Too many kids

[OoerBlah]

So I've just watched Cathy Come Hone, the Ken Loach play from 1965. It's heartbreaking, no doubt about that. But it made me wonder if there is ever a situation where people might think that having kids if you can't afford them is just, well, don't do it?

I know accidents happen and not all kids are planned. I also know that life is complicated and consequences can't be foretold. But particularly in this day and age of so many finding it difficult to find homes and provide for themselves let alone children - is there ever a time when we should say if you can't afford kids, don't have them?

Cannot I don't know, can I? Has anyone conducted such a study asking those specific questions?

I imagine it's probably hard to determine as there are too many variables such as parental income. I'd bet on the girl I went to school with who was one of 9 children all full siblings, ages 1-19 and all attending / attended private school doing better than a lot of only children on sink estates at a failing Comp. I think that's a case where more important factors override family size.

But isn't it common sense that given two families identical in every important way (incomes, working parents etc) except numbers of children that the children from the larger families could be at risk of missing out on parental attention? I have a small family so finding time to explain maths homework (or play a 1:1 game) isn't a problem, but if I have a large number of children all needing help with maths homework there just wouldn't be enough hours in the day.

Btw, I don't think that this has much of an effect until family size gets fairly large, I'm not claiming that I think 2 children are automatically worse off than one or anything like that.

But that's the point, isn't it? There are way too many variables to say that larger families are a problem and smaller one are therefore somehow better.

All I know is this new policy is going to impact hardest on single parents. It's not OK.

But isn't it common sense that given two families identical in every important way (incomes, working parents etc) except numbers of children that the children from the larger families could be at risk of missing out on parental attention? I have a small family so finding time to explain maths homework (or play a 1:1 game) isn't a problem, but if I have a large number of children all needing help with maths homework there just wouldn't be enough hours in the day

No, its not common sense. Some parents have one child and ignore it, some would have 8 and spend time with them all individually. And its not very likely that all your many children would need help with maths homework at the same time anyway, and even if they did, you just make time. And the older ones can help the younger ones as well. Your small family is missing out on that.

This idea that if we have more than 2 children we can't possibly be attending to their needs is as silly as it is insulting.

I don't know. I can't see I will ever be able to have a child because I can't afford to. Which does make me sad, but if I can't afford it, I can't afford it

Why does your PFB attend 6 clubs per week, for peer interaction per chance?
Very snide.

What child needs 6 clubs a week?!!

Firstly, the school offer a massive range and some very unusual clubs very cheaply so I choose to spend my money on broadening DC's experiences. Wouldn't most parents want to offer as many experiences to their DC as possible (assuming DC were enthusiastic)?

Secondly, my DC attends 6 clubs a week because he has types of SEN / disabilities which means that these clubs are partly therapeutic.

So...either you offer your child experiences...or you spend quality time with them? You may well have time and resources to do both. Few of us do, however. So we make choices.

I have five children and they cost the state next to nothing. They are privately educated and very healthy. I think they will all make a good contribution to society.

Hedda
"This idea that if we have more than 2 children we can't possibly be attending to their needs is as silly as it is insulting."

Well, that isn't my idea!

I have no specific number in my head, Because it varies from family to family. Yes, for some families 1 is too much, for some 5 is fine. But as a generalisation, the more you have the less parental attention they get.

Also, I don't think the number of children a family can cope with should have any bearing on the Tax Credits situation, which I'm assuming is why you mentioned 2?

But as a generalisation, the more you have the less parental attention they get

I don't agree with your generalisation, you have no basis for that.

If I wanted to be a complete dick I could say that my four children get much more parental attention than someone with one child who WOH full time. But I wouldn't because I don't know their circumstances and its not my business anyway.

You simply cannot generalise. And telling parents with large families that they aren't providing for their childrens needs IS insulting.

cannot yes, I'm lucky enough to be able to offer both experiences and quality time. I can't do the fucking housework though! also, we don't do annual holidays and live in a very cheap house. I think there are very few people well resourced enough to have to make no sacrifices at all.

Really child the article that says children from large families relates to just 1800 8-11 year old Australian children.
I have seven dc , eldest three are high achievers , the youngest it's too soon to tell.
The uk has an aging population if the birth rate continues to be as low as it is we will have real problems years to come.

DragonsEggs seriously ???
" To avoid the benefits cap those with large families on benefits either claim DLA or work 16 hours to get around it. The cap should never have had work arounds."
Do you think people choose disability , that's not even possible. What a vile thing to post.

We can afford to feed and keep our two kids, thanks to benefits topping up my DH's wage and (finally!) social housing. A lot of stuff is secondhand etc, but we get by just fine.

