Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Please read carefully before commenting: Mothers of large 'problem families' must stop having children, warns senior government adviser

Posted by   + Show Post

The red parts are VERY IMPORTANT:

Mothers of large 'problem families' must stop having children, warns senior government adviser



Outspoken: Families tsar Louise Carey has said that the government cannot afford to be too 'soft' on families

The government should ‘interfere’ to stop problem families having too many children, the families ‘tsar’ has said.

Louise Casey, whose study of 120,000 antisocial households was released this week, said the government must not be a ‘soft touch’ when it comes to telling women not to have any more children if they are struggling to cope.

Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, she said: ‘There are plenty of people who have large families and function incredibly well, and good luck to them, it must be lovely. The issue for me, out of the families that I have met, (is that) they are not functioning, lovely families.’

She added: ‘Yes, we have to help these families. But I also don’t think we should soft-touch those families. We are not running some cuddly social workers’ programme to wrap everybody in cotton wool.’

She said the state must tell mothers to take ‘responsibility’ and stop getting pregnant by different men.

‘The responsibility is as important as coming off drugs, coming off alcohol, getting a grip and getting the kids to school.’

Miss Casey said the government needed ‘toughness’ to make sure children were getting educated.

 

She said: ‘If every kid in the country who should be in school was there all day, every day, you would transform all sorts of problems.’

It was last summer's London riots that led to Prime Minister David Cameron setting up the family unit to combat these kind of problems within society.

Miss Casey, who was a former aide of Labour PM Tony Blair, was charged with heading up the new initiative, and a threat of taking back council houses, placing children into care and the prospect of prison were put to families.

Be careful: Miss Casey has called for some women to stop getting pregnant by different men

Be careful: Miss Casey has called for some women to stop getting pregnant by different men

An analysis of 16 of the worst families in the country worked out that they cost the state £200,000 each year.

Miss Casey's studies involved her getting right into the family situation; one instance saw her watch on as the courts took a woman's ninth child away from her.

The woman in question was a drug addict, and the chances are without proper help she would go on to become pregnant again.

And on another occasion, Miss Casey intervened when a parent, on hearing their child had been unruly at school, called them a 'nightmare': Miss Casey responded by telling the parent that it was THEM who was the 'nightmare'.

The programme is though to cost £448 million pounds, and as oppose to aim to get children involved in a broad range of inter-mingling, it has focused on one of the basics - getting the child to school.

'I say, the biggest diversionary activity on God’s earth is called school. If every kid in the country who should be in school (was) there, all day, every day, you would transform all sorts of problems.'

by on Oct. 12, 2013 at 10:37 PM
Replies (61-68):
Its.me.Sam.
by Gold Member on Oct. 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM

i agree with the idea that large families that are not self sufficient/are government dependent should not keep adding to them - HOWEVER i fully believe that its NEVER EVER acceptable for the govenment to tell a woman what to do with her body.  EVER.

Della529
by Matlock on Oct. 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM
1 mom liked this

 Are you aware that in the US public assistance programs already require mandatory school attendance and vaccination for school aged children, and that drug babies are automatically "held" by the state while a court mandated "parent plan" is put in place?  You're also aware, of course, that parents of these children are given a two year window under said "parent plan" to clean up their act or lose their children all together?

What are the stats on multiple children families receiving assistance in the US?

lancet98
by Silver Member on Oct. 13, 2013 at 3:50 PM

I talked to a Probation Officer who told me that 500 families in their county, absorbed 95% or more of the services their county provided.

So those five hundred families (and it's a big county) are getting much of the services for mentally ill, addicted, developmentally delayed, physically ill.

The idea that you can simply tell them to stop procreating shows how out of touch the authority who wrote that article, really is.

