To understand why some women have children within a a short time with multiple different partners?

[Beautifulweeds]

Genuine question, arose in conservation today. An in law has 3 DC from 3 different Dads and is only 25 and is a single Mum to them. Their Dads are going about their normal lives, including sleeping with other women (probably more pregnancies) and don't have much to with their children. She's not the most invested Mum (meaning not at all) has to live off UC, leaves her kids with grandparents, who in reality look after them.

She has met another new fella, doesn't take precautions (oh I keep forgetting to take the pill) and it won't be long before she has another baby.

So, I guess my question was...hopefully you would learn from experience that you can and should take responsibility? Guidance doesn't always work, so same old patten repeated...meet someone, get pregnant, let someone else look after baby...taken away...fostering...adoption.

We've tried to help and intervene but a brick wall. X

I don't know why some women do this. I do know a few such women though. One lives near me. (She moved in last year.)

She's 42, and she has a 22 y.o son. a 14 y.o. daughter, a 9 y.o. son, and a 4 y.o. daughter. All different dads, and none of them have anything to do with any of the 4 children. I legit never see the dads.

She has a new man who she has been with for about 9-10 months. I'm surprised she's not pregnant by him already! Maybe she's finding it a bit harder to get pregnant now she's 42!

@Scutterbug there's nearly always a back story to these situations.

Some people are not as good at forward planning and decision making as others. They are impulsive and struggle to focus on future consequences rather than immediate behaviours. Added to this, some women have a great deal of investment in keeping men happy and will agree to not use condoms because 'he doesn't like them' and allow pregnancy decisions to be influenced by young men who think they want to be fathers until the next better thing attracts their attention. In the absence of a pool of decent responsible men to choose from, and wanting a partner, because in her world you need one, she picks a similar type again, and it's rinse and repeat.

Also the acceptance of not having to be married which allows more wriggle room for the Dads and yes I know marriages go wrong and Dads still, don't pay but I don't t think this has helped

I do get annoyed when I read articles about people complaining their council accommodation is too cramped/overcrowded, it transpires they had three children to start with and have had two more since moving in to the accommodation. I mean, what the fuck?

I do think some people cannot be bothered to sort out proper contraception and take a “if it happens it happens” attitude and then it seems to be someone else’s fault they can’t cope.

In this context, this has to be one of the most tiresomely stupid Mumsnet-isms ever trotted out on here.

Along with “you never regret having a child”.

The resentment boils down to the fact that many of us are subsidising feckless fathers who would rather not pay themselves. No one castigates Kate Winslet for having multiple baby daddies as she can subsidise her kids herself.

Yes, there seem to be people on here who think having a baby is always a good idea no matter how unfavourable the circumstances of the would be mother

Quite. I find these people extremely selfish. No thought for the actual real person that is being created

I also watched the documentary Babies Behind Bars on Netflix, which was about incarcerated pregnant women in the US hoping to be put on a scheme which allowed them to keep their babies with them once born, while they served their sentence.

It was absolutely heart breaking to watch. But there was one woman there who had had many children who had all been taken into the care of others. They interviewed her teenaged daughter who did say, her mum had a special thing for babies, but when they are no longer babies she moves on. So I do think some women do feel a strong compulsion to have children, even when circumstances are not suitable.

But why?

It is literally the woman's choice.

Unless you intend to force sterilisation or abortion.

Slightly off topic, but I do really object to the term ‘child poverty’. How can it ever possibly be separated from ‘parent poverty?

You can have compassion and fund them all yourself.

That's the trouble with the "be kind" suicidal/toxic empathy types, they also want to spend others money and risk their safety, the reality is that they are only kind to some.

It is of course her body her choice and no one should take that from her. However that doesn't mean it's not potentially a problematic choice, for her and her children. So I think it is valid to discuss these situations rather than shut them down by saying that.
I think its important to think about the circumstances that led to a young women having multiple children, and with each one making her life more complicated and difficult, increasing her likelihood of poverty and disadvantage, while multiple young men stroll off leaving a trail of chaos in their wake. What is about her envirinment and opportunities that make her think this is her 'best life'? What is going on that these irresponsible young men get to walk away barely questioned, as though its to be expected if women allow it?

