Should parents contribute?

[shoppingismydownfall]

I'm aware this may be a contraversial topic. I work in social care and see children brought into the care system from all backgrounds, from the extremely wealthy to extremely poor. I'm not debating the rights and wrongs of social workers here.

My Aibu is, if it costs the local authority on average £3,000 per week to look after that child, should parents be financially assessed to contribute towards their care?

@Whydidimarryhim

I must be naive - why are people who are wealthy have children removed? Im only used to hearing about deprivation and I link that to poverty and addiction issues - parents who have been traumatised themselves and therefore don’t know how to parent. I probably would have been placed in care but I was born in 1964 so the social services didn’t exist in the way they do now. My parents where on benefits. My father an abusive alcoholic. He had other priorities and social services would have struggled to get anything from him.

Because having a million pounds in your bank account, a 5 bed house in London, a yacht, go skiing in the Alps, send your child to the top independent schools and a holiday home in Antibes doesn't mean you can't abuse and/or neglect your child.

The law already allows for this - Children Act 1989, Schedule 2, Part 3. And for services to children in need.

1)Where a local authority are looking after a child (other than in the cases mentioned in sub-paragraph (7)) they shall consider whether they should recover contributions towards the child’s maintenance from any person liable to contribute (“a contributor").

(2)An authority may only recover contributions from a contributor if they consider it reasonable to do so.

(3)The persons liable to contribute are—

(a)where the child is under sixteen, each of his parents;

(b)where he has reached the age of sixteen, the child himself.

(4)A parent is not liable to contribute during any period when he is in receipt [F54 of universal credit (except in such circumstances as may be prescribed), ] of income support [F55under][F56Part VII of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992,][F57 of any element of child tax credit other than the family element, of working tax credit][F58[F59, of an income-based jobseeker's allowance or of an income-related employment and support allowance]].

It's not that easy. I've known of a boy with severe autism and learning disabilities that was just left at the hospital by his parents.. They claimed they couldn't cope with him and withdrew from him, they signed away their parental responsibility to the local authority also and he was housed in a unit in the hospital until a bed became available in a LD unit.
I can't judge as I obviously don't know how hard it is to look after a child with severe autism and learning disabilities as I've never encountered it, I can imagine it's very very hard and the parents must've been torn. In those instances, you couldn't expect parents to contribute if they purposely withdraw from their children. It's very, very sad.

I must be naive - why are people who are wealthy have children removed?

I think there are less wealthy children in care just because they can pay for a nanny, boarding school etc but it definitely happens still.
They could be sexually abused, physically or mentally abused etc still which money doesn’t help. The parent could suffer with severe MH issues. I’ve known a couple of children in care because their parents have an abusive partner and they won’t leave them so the child is removed.

I think it's an interesting idea, but I can't see it actually working in real life.

I worked in a residential home 15 years ago 3k a week would have been on the cheap side then

It would cost the government more money trying to enforcement it.
The priority should be the children and ensuring their needs are met, not chasing parents who can't or won't be able to help.

@Whydidimarryhim that reasoning is exactly why dc with parents like mine weren't ever investigated properly. At least now when they are reported it's not an acceptable practice to assume wealthy parents can't possibly be abusive and dismiss concerns out of hand, but unfortunately a large portion of society do share the same blinkered view so many aren't reported in the first place.
Some parents do just need support, others might have been fit to parent with earlier intervention. And money will help/ prevent those situations. Other parents are just cunts and money makes no difference to whether you're a cunt, it just provides a smokescreen.

I see your point but surely not many parents willingly give up their children so that should be the priority. If they can contribute they should either via attachment to salary or via their benefits. However it has to be realistic and not leave the parent destitute, the problem is when you start charging in some cases it causes more problems than it solved.
What is really needed is to look at the reasons that so many children end up in care, which although not an expert I would suspect that poverty has a lot to do with it.

This is not something I'd every thought of before and I can see that it would be extremely difficult to implement but in principle I think yes they should contribute. My DC best friend is in foster care and their biological father is well off and I absolutely think he should be made to pay towards his children's upbringing

Obviously not. The state has made the decision to remove the children against the parents wishes (I assume in the vast majority of cases). I’ve never heard anyone suggest prison stays should be means tested and those who can afford it should contribute. It would be similar in my mind.

@Disfordarkchocolate

I think it would lead to more abuse as people tried to avoid paying.

This . You need to think of the actual real life consequences and the potential impact on vulnerable children.

I understand that children from all sorts of backgrounds enter the care system for all sorts of reasons but really, how many children of wealthy parents do? Not because wealthy parents equal better parents but because I’m just surprised it happens enough that you are starting a debate whether the parents should contribute.