Carpy
by Ruby Member on Oct. 13, 2013 at 3:51 PM

We went that road once.  This was my hometown.  I know, it is wiki but it is accurate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman

Quoting Sisteract:

As much as we would all like these folks to stop producing, forcing the issue is unethical and a very slippery slope- Perhaps, the less educated or unemployed mothers would be deemed "problems" as well- very slippery slope.


Minnow Slayer

paganbaby
by Teflon Don on Oct. 13, 2013 at 8:35 PM

In these cases, I can't help but agree.

turtle68
by Mahinaarangi on Oct. 14, 2013 at 12:56 AM

I agree and disagree...sometimes it helps and sometimes it doesnt.  Government intervention should continue after the child is fostered...not end when they are fostered.

I dont believe the kids always fare better just because they are loved, if they are living in squallor created by the parents....it does nothing to break the cycle and is more likely to end up being a burden on society.

Nothing is perfect...but trying to break a cycle of poverty and ignorance is better than just leaving them be...JMO

Quoting kidlover2:

Only in a strange and perfect world would "rehoming" children actually work. My BIL and SIL are one of these problem families. 6 kids, addicted to welfare, and living in drugs and filth. Ripping those kids away from the only family they have ever known and separate them out in to foster families has more far reaching damaging effects on those kids than leaving them alone ever will. I think only under extreme examples such as physical and sexual abuse should children be removed from the home and yet emotional abuse has been proven to show more long lasting and damaging effects than physical abuse. And our foster system is far from perfect. Two years ago a couple in our area was arrested for keeping their foster children in dog crates and duct taping them to the floor while starving them. I think children will fare better with drugs and welfare than starvation and psychological abuse. My opinion of course.

Quoting turtle68:


Quoting survivorinohio:


Quoting turtle68:

How else are you going to help them if not by educating them.  It starts by them not wanting kids because they cant afford them.  When you have an avenue to afford them, it certainly makes the notion of not having kids less of an issue.

Unless you are going to impose a regulation ...such as china has....My suggestion is to continue until someone says...no you cant.

Here parents of school aged kids are legally bound to have them attend school.  If they dont a good portion of funding and any bonus's are left out of their welfare payment.  If it continues the parents can and have been found guilty of neglect and do get their kids taken off them.

There are consequences.  

As a drug addict like in the OP.  If you are addicted when you give birth and your child is born withdrawing and or with special needs resulting from your addiction, those kids can be taken at birth, placed into foster care until the parent has reformed.

Many of those mothers continue to procreate and their chldren continue to be in the system.  I know a girl here who has 5 and never had custody of the younger 4.

I have spoken on forced chemical sterilization like depo for these women. It really is a proble though I HATE giving one of these posts credence.

Yep I agree....you arent going to change them, the best you can hope for is those children are given a different path.  If you are going to be in a circle of problems, from parent to child then the government does need to step in.  In my opinion they do by extracting those kids and placing them in a better enviroment.  It will still cost the government in foster care costs but hopefully it will stop the cycle and those kids wont go on to be a strain on the system.

Otherwise area restrictions do help break the cycle....especially rural relocation.


GrannyM.
by Bronze Member on Oct. 14, 2013 at 7:31 AM

Sad but it's never the childrens fault of course so they deserve the best of treatment with plenty of sympathy..

 

LNLMommy
by Queen K on Oct. 14, 2013 at 8:35 AM

Is it weird that it bothers the hell out of me that the woman in the picture has a panty line?? LOL-I know-weird thing to focus on but it's a pet peeve of mine!.

Anyway, on to the article..the thing that bugs me the most about these types of articles is the fact that it's always resesarch performed by people who really know nothing of the situation. Studying the situation is far different than actually experiencing the situation. With that being said, why don't we turn this country and the UK into a modern day China where there are family restrictions? If a person has more than one child, why don't we either fine the hell out of the family or worse, force the woman to abort, no matter how far along she is in her pregnancy?? Eh, I have a soft touch when it comes to large families because I have what is considered by today's standards, a large family and I say we function pretty darn well. 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN