To think Young Carers should NOT exist and wonder why we are accepting this?

[OopsDearyMe]

I was thinking about my own situation and after seeing the comic relief story about the young carers group. It got me thinking, Why is no one in uproar that children are doing the jobs of social care workers.

If you are elderly and need help, you receive a care package and a carer assigned to you, who visits the home and helps take care of you, yes ? As it should be!

Then why if you become disabled at a younger age, do you not get the same?

Children who work, do so under strict guidelines, if you made your child do the things young carers do, as an able bodied person, you would be seeing social services pretty soon..

So why are we and the government ignoring the fact that thousands of children are doing the jobs an adult carer should be doing?

AIBU to think this is all wrong!

I am not saying the money should not have gone to the charities helping young carers , as I know they do a really important job. But I would prefer the money paid for a carer for the adult, thus preventing any child from becoming a carer in the first place.

NB: I Understand that currently we haven't got enough carers for the elderly let alone anyone else, which is why this happens, But surely this is because the government isn't being pushed to make changes. People seem to say"Oh how sad" and move on..

Children should be allowed to be Children.
Children are not and shouldn't be expected to be carers Ever

What part of that is difficult to understand.

It's worrying that Social Workers think it's OK for young children to be Carers.

Armpitz unless I have both remembered wrong and misread the article, her mother was not dead before she overdosed.

That's why I said 'dying', not 'dead.'

I was a Young Carer, but in a capacity of caring for disabled siblings. I wasn't the main carer, my mum was and still is, but still it took an emotional toll and I missed out on stuff that other kids had. I wasn't recognised as such until I was 18 when social services became involved so I missed out on that emotional support that Young Carers would have provided. For siblings I can see why it is and will always be necessary - the reality that when our siblings main carers aren't around anymore, it will be our job to 100% look after them, that's a daunting thing to get your head around.

It is not fucking abuse

Parents don't have a fucking choice. They don't choose to be disabled, some become disabled after becoming parents, and I think if someone has mental illness, taking their child away because being a carer is "child abuse" is really going to help them, isn't it?

I've petitioned my MP/the government again and again over the years about young carers right. Nothing seems to improve for them. I've decided that the best thing I can do is just focus on local young carers; try to raise awareness, support the local charity, make extra effort around Christmas etc.

It's a complex issue for sure, but my heart goes out to them.

Sorry to spam post, but can confirm Deanne's mother was not dead, but had been watching her undergo chemotherapy.

This is why caring for parents in most capacities is wrong IMO. If there was someone to support her mother more, and support both of them emotionally, she wouldn't have needed to witness so much or take on the burden so much herself.

It is a disgrace in a so called civilized society that it happens!
Mama Tj, you sound like a lovely caring mother.
My beef is with a society that thinks it's the norm -
that young children should be carers and should put up and shut up.
Social Workers collude in this as well.

They don't see that nobody wants this.#
Least of all the mothers.

Ovaries I know it's an emotive issue but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't acknowledge that it is wrong for children to have that responsibility.

We know that it's not because parents have a choice most of the time, but I think that's what most people on this thread are upset about. That there is not enough support for the entire family. The parents may not have a choice, but that means the child doesn't either.

No, I know Cherries

But she was dying She had cancer, and she was dying.

I think it is just possible that watching her mother die might just have been more traumatic than administering some tablets. It's an absolute tragedy but had an adult been caring for her mother I'm not sure the outcome would be different. The article mentioned a stepdad.

Anyway ... as you were :)

I agree that its wrong that a child who has to look after their parents and siblings due to reasons other than health, such as addiction or plain laziness, would be looked into by SS. But a child who has to shoulder that burdern for an ill or disabled parent, is used as a way to avoid SS having to step in.

There is a difference between a child helping out because they want to when it isnt impacting on their lives, and children being expected to fulfil the role of professional carer as well as being at school and trying to be a child too.

It is not fucking abuse

Even if it's not 'fucking abuse'
It's still not 'fucking fair on the child'

No Child.
No Fucking Child should be have to be a Carer.

End Of.

I was a Young Carer, but in a capacity of caring for disabled siblings. I wasn't the main carer, my mum was and still is, but still it took an emotional toll and I missed out on stuff that other kids had. I wasn't recognised as such until I was 18 when social services became involved so I missed out on that emotional support that Young Carers would have provided. For siblings I can see why it is and will always be necessary - the reality that when our siblings main carers aren't around anymore, it will be our job to 100% look after them, that's a daunting thing to get your head around.

that must have been so tough.

YANBU, OP.

Just throwing it out there: some children want to care.

armpitz

All right, all right, I cross posted.

But the fact that her mother died is still not the main issue to me. Children lose parents, but if there is support in place they will get through it. Being responsible for someone's fading life, whether disabled or dying or chronically ill, is an entirely different kettle of fish.

I honestly believe she didn't mean to kill herself. She was always quite attention seeking, pretending to be hurt etc, and I feel like the overdose (as the article says) was another cry for attention, because she wasn't coping with her situation at home. Her mother may have been dying rather than disabled but I don't think that means being her carer had much less to do with it.

I am actually a tad uncomfortable with this thread.

It's becoming 'no disabled person should have a child.' I'm sure people will add the disclaimer that 'well if there is support' (a husband) but we all know how reliable men are at sticking around and paying for their kids.

People don't choose to get cancer, they don't choose to get ill.

Yes there is an argument I suppose about disabled people and children but I am not going to be informing them they can't or shouldn't be doing anything.

YANBU, children have no place working for the care of anyone. Childhood is for them...not for looking after someone else.

Cherries, support after a parent dies is non existent.

Initially people are supportive but this vanishes after the funeral generally.

There was another adult in your friends house: why was he not stepping up?

I am not sure your attention seeking dead friend with the dying mother would necessarily appreciate that eulogy

arm I would NEVER say that a disabled person shouldn't have a child. But, there needs to be something in place for the care of that person.

I wonder if Scandinavia has young carers? I bet they don't. Of course I could be wrong...but they always seem to get social issues so right.

TheQueen :O

Children care deeply about there parents, they always want them to be okay and most will do whatever is in their capacity to do what they feel is protecting their beloved parent.

Does that really mean that it justifies allowing to carry the very adult responsibility of caring for another life?? I really can't believe that is being "thrown out there", I can't see it as anything other than a twisted justification of these awful situations

What do you mean by that armpitz I am point out the reality of this girl's life and how she acted. It may not be all sunshine and rainbows, but I feel it is important and much more respectful and helpful to living young carers to acknowledge and be honest about what she went through.

Her father was ill and physically disabled himself.

And I don't understand your comment, no one is saying disabled people shouldn't have children. But yes there should be support knowingly in place before the child is born. Why is that offensive? Because it means that people don't get to do exactly what they want without considering the consequences? (And your comment about men is really offensive )

Yes partners can disappear, things can happen. But it is different planning to have a child when you know they are going to have to care for you, to having a child and finding at some point that you can not care for them fully.

What I mean by that cherries is to talk about attention seeking and melodramatic behaviour when a young girl is dead isn't pleasant.

It rather undermines your immense 'concern' for her.

I do hate this attitude of "You can't ever possibly insinuate that someone shouldn't do something they want to do, regardless of the consequences on others"

There are real, serious, life long consequences for these poor children. To dismiss the gravity of their situation and be so obtuse as to suggest that people arguing this point are saying "disabled people should never have children" is truly ridiculous.