As it goes, I’m not sure that they should. Only because it’s something that could easily be exploited. Like others have said, some parents have to give up care of their children through no fault of their own, sometimes for good but sometimes on a temporary basis. They shouldn’t be penalised for doing the right thing in those circumstances and charging them for the care could make it harder for them to regain custody of their children if that is the end goal as it would deplete their funds a lot.

More money needs to be pumped into social care but shaking down already vulnerable people for the cash isn’t the answer.

There is statutory provision to do this, but usually it is not applied because realistically, once you exempt all the parents who would be entitled to it for free, e.g. benefits recipients, plus all the children who would be entitled through other funding, e.g. children receiving disability support, children on probation, children receiving time-limited emergency care, plus all the people who would receive discretionary exemptions, e.g., where it would create financial hardship for other children remaining in the parental home, then you are left with only a small group who would need to contribute.

You then have to decide what it would be reasonable for parents to be charged for, so it wouldn't be the full £3,000 but only a proportion of that for things like bed and board.

Then you means test your small group of eligible, but not usually all that well-off, parents and charge them a proportion of the smaller figure. Meaning that it doesn't generate much actual money.

Then you set against this the cost of enforcement, plus the opportunity costs for both the child and their families related to missing the opportunity for earlier intervention amongst those who don't engage and for providing other support to families who face financial hardship as a result of having to pay.

As a result of all this, it largely comes down to a moral decision, with on one side the case that parents should pay to support their children if they are able to, and on the other side the case that the welfare of the child should come first and that there should not be a financial element to decision-making around the welfare of a child. A worst case scenario would be a situation where one child was being looked after but an equally if not more vulnerable child was not, because the first child's parents would contribute to the costs, but the second child's parents wouldn't.

There is a means test. It just never applies because only poor people have their DC's removed. (They aren't the only ones who abuse their DC's bit that's another issue!)

Maybe get prisoners to pay for their stay in prison? I believe it costs £25,000 per annum.

Whatever next?

I must be naive - why are people who are wealthy have children removed?

Because sexual and physical abuse, neglect, emotional and physical deprivation isn't something found only in homes with economic problems. There are a lot of screwed up well off people who screw up their children's lives too.

@StoneofDestiny

I must be naive - why are people who are wealthy have children removed?

Because sexual and physical abuse, neglect, emotional and physical deprivation isn't something found only in homes with economic problems. There are a lot of screwed up well off people who screw up their children's lives too.

Quite.

I know an incredibly wealthy couple who actively encouraged their 14yo daughter to be in a sexual relationship with a nearly 50yo, because he was a friend and would know how to treat her properly... 🤢
(And yes, i did report it)

"There is a means test. It just never applies because only poor people have their DC's removed."

Being in care doesn't always been they have been removed. Section 20 placements for disabled children in residential schools for example. Children can have these placements without a section 20 but the section 20 offers the child greater protection because it means social workers have to be very actively involved with the placement so is often preferred. Most parents in these situations still make large contributions in terms of time and things that cost money towards their child.

And how would this work exactly? In the end it would cost more in administration that it would generate and that’s not taking into account, how it would bring an unnecessary element into an already complex situation.

I’d hope someone in Social Care could have come to their own conclusions as to why it isn’t done or are you secretly working for a right wing think tank.

I can imagine the Tories doing this, in the knowledge that it would cost more to administer than the money it would bring in. Because of their strong beliefs that the poor should be milked of every bit of money they have, rather than be supported by the taxpayer.

I’m really surprised at the £3k per week. When I looked into fostering, my LA paid £160 per week.

@PinkiOcelot

I’m really surprised at the £3k per week. When I looked into fostering, my LA paid £160 per week.

Do you think all the staff associated with looking after LAC children, working with their families etc are paid £0 per week? Then we have the buildings needed for those people to work in, for contact to happen in.

The figures are nonetheless surprising.

@DontBeAHaterDear

I understand that children from all sorts of backgrounds enter the care system for all sorts of reasons but really, how many children of wealthy parents do? Not because wealthy parents equal better parents but because I’m just surprised it happens enough that you are starting a debate whether the parents should contribute.

As it goes, I’m not sure that they should. Only because it’s something that could easily be exploited. Like others have said, some parents have to give up care of their children through no fault of their own, sometimes for good but sometimes on a temporary basis. They shouldn’t be penalised for doing the right thing in those circumstances and charging them for the care could make it harder for them to regain custody of their children if that is the end goal as it would deplete their funds a lot.

More money needs to be pumped into social care but shaking down already vulnerable people for the cash isn’t the answer.

Parents from all kinds of socio economic backgrounds can have disabled children, sometimes residential placements are the only place that can meet the childs needs In these cases it can be a huge fight for the parents to get a suitable placement and not a decision thats taken lightly