When a young ward of the state is fostered to a crazy family planning a heist, he sets out to find his real father before being forced to engage in criminal activities that will see him back in juvenile prison.

I would refocus the logline around the immediate and ?central objective problem that drives the story, the heist. ?The inciting incident is the foster kid’s discovery of the plan. ? Is there a sense of urgency, a ticking clock, limited time to do something about it? ?And what?

Why doesn’t he just go to the cops, tip them off? ? Or simply run away, have himself get caught by the cops and be returned to the safety of the state ward, ?farmed out to someone else? ?I mean, there just seems to be so many other solutions to his problem of not being involved in the heist — and faster — than searching for his father.

And, if the foster parents are going to use him for the heist, wouldn’t they keep him under control, confine him to the premises? ? How is he going to be able to search for his father when they won’t let him out of their sight? ? And while it’s plausible he could stumble upon the heist, why would the foster parents trust him — an outsider to the family — to be a reliable accessory ?to their heist, even under coercion?

I think there’s a potentially good story here, but the concept needs polishing.

Benny:

Parsing your revised version still leaves questions in my mind. ?As written, it seems to say that his objective goal is to go along with the heist so he can find his father. ?Is that what you intend to mean by saying he will ? “do anything and risk everything”? Or is his objective goal to find his father before ?(ticking clock) the heist takes place?

And if it is the latter, I’m still having trouble believing the crooked foster family would let him out of their sight, let him go look for his father. ?Because if they let him search and he succeeds, there goes the leverage they have over him. ?(Another reason they wouldn’t let him out of their sight would be for fear he’d snitch to the police.)

Please clarify.

Also, now that I know that the story is set in Australia, is the kid European or Aboriginal? ?It occurs to me that if he were the latter and the foster family is the former, it might intensify his sense of alienation and isolation and strengthen his motivation to find his father as well as reconnect with his ethnic roots. ? However, I don’t know if the?current policy is to?allow the placement Aboriginal orphans with non-Aboriginal families. ?(I do know that in the United States, the general policy is now to make every effort to place Native American orphans with a family of their tribe. ?Or at least their ethnic kind.)

As I understand it, then, the dramatic question of the plot — and the should be only one dramatic question, not 2 or 3 — the dramatic question is: ?will the kid successfully fulfill his role in the heist? ?(The dramatic question pertains to the main action of the 2nd Act. ?The answer to that question is finally given in the 3rd Act.) ?That is the principle story you wish to tell.

Now within that story, the boy’s expectation is that if he does as he’s told, his foster parent will tell him where he can find his father. ?That’s the “carrot” being used to motivate compliance. ?The “stick” is the threat of a return to juvenile incarceration. ?And it’s beyond his control as to whether the foster parent will live up to his end of the bargain. ?So it’s an important 3rd Act element but it’s not part of the dramatic question because the dramatic question is about the protagonist’s role in the plot, what is within his power to do.

>>>I guess I always thought writing about indigenous issues when being non indigenous is risky due to the sensitivity of the subject and current issues.

Yep. ?It’s a not so leisurely stroll through a mine field. ?But the upside is that, imho, it affords an opportunity for a more dramatically interesting story.