Albín Škoviera
FOSTER CARE IN THE CONTEXT OF TRENDS AND CHANGES
IN THE CONCEPT OF PARENTHOOD
11
FOSTER CARE IN THE CONTEXT OF TRENDS
AND CHANGES IN THE CONCEPT
OF PARENTHOOD
Albín Škoviera1
Abstract
The  author perceives the  contexts of  contemporary changes through the  lens
of the problems of children growing up outside their biological family, e.g. in foster care
and  adoption, but also in  various social and  educational institutions. It  asks whether
the best interests of the child are not in fact more likely to be the interests of a specific
section of  parents with their own interests at  heart, or  those of  adults who are part
of ideological lobby groups. It highlights the fact that the upbringing and care of children
growing up outside the biological family has a number of legal, ethical, psychological
and  educational aspects that are complicated to  reconcile optimally for the  benefit
of the child at the present time.
Keywords
parenting, foster care, educational and social institutions
Introduction
One of the areas that has been significantly affected by radical technological, economic
and social changes is foster care. This ranges from supportive families, such as au pairs,
through various forms of fostering to adoption, and also includes those in designated
educational, social and re-educational institutions. In doing so, there is pressure not only
on so-called foster families, but also on social and educational institutions to ‚imitate‘
the family environment. We ask the question: Do we know or do they know what kind
of family environment to imitate?
Fabián (2021, p. 135) articulates it presciently: ‚When we talk about foster family care,
what kind of family do we mean? Is the foster family the one in which the child is placed,
or is the foster family the interaction of families: the family in which the child is placed,
including all the  models of  the  original families of  the  children who are brought up
in that family?“
1
University of Pardubice
2023 | Volume IX | Issue 1 social pathology & prevention12
At present, we cannot agree not only on what a family is, but also on what parenthood
is and what the relationship is between someone having begotten a child and someone
having given birth to  a  child. We accept what Možný (2008) claim that there is  no
„unified sociological theory of the family,“ just as there is no unified „family.“ However,
it  is  also important to  acknowledge that sociology is  not the  only discipline that
deals with the  family, and  it  is  not optimal, in  the  spirit of  constructivism, to  reduce
the family to a social construct and talk about it as such. It is not only biology (ethology)
and psychology that offer a much more diverse view of it.
But the fact that there are new forms of ‚parenting‘, from assisted reproduction with
a sperm donor to surrogacy – the carrying of a child by another mother for payment
– shows, at  the  very least, that there are, in  reality, biologically traditional and  nontraditional
forms of parenting, which certainly have their own psychological dimension.
It is remarkable that these new forms are often positively presented by various lobby
groups as an achievement of progress and ‚reproductive rights‘, but without any sociopsychological
and  ethical context. Another question arises: Is  what is  in  the  interest
of the ‚parents‘ really also in the best interest of the child? Consequently, who is being
helped in the helping professions? Whose side to be on? Yes, theoretically on the side
of the child. But are we really doing that realistically?
One of  the  hallmarks of  postmodernism is  the  relativisation of  concepts, whereby
within the  framework of  so-called political correctness (let‘s face it, more ideological
correctness), there is  very often a  significant marginalisation or  even ostracisation
of some traditional concepts and phrases. An example is the substitution, from the point
of view of developing morality, of the key concept of education by terms such as care,
behaviour modification, informal education or social skills training. These may or may not
be linked to a connection with socially accepted moral values. The difference in terms
of care and education is a difference in preferred values. While care can often be oneway,
it mainly deals with the issue of the „quality of life“ of the individual, education
is a two-way dialogic process (in more detail Škoviera, 2007).
Nor is the concept of a surrogate in the „course“. Replacement is usually still associated
with inferior quality. Komárik (1999) argues that education cannot be substitute.
Either it  is  or  it  is  not education, in  this context it  is  not important who implements
it. The  term foster family, commonly used in  the  lay public, is  also actually incorrect
nowadays, because de jure we have neither foster family nor fostering, only foster care.
And if we have a family that adopts a child, it is not a foster family (Act 36/2005 Coll.,
Act 305/2005 Coll.). It is interesting to note that Act 279/1993 Coll. in Slovakia in 1993
created a professional foster family, but only three years later, after its „delimitation“ from
the Education Department to the Social Department, it became „only“ a professional
family. We ask: If a child grows up in a surrogate family environment, why should we not
call those who raise and care for him/her surrogate parents?
Practical experience confirms that children want to be part of a family. They often want
the separated parents to come back together, they idealise the parent/partner who does
not live with them, sometimes they ‚look‘ for a new partner for their ‚free‘ parent. This
Albín Škoviera
FOSTER CARE IN THE CONTEXT OF TRENDS AND CHANGES
IN THE CONCEPT OF PARENTHOOD
13
is true even if the family is a ‚surrogate‘ family. We have repeatedly encountered in practice
that a child spontaneously took the surname of his or her foster parents, despite the fact
that he or she subsequently had problems with it, e.g. at school. Professionally, we have
encountered often dramatic stories of children who have had to cope with the revelation
that they are growing up in „surrogate“ adoptive families.
Contemporary Slovak and Czech family
Globalisation is accelerating processes and changes in families, but above all in the way
we ourselves think about the family. 30 years ago there was practically no possibility
of „ordering a child“ to be carried out, homosexuals still claimed that they were only
concerned with the  legalisation of  the  relationship, they were not concerned with
the possibility of adopting children, until 1990 it was the case that single people over 25
had a higher tax rate, about 60 years ago single mothers were 6 % and girls were married
at 21 and boys were married at 24 years old. Today none of that applies.
Tab. 1 „Traditional“ and contemporary family
50 years ago Contemporary family
- Biological parents – married
- Biological parent and other partner usually
married
- Parent widowed or single parent
- Adopted child of a married couple
- Foster child of married couple
- Biological parents - unmarried
- Biological parent and other partner –
married
- Biological parent and other partner –
unmarried
- Single parent purposefully single
- Single parent after breakdown of partner
relationship
- Registered same-sex partners, one
is the biological parent
- Child adopted by a married couple
- Child adopted by an unmarried couple
- Child adopted by a heterosexual
individual
- Child in the foster care of an individual
by one of the registered partners
- Adoption Patchwork (composite) families
- parents and children from different
relationships, possibly + joint
- Having both parents married once
is the exception rather than the rule
According to Možný (2008) and Fabián (2021) – modified
2023 | Volume IX | Issue 1 social pathology & prevention14
The mobility and openness of society, but also the illegitimised and undeclared
partner relationships by  marriage, mean that we are often faced with completely
new problems. These include, for example, multicultural parenting with a low degree
of cultural compatibility, inter-ethnic and inter-racial biological and ‚surrogate‘ parenting,
the adoption of our citizens abroad and international adoption from Slovakia or the Czech
Republic, international ‚child abduction‘, child abduction by one of the biological parents,
and many other problems.
There are a  number of  issues and  problems associated with such major changes
in the family. Just to illustrate, we will mention three:
First: What is the psychological and educational situation of the second (other) partner
towards the partner‘s biological children? How is power distributed in the new family?
In what position is the partner? How do the children interpret this domestic relationship
situation?
Second: Contemporary materialism often leads single mothers to  hold two jobs
in a complicated financial situation. On the one hand, they want to provide an economic
standard for their children (and „replace“ the father), on the other hand, they consequently
spend very little time with them, even alienating each other. This is commonly reflected
in the problem behaviour of their children. Where is the expected positive gain here?
Third example: in  surrogate parenthood, is  the  woman who carries the  child merely
an incubator? Is the client obliged to accept the child, even if he or she does not like
the „product“? If longitudinal research (e.g., Langmeier and Matějček, 2011) shows that
a wanted child is better off in many ways than an unwanted child, how is this the case?
Regarding the contemporary family, Šulová (2012) points out several differences when
comparing it with families in the recent past.
a)	 There is a lack of expectation of permanence of the relationship.
b)	 Low stability of the relationship.
c)	 Postponement of first marriage until older age.
d)	 Postponing parenthood to a later age.
e)	 Declining birth rates (a cultural and socio-economic phenomenon).
f)	 Strong individualism in the family. Focus on the interest of the individual.
g)	Intimate relationships and  permanent partnerships without being tied to  natural
consequences (unexpected pregnancies).
h)	 Widely accepted premarital sexual experience.
i)	 Maturity of partners and efforts to build the relationship.
j)	 Aspirations of both parents within their individual careers (two-career family).
k)	Educational influence of the family replaced by institutions (sports, interest groups),
which implies a limitation of contact between parents and children. What was provided
by the family is provided by society.
l)	The blurring of the specificities of the female and male roles.
