Time for some new foster kids?

[John]

I'm happy to agree with some of your post although I find the first sentence condescending and objectionable.

As you point out Spencer and Maddie are not foster children in a strictly legal sense. Nor are they suffering neglect. They are older and in a relationship and I don't see them filling the traditional family roles.

Maddie's behaviour has been "bratty" at times like most teenagers.

However excessively controlling behaviour as exhibited by Maddie's mum in her visit and the back story we have heard does constitute abuse of someone Maddie's age.

Spencer's father's bullying and standover tactics as exhibited during his visit and described in the back story also constitute abuse.

I work in an Australian legal system so some of the ages and definitions may vary in other places but the show is set in a mythical Australian town. If Maddie and Spencer are over 16 they are entitled to live independently and would even be entitled to some government support payments. The tragedy of that is that sometimes young people of that age do need mentoring from supportive older people and don't get it.

In my opinion this is a good storyline and, although not strictly a foster kid situation, it contains the same ethos of older people mentoring/supporting younger people who for some reason don't have family support.

I don't see it as a plot device but a new approach to the old theme which saw various young people in the past mentored and supported by the older couples in the Bay.

The word homage is yours not mine, ( I am wondering why you threw that in ) I don't see this storyline as any sort of tribute to the past but a development of a theme from the past. Whether people like it or not is up to them.

[TelephotoMarigold]

I've found a number of posts in this thread objectionable as people who have stated that Maddie and Spencer are not foster kids are continually shouted down.

Yes, homage was my own choice of word and I was referencing how some are seeing this storyline as some kind of tribute to previous H&A storylines about fostering. For anyone not familiar with the word it means, amongst other definitions, 'Special honour or respect shown or expressed publicly.' This storyline is not paying tribute to the shows history of fostering it has simply introduced some new teens into the Bay.

Again it is mentioned that Maddie and Spencer are escaping bullying/pushing/emotional abuse but isn't that debatable? We saw a small snapshot of their parents and very little interaction between them. We do not know how they were full time. Whilst emotional abuse is a legitimate problem the fact that we did see so little and have really only heard the story from Maddie's and Spencer's pov we can't immediately jump to that conclusion even though it appears we are meant too.

[alexx]

What puzzles me is that every time the past is mentioned people say 'the show has to move on'. As far as I can see, no one has ever said that 2013 Home and Away should be exactly as it is in 1991 - I know that would be completely dated and never ever work as a prime time TV show on Channel 7 or in Australia at all perhaps.

What most of us seem to want, is the same quality of writing and attention to detail brought into 2013 Home and Away and for it to at least appear to be an extension of the past, so that it is still the same show 'long term' viewers can recognize and enjoy, whilst moving forward.

And of course there were plot holes, inconsistencies and so on back in the day - there will always be in these types of shows - but the feeling and tone of H&A has completely changed (along with how characters are written) and that's why I no longer enjoy it.

Maddie and Spencer, to me feel/felt like a couple who needed a place to stay and some helping out - they got that via Roo and Harvey. And that's pretty much where it's ended. It's great to see the older characters help out younger characters, and that is something H&A have done pretty consistently - but I don't think it's a different spin on the fostering theme really. And that was what this thread was about.

[John]

This is a good discussion alexx. Can I suggest we take it over to the Storyline thread or we'll be straying "off topic".

[Inactive User]

This is a good discussion alexx. Can I suggest we take it over to the Storyline thread or we'll be straying "off topic".

I agree with John. It was a good discussion Alexx had posted And yeah it's a good suggestion to take it over to the storyline thread.

[TelephotoMarigold]

What puzzles me is that every time the past is mentioned people say 'the show has to move on'. As far as I can see, no one has ever said that 2013 Home and Away should be exactly as it is in 1991 - I know that would be completely dated and never ever work as a prime time TV show on Channel 7 or in Australia at all perhaps.

What most of us seem to want, is the same quality of writing and attention to detail brought into 2013 Home and Away and for it to at least appear to be an extension of the past, so that it is still the same show 'long term' viewers can recognize and enjoy, whilst moving forward.

And of course there were plot holes, inconsistencies and so on back in the day - there will always be in these types of shows - but the feeling and tone of H&A has completely changed (along with how characters are written) and that's why I no longer enjoy it.

Maddie and Spencer, to me feel/felt like a couple who needed a place to stay and some helping out - they got that via Roo and Harvey. And that's pretty much where it's ended. It's great to see the older characters help out younger characters, and that is something H&A have done pretty consistently - but I don't think it's a different spin on the fostering theme really. And that was what this thread was about.

I agree with this point.

[c120701]

Plus it would be unlikely that Harvey would be allowed to foster with a criminal conviction, so this is a workaround.

[MACYLIGHTFOOT]

I haven't really warmed to Maddie and Spencer. Regardless of the ins and outs of whether they're foster kids or not it feels to me like the writers just wanted to add a few more teens to the show. It started out interesting enough, when they were sleeping rough and all that but the explanation given for why they ran away seemed a bit of a let down to me.

Jett's story in the other hand I think has been a great example of what the show used to do well. He was initially in need because of his mum's death, John and Gina took him in. I'm not sure if they ever legally fostered him? But they were still providing a family and a support system for him. Then even when they found his dad he still ended up staying with them. I know in a lot of actual fostering cases it's not always that the parents have abandoned their kids. Sometimes they just can't cope, sometimes there's other wider ranging circumstances and things just don't work out.

Like someone pointed out though, the Maddie and Spencer story isn't actually a fostering story line, it's more just a case of two not quite adults needing a bit of a helping hand. It may well lead to Roo and Harvey actually fostering someone down the line but it itself is not, nor I think is it supposed to be, one of the old fashioned H&A foster kid stories.

[cadyctslover]

I work in an Australian legal system so some of the ages and definitions may vary in other places but the show is set in a mythical Australian town. If Maddie and Spencer are over 16 they are entitled to live independently and would even be entitled to some government support payments. The tragedy of that is that sometimes young people of that age do need mentoring from supportive older people and don't get it.

In my opinion this is a good storyline and, although not strictly a foster kid situation, it contains the same ethos of older people mentoring/supporting younger people who for some reason don't have family support.

I don't see it as a plot device but a new approach to the old theme which saw various young people in the past mentored and supported by the older couples in the Bay.

The word homage is yours not mine, ( I am wondering why you threw that in ) I don't see this storyline as any sort of tribute to the past but a development of a theme from the past.

That's interesting to hear John, I didn't know that. It gives fresh insight into what they're probably trying to achieve with these new characters, and I have been quite enjoying this storyline. I think John and Gina's official fostering of Jett is a worthwhile storyline also, but it is nice to see a different tact to the idea of young people being looked after by older members of the community with whom they have no relation.

[Red Ranger 1]

Yes, John and Gina officially fostered Jett, with a child that age they really couldn't have done anything else.

At the risk of restarting an argument, I really don't see any differences between Spencer and Maddy's storyline and several "fostering" storylines in the past.How is it different from, say, Blake and Karen or Belle, who also had a home no more abusive than Spencer and Maddy's, were nearly adults and were never officially fostered?I don't see it as a "new spin" on old fostering storylines, I see it as no different from them and saying "But they didn't get DoCS involved" or "But they're not in need" feels like people looking for excuses to say it doesn't count because it's not exactly what they wanted.Maybe I'm being harsh and I apologise if people thinking I'm dismissing their opinions but when the show's getting back to its roots like this I think it should be supported, not nitpicked because it fails match people's ideal storyline.