to think that when there is a schools place crisis perhaps the government should think of ways to reduce birth rates?(648 Posts)
MNHQ have commented on this thread.
In my area (London) there is already a huge shortfall in places because there has been a baby boom. They are constantly opening new schools or creating bulge classes but this is often at the expense of other children who lose their playing fields and there is just not enough room in London to keep opening new schools and there is already a housing crisis because the country is so overcrowded.
I think perhaps it is time the government thought about limiting child related benefits to 2 children (which is the replacement rate) and those that want to have more can do so but not with taxpayers money. It would go some way to stopping some of the problems that rising birthrates create such as the school places crisis, overcrowding, pollution, increasing struggles for resources such as food and water and in an already overpopulated world I think the government is being negligent in not putting some sort of limit on child related benefits, especially when it seems to be counter-intuitive (if you work you don't get more money each time you have another child).
Adoption on its own is hard in the uk, very few people get through the process and lots and lots of children spend their childhoods in less than adequate care homes.
We should be encouraging people to adopt, not discouraging.
Yes, care homes for children, you know, like foster homes where they care for children. I used to work in one, a good one by comparison to some of them but still not anywhere near as good as a home environment would be.
I encourage people to adopt.
But I encourage them to be realistic.
Because something like 1:3 adoptions breakdown in the early stages.
Painful for the parents and disastrous for the children.
My issue is not with people wanting to adopt, it is with people suggesting that it is an alternative to people having a birth child.
People should come to adoption willingly (albeit regretful that they have not been able to have a birth child due to fertility issues). They should not be told 'adopt instead'.
Because it does not work like that. It is not a straight swap.
International adoption is grueling and stressful. I am amazed by those who stick it out and are successful. The international adopters I know are bloody incredible (I could think of a few who would poke me in the eye for calling them that)
It is hardly a quick fix
Most LAC are with foster carers, not in care homes though aren't they?
I don't think its helpful to perpetuate the myth of care homes busting with young children.
IME it is teenagers in small group homes and children with complex needs in residential settings.
In other words, those least likely to be adopted or be free for adoption.
I don't think you have encouraged people to adopt on this thread, I think you have shunned people who don't do it for the same reasons as you and possibly made future, very good, adoptive parents think they shouldn't bother.
I couldn't disagree more.
We should not discourage but certainly not encourage.
Yes there are children's homes that could be improved and yes there is a lot of red tape and bureaucracy that should be minimised.
The whole system of children in care could do with an over haul, but to suggest children should be with any parent rather than the system is ridiculous.
There is a reason it takes so long to be approved for adopting and imo it shouldn't be made any easier or rushed at all. My parents went through long agonising waits, 3 court appearances each for me and my adopted sisters, because our welfare was what mattered most.
I have never said children should be with 'any parent' rather than in the system! Where have I said that??
morethanpotatoprints - at no point have i said that adoption should be used as a means of population control. please read my posts instead of relying on the comments of people like Devere who are seem to be enjoying twisting my words (when they are not making them up).
what i said was that i believe it is inherently selfish for people to keep having children and expecting the taxpayer to fund it-esp when other vital services are struggling due to a lack of funding. i believe that everyone should be allowed one child of their own and receive child benefit for that child but not for any additional children they choose to give birth to. That is it as far as population control goes.
what i have said about adoption is this - there are thousands of children in care and on the adoption registers who need loving homes. those who want more than one child should be encouraged to adopt after they've had their first. i also believe that child benefit should be paid for each adopted child. that way the parents desire for a larger family is fulfilled and the child gets loving parents and home. i also believe the whole red tape around adoptions need to be adjusted, the same checks and criteria for suitability can be done in a more efficient manner. the current process is too long winded and demoralizing and puts off more than it attracts. Devere seems to think i want to risk of the safety and welfare of the child by asking for this - she couldn't be more wrong.
To be fair, in my experience the vast majority of the prepared who've researched and are determined do make it through the adoption process
I've talked at two prep groups and talked quite a bit to the social workers who handle initial information calls (and info evenings etc). My council do turn a lot of people down from the first phone call, but these arent people you would want to adopt or they can't legally/practically adopt at this point in time - people who start by asking how much you get paid to adopt, they make it rudely clear that they only want a newborn baby with no problematic background issues at all, they are under 21, they want an older child but they have 2 small birth children, or they are currently undergoing fertility treatment and want to adopt whilst having IVF. Etc - that's all genuinely true. Those people will all either get turned down flat or advised that they can apply in future once xyz has happened
If you've actually researched the requirements and policies and what adoption entails and who the children are in the 21st century...then you are highly likely to get invited to an evening and to have an initial visit. More people drop out then, not because SS told them they couldn't but because they realised that they aren't ready to adopt yet - eg. they realise they need one more round of fertility treatment before they are emotionally ready to move on.
