to think charities should not feed children

[moogster1a]

Listening to a discussion on radio 5 about how so many children go hungry because their parents cannot afford to feed them or their lives are so chaotic they just don't think to feed them.
benefit money is enough to feed a family. If the parents lives are so cocked up that they have better priorities than feeding their own children, then the children should not be with them.
I don't understand why if the charities concerned know the children are basically starving, then why SS aren't taking the children in hand.
I understand some people have MH issues, but again, should they really be in charge of their children's basic requirements if they can't meet them?
The discussion has mentioned a few times how some parents have drug and or alcohol issues. In that case, either get straightened out and spend that money on food, or the children go into care.

OP I think you will find that a lot of people mainly disagree with this statement
benefit money is enough to feed a family

lady I did actually say in the op that i was referring to families where the parents are so fucked up they can't cope. Not the hundreds of thousands who are skint but doing all they can in often shit situations.
It's the very chaotic, thoughtless, self- prioritsing parents who should be given help to get it together, or the children should be fed elsewhere.

Maybe it's time to pay a certain amount of benefits in vouchers/food stamps so that the parents can only get food and not waste the money on things?

Where is 'elsewhere'? SS have no budget for extra cases of children being removed

Britain already does have food vouchers. They're called Healthy Start vouchers, and not all retailers (I'm looking at you Aldi) accept them. Additionally, they come in units of £3.10, and you can't receive change.

"I just can't leave this thread alone. I do think that any parent worth their salt would forgo food to feed their children. If there was a choice between me being hungry and DD being hungry I know what I'd choose, without even thinking."

Absolutely. What the OP's failing to grasp is that having fed the child often there's the choice between feeding yourself or paying the rent/paying the electric or gas bill. That's where poverty really hits in and that's where help in the way of food etc is so much needed. Help with feeding a family, not putting kids into care, not causing them to be on the street owing to unpaid rent, not judging them from an ivory tower as some are doing.

Maybe it's time to pay a certain amount of benefits in vouchers/food stamps so that the parents can only get food and not waste the money on things?

Like rent, electricty or water.

ophelia you are assuming they are on benefits in the first place though

The thing is, if you have any income at all no matter how small, feeding your children should be your first priority.

But if you have an addiction, with the best will in the world that addiction will take priority.

That's why I'm glad these charities exist because the families make themselves known to them when they need help with food...and help with addiction will be offered.

If there was any chance at all of the kids being taken into care, they wouldn't approach the charities at all and the kids would then starve or take to stealing.

No-one wants to see parents neglecting their children but why would anyone think that charities should not step in?

Surely that means the kids are being failed by everyone?

bigjessie but they can be sold on so easily

Exactly worra . what are these children supposed to do with parents who dont look after them let them starve

If a child is in this position, over a long term basis, then getting fed is not the only service that is being provided. They (child and family) would be getting other assistance as well.

The problem is more complex, moogster, than just saying 'feed your children or we take them off you'. Where do the children go? How much does it cost to house them elsewhere? Are the children likely to end up more or less emotionally damaged being taken away?

Until these questions can be answered then they SHOULDN'T be taken away.

You said yourself The discussion has mentioned a few times how some parents have drug and or alcohol issues - SOME, get it??!!! The problem is so much bigger than your simplistic answer.

Hello Moogster, nice to meet you. I happen to be a parent that you believe shouldn't have their children.

I have inflammatory joint disease, chronic kidney disease, anxious personality disorder and recurrent depressive disorder. Currently tendinitis in my right ankle making it tough to walk at all, which is looking to be permanently damaged.

Mostly I am sick. Sometimes it is mental health. Or physical health. Or both. I have trouble with daily life to the point of having a PA who helps me with things I can't do. I have multiple charitable involvements. They help me with things from debt advice, to feeding the kids, to furniture problems, to supplying mobility aids - all sorts of stuff.

The reason I have all this help is because I have my two wonderful children who make my life worth living. It would be very easy to give in to the pain and stop trying, but I get up every day for those two and parent them remarkably well despite my shortcomings. Children's Social Services want nothing to do with them I look after them that well - so I don't know where that stereotypical image in you head comes from if you have the capacity for thinking for yourself, but I can tell you that it is mostly wrong, and even the children of less well achieving parents are served better by charities and government agencies trying to help improve things within the family setting than whisking kids off into care, which often just makes things worse all round.

You stupid person, a family doesn't need to be "fucked up" in order not to cope. A family needs nothing more than to have greater outgoings than their income provides for. That's not "fucked up", that's impoverished.

And do you accept any Child Benefit to which you are entitled?

YABU listening to radio 5.

I heard the same news item this morning on radio 4 where the today programme treated it like adults. Discussion with the leader of such a charity demonstrated the need for the charity and their commitment to families. Next time change the radio station...

YABU. Not all hungry children live in families where the parents spend all the benefit money on drugs and alcohol.

There's plenty of families on benefits who do prioritise feeding their kids, but because of their low income, have no safety margin if something goes even a little bit wrong i.e. household appliances break, need to replace kids clothing, higher than expected heating / electric bill.

And that's before considering other situations - such as families where both parents have jobs, and have been managing fine on that, but suddenly find themselves minus one income because one parent's been made redundant. I know people in that situation who've been unable to claim benefits because of the earnings of the parent who's still employed. That can cause major financial problems.

Yes moogster, what benefits do you get?

Kladdkaka - Oh I thought that was what housing benefit and Local Housing Allowance was for i.e. to pay the rent?

FGS, yet again, I'm talking about people who prioritise things other than their children. It shouldn't reach the stage where charities are looking after kids because the parents won't take care of them. Not can't, won't. If they really have better things than looking after their kids, the kids should not be with them. But no, obviously i mistakenly said that all people on benefits or who are ill / struggling should have their children taken off them. I must have sleep written that bit as I have no recollection of it.

I would have agreed with you if you had said "charities shouldn't have to feed children. Because they shouldn't. Nobody in this country in 2012 should be in the poisition of having to choose between bills, heating or food. But they do.
What will taking children away from their families actually acheive? You place them with a family (if they're lucky) that can afford to give them everything. Then one of the adoptive parents loses their job. That family ends up in the same position. Do you take the children away again?
If the parents have addiction issues or mh problems, they need help to overcome them not punishment.
I'd love to know where you think these children should go, in our area there is a serious shortage of foster parents and the local council are being very careful about where they house children in care. Workhouses maybe? What exactly do you suggest?

X posted moogster, slow typing!

I have to agree with you over people are being deamonsied and then we get rants from people that children should be whipped into care yes you get shit parents abusive and feckless parents but not all parents are like this
, children need to be with good parents and if charities can help parents be better then that is no bad thing,

where would you place all the dc whose families have not been feeding them well? There isn't enough provision for adequately placing that many dc in good homes quite apart from anything else (such as distress dc may well experience related to being removed from their family home etc) so the charities try and step in to fill the gap.