Albín Škoviera
FOSTER CARE IN THE CONTEXT OF TRENDS AND CHANGES
IN THE CONCEPT OF PARENTHOOD
15
We believe that we can add to this „shortlist“ a few other suggestions of our own. These
are:
m)	Educational insecurity of  the  competence of  parents by  professionals. The  latter
present sometimes diametrically opposed advice – from protectionism to a clear
regime framework.
n)	Reducing children‘s information dependence on parents and teachers. Children‘s ICT
skills are often at a higher level than those of their parents, and parents become
dependent on children in this area.
o)	Administrative care. The mother does not prepare a snack for the child, she gives
him money for it. But these cease to be a tangible „symbolic link“ between mother
and child. (Škoviera, Murínová, 2012)
p)	In the past, the child was mostly received as a gift (although not always fully wanted),
nowadays the child is often planned as a product (in time and number). We have
different expectations from a product than from a gift.
A child who does not live with his or her biological family
The topic we are presenting can be seen from several perspectives. Perhaps the least
complicated may at first sight appear to be the legal perspective. What is legal is, after
all, legal and legitimate. Of course, this is only as long as the same legislation applies
to us all the time. The problem arises where this is not the case. We remember the case
of a certain girl who returned with her mother in 1980 from the then East Germany (GDR).
In the GDR, as a 14 year old, she had a legitimate sex life; in Czechoslovakia she was
„under the law“, taken away from her mother and, according to the customs of the time,
placed in a re-education institution.
In  many states, not only marriage but also adoption of  a  child by  same-sex couples
is legalized. There are states where neither is possible. However, this does not mean
that such couples with children cannot move from one state to another. Even to a state
where it is not legal. There, however, they run into complications. But is it really realistic
to expect a state to allow dual legislation, or will the legislation be globally unified?
The  removal of  children by  Barnevernet in  Norway (and  the  unsuccessful efforts
of the Michalak children‘s mother), or similarly by the Social Service authorities in the UK
(and  the  successful return of  the  Booras‘ children to  Slovakia), are confirmation that
legality reflects not only what is considered morally acceptable and close to justice in that
particular society, but above all what is agreed by the majority of legislators.
There is an understandable divergence, and even significant incompatibility, between
the laws of different states. And we do not want to deal here with such a phenomenon
as Islamic Sharia law.
Justice is related to legality and law. Despite the fact that we have a Ministry of Justice
with its own agenda, justice is much more of an ethical category than a legal concept.
Our favourite example: is it fair if Breivik (now Hansen), who killed 77 people, has three
well-equipped rooms in a 30 m2 prison, while others end up under a bridge through no
fault of their own? Is that really ethical? It is legal.
2023 | Volume IX | Issue 1 social pathology & prevention16
Despite the fact that the Foucoultian concept of contextuality makes it possible to justify
almost anything as acceptable, practice, even in an era of contemporary ethical flexibility
or pragmatism, often puts us in a situation where we are dealing with an ethical dilemma.
Like the mother in Capek‘s eponymous drama, when she reluctantly, but nevertheless,
hands her son a rifle to go fight and says: „Go!“
One of  the  basic dilemmas in  the  context of  the  theme is  when to  leave the  child
in the family and when to place him in a substitute environment. The enormous growth
of social workers has not yet led to fewer children growing up outside the biological
family, neither in  Slovakia nor in  the  Czech Republic, but it  has led to  an  increase
in bureaucracy and employment. Another ethical problem, a Czech-Slovak one, could
be, for example, the placement of a child (often a Roma child or a child with a disability)
for adoption abroad. How is it that such a child is not good enough for us to adopt, but
is good enough for „people from abroad“? It is remarkable that our practice no longer
sees this as an ethical problem at all. It is, after all, in the best interests of the child, or so
they say. „He will be better off there“. But the best interests of the child should itself be
primarily an ethical, not an economic, category.
For example, some research in the past has shown that the best adoptive parents are
those parents who already have a biological child (Škoviera, 2007). However, among
applicants, it is those who do not have a child who are commonly preferred. When we
consider the long-term stable environment for the child, do we also take into account
that unmarried couples are less stable than married ones? Do we favour the married?
Or is that discrimination? Similarly with the ‚hot topic‘ of same-sex partners today.
