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.

I have a spare room and have thought about fostering. I have 3 dc though. Does that Barr you? I should look into it further

I grew up living nextdoor to a foster carer and saw the difference she made

There are different types of fostering and different types of families are needed.

However we should never think as a society that is acceptable to bring in harsh welfare rules, coupled with a lack of employment and affordable housing and then spend triple the cost taking away the children of poor people, who have had the temerity to have children.

The foster care system has developed to remove children from risk, whilst giving their parents the opportunity to address any issues, not 'punish' the 'losers' created by the welfare state set up that we have and the world monitory system.

''If they want more foster carers they might need to look at the rules and how tight they are.''

The spare room rule is completely reasonable. I wouldn't want my DCs to share a room with a stranger, and lets face it, one who probably wouldn't be coming to us with some pretty big issues. It wouldn't be fair on the foster child either. They need their own space and privacy.

I dont think that is very fair really.

The rules on accomodation are very restricting. They can be necessary but it is certainly not always vital that fostered siblings have a room each. Who has that amount of spare space?

This means that fostercarers tend to be older as their own children have left home or live outside of major cities where space is more expensive.

So many children are sent miles away - most of ours go to Kent - away from their friends, families and schools. This is contrary to the Children Act.

Some children need to be sent far away but most of them dont.

There should be more help available for people who want to foster but do not have one or two spare rooms available.

Moving council tenants and making grants available for homeowners would be a start.

But then people start going on about people only being in it for a free extentsion (as if there is no way of weeding them out).

I would do it as soon as my youngest was in primary if I had the room but we never will.

We have the experience, the training, the knowledge and the commitment.
But we dont have the big house.

(Not in a sarcastic way, I realise that may sound a bit sarky, it wasn't meant like that, just that I agree wholeheartedly with your last comment)

*would be coming to us

I admire those charities that provide meals at school for children and also those LEAs offering heavily subsidised (or free in scotland??) school meals for everyone

I understand the point the OP is making about it being a sticking plaster over a gaping wound for those children whose parents are essentially neglecting them and spending the money on drugs/alcohol or leading such chaotic lives that they don't think to feed their kids. But many/most of the children using services like magic breakfast come from poor families not massively disfunctional families, and even if they did, I would argue a charity role and state role are two different things. There is a similar argument to be had about charity involvement in other sectors as well

Btw minor point and not related to the main topic, I know several people who buy food vouchers. It's done to help them by giving them more flexibility with their budget. Obviously it is against the rules.I would really hate to see a more widespread 'food voucher' system introduced. They are so inflexible (can't use in all shops, don't get change) and imo a little demeaning. Apologies to those receiving them. I don't mean that you should feel that way, but I find them a bit stigmatising and would hate to have to use them.

not always vital that fostered siblings have a room each

It isn't a requirement in my LA and that needs to be questioned, tbh.

We have found were children have been in their own room they get into bed with each other, for comfort.

OP are you my taxi driver who told me kids can't starve to death in England only Africa and other third world countries?

The title of your thread, stopped it from being a sensible thread you knew what you where doing OP. You need to educate yourself.

I was so skinny when i was on benefits, i could just about look after DD, if it wasnt for charities i would not have been able to furnish my flat, i could just about feed my DD, I was very Blessed to have family who supported me with what they could, it really makes me angry when people make sweeping statements like this. I am grateful for that short period i was able to rely on benefits but it is no easy life. The majority of people on benefits are vulnerable people including their children. I work with these people as it is part of my job thank God I have had previous experience of it personally and i9 can empathise with them instead of spouting the crap the OP is.

rabbits fyi if your only changes are for DLA or carers componant of income support they caqn not legally be concidered as income for any debt issues so it will not effect your DRO you dont even have to declair the change. hth

Birds I agree. It is policy in Essex. That has got to be one of the biggest LAs in the country surely? Its massive anyhow.
Its proximity to London also makes it somewhere that children get sent from inner city boroughs.

I think everything should be done (that is safe and practical) to allow fostered children to feel 'normal'. That would include them sharing a room with their siblings IMO.

I wish so much I could foster again.
But I suppose if I wanted it that much I wouldnt have had those two extra kids hey?

I do think we would be suitable to be Link FC. I think a child with complex needs could be very well accomodated downstairs once a month. It would be relatively simple to convert the living room for a weekend a month. We have a downstairs wet room for OH already.

The system is too rigid to allow this though.
I feel we have a lot to offer a child with disabilities. I am realistic and understand that full time care would be impossible in our circumstances.
But respite?

Maybe one day.

Actually I think its quite a good thing that foster children are sent miles from their parents. Children are generally fostered for extreme reasons like neglect or abuse.

I don't have a problem that many foster carers have grown up children who have left. Local authority care children tend to be high needs. There are major ups and downs involved with fostering and the good byes are painful. Personally I would not want my children on the the emotional rollercoaster of being a foster carer.

Sadly many people want to be a foster carer for the money rather than any aulturistic reaons.

Not many. Some.

I dont agree with sending children many miles away from their families.
Outcomes are better for children who keep in contact with their family and friends.
It is not fair that they are pulled out of school either.

It is bad enough to be seperated from their parents. Most kids dont want to be rescued, however much they may need it, to wrench them from their extended family and friends due to lack of resources is wrong and its cruel.

What about the difference in LHA and what the actual rent is? The family have to plug the gap out of their benefits.

The rent deposit scheme where the local council gives the first months rent upfront and supplies the deposit so the family can rent somewhere because otherwise the landlord/letting agent wouldn't even look at them. This has to be paid back out of benefits

Now you tell me how the fuck benefits are enough to feed a family adequately after that!

Take your fucking blinkers off

OP, you're such a lovely, compassionate person aren't you? If you were running the country, there just wouldn't be these sorts of problems...

"'ve been messaging while reading this thread and have a couple of figures from my friend L, who's a lone parent on benefit, struggling to find work and affordable childcare. Her weekly benefit is £71, so that's £307 a month.

The shortfall between her rent and her housing benefit is £242 a month.

Go figure."

She should be getting child tax credit and child benefit on top of that even if she isn't working. £71 is income support alone. She should ring the tax credit helpline.

A £242 rent shortfall is enough to put you into absolute poverty even with the all the right benefits. The Tories are cunts for cutting HB.

I think what is being done to the poor is shocking, particularly when contrasted to the behaviour of the country's political and financial elite.

However, there is a nugget of truth in the OP. There are some families out there (and if stats are anything to go by, a shockingly high number of them) who could really do with a lot more intervention at a much earlier date. Unlike the OP though I don't think witholding food or benefits is the answer. I think giving way more resources to institutions such as SS and schools is. More money spent on the young would massively reduce that later spent on benefits, health care and even prison. It would be a great cost-benefit exercise that would SAVE loads of money long term, but unfortunately politicians of all ilks think only in the short term. As do most people.