekly instalments. Should the child die before the sum is exhausted, tho surplus is returned to the giver. Occasionally advertisements appear in newspapers’ offering infants for adoption, showing that there is still some traffic in babies. We would like to make such advertisements illegal, as they have done in some of the Australian States. The advertisements usually refer to unwanted illegitimate children.”