Time for some new foster kids?

[alexx]

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.

I didn't really mind if it was a foster storyline or not in this case - I was just saying that from what I saw, I didn't think it was. In regards to Belle - I didn't see that as a fostering storyline either. She was just a guest in Irene's house, like April and Bianca are.

I think Blake and Karen are different. They quite obviously needed guardianship and looking after, coming across as young and in need of parents. Whereas Maddy and Spencer don't need that - they just needed a place to stay.

I agree that it's good to see Roo and Harvey take an interest the way they have, and its definitely running along the same lines as the Drop in Centre for example. I was interested in Maddy and Spencer at the start, but then I found it hard to take seriously when their reasons for running away came out.

I've enjoyed the Gina/John/Jett storyline. I think they're probably my favourite group of characters.

[jodlebirger]

I disagree with you Alexx. Well I haven't seen Maddie and Spencer so I can't talk about them... I haven't seen Karen and Blake either, because Norwegian tv has only showed H&A from 1993 season and onwards.

But I disagree with you about Belle.... Belle really did need some adult guidance when she arrived in the bay. Yes, some 16 year olds have to be independent, but most live with their parents. And there are a lot of teens who have fallen out of home for some reason, or are about to become a criminal... A lot of them are coming from very troubled families... And they need some guidance. So did Belle and the others (Celina, curtis and so on)

I don't think it is the same as with Bianca and April. April is a teen but she has a sister who is about 30 (she really looks that old), and she is an adult, a teacher so April has the support she needs. And Irene giving advice to Bianca is not the same as when she gave Belle or Geoff advice. She is just a house keeper to Bianca (and April), but she was more to Belle, Geoff and Annie.

I haven't seen Jett much, but I have read that he is meant to be 13 just like VJ?.. 3 years younger than Maddie and spencer (read that they were meant to be 16), Belle was 16 too... Only 3 years difference. I think sometimes we forget about that, because Vj (and Jett) are played by very young actors, but the others are played by adults... I do understand that Palmer, Gina and Jett is more a family set, but I think also the other adult/teen guidance thing is also very important.

Irene as a foster parent/adult wasn't used to its potential from 2006 Australian season and onwards... But that is something else... it doesn't mean that she tried to lead Belle to live her life right or Geoff and Annie.

There are a lot of kids like this in the world who need adult guidance, and for some reason have dropped out of home... I love these storylines, They are the reason why I started to watch Home and away. This is like my dream world that young people who are in need for support get the help they need and are saved from being criminals. I am looking forward to Maddie and Spencer when they are coming to my screen some time late this year (we get 2 new eps each weekday now).

[TelephotoMarigold]

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.

My issue with it is that so many people are jumping up and down and saying this is good, this is getting back to H&A's roots, that Maddie and Spencer are foster kids where personally I see it as just another storyline with the introduction of some new characters and not a particularly well plotted out one. First off, the whole question of Maddie and Spencer being 'official' foster kids should have been addressed. If my neighbours suddenly took in two random teenage kids without explanation I would be worried what was happening. Then there is the issue of Harvey's criminal conviction, by introducing Maddie and Spencer in this fashion they manage to gloss over the fact that would cause issues if this was done officially through DOC's. How is Lottie feeling about this change in circumstances? Has it even been mentioned? It's all those sort of things that if they had been addressed could have made Maddie and Spencer's introduction much smoother and easier to equate with.

It's got nothing to do with 'nitpicking because it doesn't match an ideal storyline' it's because the writing is not up to scratch.

This topic is labelled 'Time for new foster kids' and was started last January 2012 and obviously the show has moved on since it's initial inception by introducing the character of Jett. Perhaps to stem further argument the topic should be closed and any further discussion on Spencer and Maddie be confined to the 'Character Discussion' thread?

[alexx]

But I disagree with you about Belle.... Belle really did need some adult guidance when she arrived in the bay. Yes, some 16 year olds have to be independent, but most live with their parents. And there are a lot of teens who have fallen out of home for some reason, or are about to become a criminal... A lot of them are coming from very troubled families... And they need some guidance. So did Belle and the others (Celina, curtis and so on)

I don't think it is the same as with Bianca and April. April is a teen but she has a sister who is about 30 (she really looks that old), and she is an adult, a teacher so April has the support she needs. And Irene giving advice to Bianca is not the same as when she gave Belle or Geoff advice. She is just a house keeper to Bianca (and April), but she was more to Belle, Geoff and Annie.

I think Belle was brought in initially to be the next 'foster kid' for Irene to take care of - but Imo it didn't play out very well on screen. It ended up being more a share house situation between her and Irene, rather than a mother/daughter type situation because the writing wasn't there.

[maciam]

I agree, Jett is the latest kid to be fostered out.. And most of the "kids" that have been fostered over the years has been teens.

The Bay really has been lacking kids ages 0-13 last few years.

I agree, Maddy and Spencer choosed to runaway to be together.. They didn't really need new homes. It was their choise.

I know there is kids out there who have parents with all kinds of problems who is not able to take care of their kids, and that their kids sometimes is better off without them.

I know a kid who has 2 parents.. Her mother left her when she was 2 years old to her mother to take care of.. She started to hang out with the wrong crowd and using drugs etc..Still today she has no job, a kid who is 3, and one on the way.. Her oldest daughter who is now 10, she still isn't the guarding of, her mother is full time.

She has lived with her grandma for 8 years now, even though her mother lives in the same city, and on the same street.. She is no longer on drugs which is good.

Things looks to be better now, and she has started to contact her daughter more..

The father of her first daughter has never wanted to be in the picture and she has only met him once. He is now in jail for robbery and drugs.

It would be nice to see young foster kids growing up in the Bay as long time characters. Kind of like Sam was, and Sally.