I know adopters who have had significant mental health issues in the past, who have conditions like cystic fibrosis, who are single or gay like me, who have past criminal records, who are middle class, working class, white, black, asian. All of them made it through because they were prepared and stable and ready to discuss it all through
Certainly some people are turned down when they shouldn't be, but at least where I live they really aren't finding excuses to turn people down. Can't speak for other councils or agencies
Also the process to approval is now supposed to be concluded in 6 months and most agencies have now implemented it from July 2013, so it's not too long now either. The wait will come when you are seeking a good match
Have implemented the new process i mean. At ALL the adoption agencies near me, the new process is 4-6 months from start to approval. That is not too long at all. It needs to remain very thorough
what i said was that i believe it is inherently selfish for people to keep having children and expecting the taxpayer to fund it
I'll ask you again dysfunctionallynormal (look how easy it is to actually use a posters full name rather than using a PA abbreviation). Where are ALL these people that are selfishly having babies and expecting the taxpayer to fund them?
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation couldn't find them, can you?
There are loads of disabled children waiting in care homes and foster places to be adopted. Funnily enough people arent queueing up.
Or maybe dysfuntionally is?
those who want more than one child should be encouraged to adopt after they've had their first. i also believe that child benefit should be paid for each adopted child
I do agree that all adoptive parents should get child benefit for each child they've adopted - even if they've adopted 6+
However I disagree with the other sentence. Adoption is very very different from having a birth child. Because of that, whilst we should aim to raise adoption awareness, we shouldn't be encouraging or telling people to adopt in place of having a birth child.
Personally, I have never ever said to someone 'you should adopt' or 'it would be better to adopt' because that's, well, not true. Adoption is not a better route to parenthood than giving birth, it's a different one, crucially it requires a different mindset.
- To adopt, you need to be very comfortable with the idea of not sharing your genes with your child
- You need to be comfortable with having missed some of your childs life
- You need to be able to deal with your childs past, which might include a
anything from drugs exposure and domestic violence through to being raped and witnessing murder
- You need to understand that traumatised children need to be parented in a certain way, which might be very different to how you parent your secure birth children
- You need to be comfortable with the idea that your child is also somebody else's child, you usually need to be comfortable with having soke form of contact with the 'other mother' (or any other birth family)
A LOT of people who want more than one children just would not ever want to adopt, or can't deal with the reality of adoption. There's no point at all encouraging those people to adopt. Adoption will never fulfil their needs
I think more funding should be provided to help people who want to give a home to a disabled child. There should also be more focus on providing home like environments for disabled children. Unfortunately funding is being cut left right and centre. Personally I would rather reduce the tax credit and welfare budget by removing benefits for more than 2 children, and improve those services.
So, you would not allow child benefit for a contraceptive accident, but you would for further adoption, eg:adopting a second or subsequent child. Bit daft really, there will be many contraceptive accidents put up for adoption and many more unsuitable prospective parents clogging the system.
I've been out most of the day, home now, and I've read the whole of the thread. Sorry, dysfunctional you're wrong, as well as being in the wrong, you seem unable to show empirical evidence for your facts. An alarming lack of self awareness is also demonstrated in your attacks on Mrs Devere somebody who has, unlike you, a greater experience of the system.
filee do you know what 'shunned' means?
And I think it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest I have deterred anyone who is determined to adopt from doing so.
Anyone put off by any of my posts is hardly committed to adoption ffs.
btw wrt your early vile little post directed at LtEve, do you realise that the armed forces have their very own adoption agency?
Personally I would rather reduce the tax credit and welfare budget by removing benefits for more than 2 children, and improve those services. So which of my three disabled children shouldn't be getting welfare benefits?
Ohhhh so are we only talking about over population and more than 1/2 children in lower income families?
That's good then I'm ok with my kids and can have even more of them because I'm not using nor have I ever used any income related benefits
This is weird.
Remove financial support from birth families potentially causing family breakdown and more children in care.
Give more money to people who want to have children to adopt instead.
How does that make sense?
It doesn't MrsDeVere I said up there ^ tis bloody nonsense!
I don't think we should be removing support from birth families by the way! Sorry if I gave that impression
I know dawn I was responding to the original idea from another poster and it took me a while to formulate my response
lilka you didn't give that impression. I am just trying to work out how another poster's ideas will work in reality.
If people are getting offended it is because they are not actually understanding what it is that i have said and are instead relying on certain other people's twisted version of what i have said. certain posters seem to think it is ok for them to attack me and then report me when i reply to their attacks explaining what it is that i meant.
you can have any opinion you want of me, i don't care. none of you know me but you're quick to assume that i have no understanding of what it means to care for fostered or adopted children. well, my foster agency and social worker know me and know that i am right kind of person to be adopting/fostering.
yes, Devere, i am well aware the two are different. i am beginning with fostering and then hoping to adopt after 4-5 years. i will always continue to foster. this is what i have wanted to do since i was 14 years old. it is also why i made sure that i have always used appropriate contraception and have had no "accidental pregnancies". It is also why i have not only done my research but have also made sure that i am receiving the training and experience that i need to meet the challenges that i will be facing.
to reiterate: i have already given you an example of what i consider to be a selfish breeder - the kind of person who chooses to have more children because it allows them to stay at home and have their lifestyle paid for by others.
i have strong opinions and i am not afraid to voice them - even when people start ganging upon me!
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.