We cannot leave out the psychological aspect of the whole subject. Fabián (2021) draws
attention to differences in the starting line of children that are related to the family
constellation:
-	in  the  biological family, the  newborn child always arrives as  the  youngest,
as the weakest, the whole family adapts to the arrival of the child,
-	in foster care, the child does not arrive as a newborn, often already 5–6 years old
or older, but the child is expected to adapt to the routines of the foster family
Tab. 2 Children in different forms of foster care
Child Time continuity
+ Past Common Present Common Future
Biological family yes yes yes
Adoption rather no yes yes yes
Kinship fostering partly yes partly
Non-relative fostering no yes usually yes
Short-term foster care no yes no
Children's home no yes no
Source: author
Albín Škoviera
FOSTER CARE IN THE CONTEXT OF TRENDS AND CHANGES
IN THE CONCEPT OF PARENTHOOD
17
Bowbly‘s theory of relational bonding – the attachment of the child in early childhood
to a relational person (Hašto, 2005, Brish, 2011, Langmeier, Matějček, 2011) – is now
widely accepted in the psychological community as fundamental in relation to the child‘s
later functioning in life. Its basic starting points include separation and loss. In terms
of optimal solutions, it is an open question to what extent to move children aged from
about 6 months to about 3 years from the biological family, e.g., to a foster family for
a temporary period and back again and sometimes repeatedly, but also to another foster
family environment. In practice, this happens in real life.
There are other problems in  terms of  psychology. For example: the  compatibility
of the foster family environment and the child (with his/her history); the age of the child
and the placement in the foster family environment; whether it is possible to bring up
adopted children and own children in foster care in the same way when they do not have
the same perspective. There is the complicated issue of kinship fostering of grandparents
and grandchildren, particularly as they mature.
There are a number of psychological issues of emotionality and values that may not occur
to children in ordinary families, but perhaps all children from non-biological families
deal with them throughout their lives. These are questions about their basic identity:
who am I? Who is my parent? Why didn‘t my biological family „want“ me? To whom
(in the continuity of my life) do I belong?
When we think we belong to both this and that, who do we really belong to?
Conclusion
We know that the optimal environment for a child is a stable family environment. So if
we really want to do something for children, let us not start with the children, but create
the material, media, legislative and economic conditions for our families and theirs to be
stable. Let us try to think that for a family, a pleasant time together around a campfire
can be much more than an exclusive holiday. Economically, we can have „just about
everything.“ But without children we will not have, in Matějček‘s words, an open future.
References
Act 279/1993 Coll. on School Facilities (Slovakia).
Act 36/2005 Coll. on the Family (Slovakia).
Act 305/2005 Coll. on  Social Legal Protection and  Social Guardianship (Slovakia).
BRISH, K. H. Bezpečná vzťahová väzba. Trenčín: Vydavateľstvo F, 2011.
ISBN 978-80-8895-267-1.
2023 | Volume IX | Issue 1 social pathology & prevention18
FABIÁN, P. Možná to jde i jinak. Teorie a metody v sociální práci. Pardubice: Univerzita
Pardubice, 2021. ISBN 978-80-7560-368-5.
HAŠTO, J. Vzťahová väzba. Ku koreňom lásky a úzkosti. Trenčín: Vydavateľstvo F, 2005.
ISBN 80-8895-228-X.
KOMÁRIK E. Pedagogika emocionálne a  sociálne narušených. Bratislava: UK, 1999.
ISBN 80-223-1394-7.
LANGMEIER J. & MATĚJČEK, Z. Psychická deprivace v dětství. Praha: Karolinum, 2011.
ISBN 978-80-246-1983-5.
MOŽNÝ, I. Rodina a společnost. Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství SLON, 2008. ISBN
978-80-86429-87-8.
ŠKOVIERA, A. & MURÍNOVÁ, Ľ. Rodina a problémové dieťa v terapeuticko-výchovnej
starostlivosti. Bratislava: FICE v SR, 2012. ISBN 978-80-969253-5-3.
ŠKOVIERA A. Dilemata náhradní výchovy. Praha: Portál, 2007. ISBN 978-80-7367-318-5.
ŠULOVÁ L. Rodina a rodičovství – současné projevy v ČR. Referát pro 9. Slovenskou
konferenci o  sexualitě, sexuálním zdraví a  sexuální výchově v  Banské Bystrici – 19.
-20.10. 2011. 2012. Dostupné z: https://www.academia.edu/10067596/Rodina_a_
rodi%C4%8Dovstv%C3%AD_sou%C4%8Dasn%C3%A9_projevy_v_%C4%8CR_
Sou%C4%8Dasn%C3%A1_%C4%8Desk%C3%A1_rodina [cit. 22. 10. 2022]
Author
doc. PhDr. Albín Škoviera, PhD.
University of Pardubice
askoviera@gmail.com