I quit school at 15 because I was being physically bullied and sexually harassed at school so badly it was affecting my mental health to the point of suicidal ideation. DH quit school at 15 because his father went to prison and his mother's chronic illness prevented her from working but wasn't bad enough for her to get disability so DH had to go out and be breadwinner.

I don't give a fuck if a bunch of middle class/aspiring middle class people want to look down on us. So you've got a nice big detached house? I was brought up in a nice big detached house, still ended up poor - you or your children or your grandchildren might yet be brought so low. But that would be different, of course, because it always is.

The uk has an aging population if the birth rate continues to be as low as it is we will have real problems years to come.

We can all agree that caring for an elderly population in the face of a shrinking birth rate is a problem. That said, it is absolutely dwarfed by the problems posed by overpopulation.

I'm another person who is shocked that you watched Cathy Come Home and took away the message you've put in your OP. Cathy and Reg and doing fine financially when they start their family. Then Reg loses his job due to injury. It could happen to anyone. The message is really an argument for the welfare state to effectively support families before they slide into destitution

First of all, I didn't miss the point of Cathy Come Home and am well aware the message was that the welfare state should assist and not condemn those who slide into poverty through no fault of their own. I was also quite shocked that the housing shortages and slum living of the 1960s is not so terribly different from what we are experiencing today.

However - and please note I'm not using this as a stick to beat them with - when Reg lost his job they had just one child and during the further decline of their circumstances they ended up having two others. I'm in no way even saying they shouldn't have done so, but I couldn't help but think perhaps it might've been better if they had not had further children while in the process of trying to find accommodation.

That's it - it was not a condemnation, just an observation. I also said the whole situation was heartbreaking in my OP, and only really started the thread as an avenue for discussion.

I'm not entirely sure where my own views lie. I'm probably closest to the idea that our planet is overpopulated and resources scarce, but even then don't see how on an ideological or ethical level we could actively prohibit people having children. That said, I do lean towards the view that if your current circumstances are insecure, you should perhaps wait until they stabilise before planning future children.

And then of course no-one knows how secure their future will be, so we're right back to not knowing what to do, as if you wait for a future that never arises to have kids it may be too late.

So yes, it's an interesting debate with no easy answers.

It's very far away from what we have today.

No child is removed from their mother if she is homeless. Ever.

Actually, callherwillow, I know for a fact that is wrong. I know someone whose child was fostered when she became homeless. The child is still in foster care as it happens with the mother trying desperately to get her back and yet she can't until she has secure accommodation. Which she can't get because no-one in the private sector will rent to her as she's unemployed, and she can't get help from the council as they classed her as intentionally homeless which led to her situation in the first place. I didn't really want to talk about that on here, though so won't be mentioning it further.

However, I actually meant the housing crisis of the 60s still exists today and that is pretty shocking.

On the plus side, the contraceptive pill is now available to all women regardless of their maritial status and abortion is no longer illegal. So progress has been made in some areas since the mid-60s.

Well, that is pretty shocking OoerBlah. Unfortunately if the council were to give special dispensation to parents should they find themselves intentionally homeless, then they have absolutely zero leverage when it comes to getting them to behave reasonably well with respect to their housing. No easy decision on either side.

Like all human beings, I really, really hate to see children in poverty. It's pretty clear that there people who would exploit this instinct to their advantage, consciously or otherwise.

Given the costs of a child in foster care the cynic in me won't take that at face value. Sorry.

OK, just to clarify the 'intentional homelessness' status. The basics were she was living in council accommodation and lost that accommodation through a series of events. She maintains it wasn't her fault and without knowing the full facts I can't really speak to that. However, she was definitely evicted with a child under 10, then put into temporary accommodation with the council saying they would not help her find a place as she had made herself 'intentionally homeless.' And then things spiralled out of control.

To be fair it probably is pertinent to this discussion In a way, given that CCH is in fact about homelessness, but I don't really want the thread to turn into a debate about something so personal to someone not here to speak for themself. I wouldn't have mentioned it had callherwillow not stated as fact that kids are no longer taken from homeless mothers.

Now I feel really weird that when I started this thread I didn't even have in my mind my friend's situation (I had had a small wine, but even so).

Think what you like, callherwillow. I'm not here to make you believe or disbelieve either way.

/END

Having more children to look after the elderly won't help in the long term, because those children will become elderly people that need to be looked after.

Globally, we need to reduce overpopulation. Western children use up 10 x the resources of children in the developing world. it always irritates me when people like Jamie Oliver preach on about the environment when he's on child number 5.

So she didn't have her child removed?

She was given accommodation by the state, lost it, then was given some other accommodation which I accept may not have been ideal, but it's still hardly comparable to Cathy Come Home which IIRC ends with cathys pre school children being taken from her while she presumably has to sleep on the street?

Yes, the kid is now in foster care and I didn't actually want to compare it to CCH, ffs.

Anyway, too many kids, blah, blah, blah.