If you call it 'parent poverty' then there would be less concern. People expect adults to fend for themselves and improve their own circumstances. They deeply resent 'their taxes' spent supporting other adults. Shift the focus to the child and most people with a shred of decency will agree that interventions should be made to prevent them starving or becoming homeless. Child poverty? That's defenceless human beings that we have to support. Parent poverty? "No one made them have kids".
It's very helpful indeed to centre the child in anti poverty work.

So much awful judgement on this thread - psychopath, unintelligent, out for the benefits? Really?

That might be the case for a minority, but all the young teenage mums I know had babies because they were too young to know about contraception/couldn't have an abortion/contraception failed.

Then another baby when they were old enough to have a proper relationship but having a child already put the same strain on the relationship as any other blended family.

Then, if you have had two babies early in life, a decade or so later you might decide to give the whole family with a husband etc another go. That might work or not.

The reasons for multiple failed relationships are as broad as are the reasons for divorce. But if you start in your teens you've got more time to try again.

None of that excuses the men who just walk away from their children.

Another point - these young families may need taxpayer help when young but might then be positive contributors to the tax kitty as they work later on across a few decades - helping to fund all the old fogies with their health needs and care.

Stop judging bigots!

I don't know how you could make that happen without impacting the child though, and as a society we have agreed that children should not be made to suffer for the actions of their parents.

I am blue Labour and I have to remind myself that there will always be people who abuse any given system, including this one. And that supporting women like this, and thus her children, is the price we pay for the safety net that any one of us might need at any time.

The only thing I think could ever be effective without being actively inhumane is to intervene through the education system - be much more hardcore about instilling 'good values' generally, and also making sure that all children leave school understanding how a society works. Effectively, stigmatizing those who don't work out of choice. It's not particularly pretty, but it's the least damaging option, and it could become unnecessary within a couple of generations.

I suppose there's also an argument that, since sending children into childcare settings under the age of one is now the norm, the 'under three' rule should be removed for women on benefits. But I don't think it's a good norm at all, for anyone, so I wouldn't want to reinforce it.

Ask for my money, I will judge.

Pay for them yourself I have no interest other than socially.

@SpoonHeader you can have compassion, understanding, yet also feel uneasy at how taxes are spent if this area happens to be your biggest concern.

The problem is, what's the alternative? There isn't one. Most of us don't want ' fallen' women in asylums ( I know the Andrew Wilson brigade probably do.)

Where do these kids all go? They still need to be paid for through no fault of their own.

In a humane society, we can't go round suffocating them all. I hope most of us don't want to either.

BTW my smearing stakler on this thread will tell you that I feel the same way about men with multiple wives and households he expects the taxpayers to fund for him. What is it a Jazier?/tax he expects those not of his ideology to fund for him as he is a superior human to us?

It's all the same mentality, they aren't starting in a sensible situation where they could fund it and something bad happened or very young and make a mistake then learn, it's an attitude that they are superior humans and we are their tax slaves. You can fool yourself they aren't personality disordered type thoughs, if it eases you being robbed by them all you like.

I have read about very sad cases

Women having multiple children, which are sadly taken into care immediately

The Government cannot force people onto contraception. Or contraception is not 100% reliable.

Also sometimes men promise the world to achieve sex & walk away, leaving the woman with the child.

The woman is not always to blame.

What I don't understand is why the state (taxpayer) lets the dads just walk away without a backward glance or paying a penny towards raising the kids they've created.

Do you really want to keep dealing with psychopaths mass breeding? Dealing with the social and financial consequences?

Long prison sentences, mental health inpatient care, sorts the constant breeding out. It all depends on what you think a crime/MH issue is though.

There is no alternative once the children are here. The support provided is the cheapest possible way of managing the situation once its here. I'm fairly sure that if reducing/removing benefits worked out cheaper in the long term than coping with the cost of poverty, it would have been done by the last administration. I think it has to be prevention rather than cure. So incentivise young women to make different choices with better opportunities while at the same time disincentivising the young man who are the other half of the problem with punative levels of CMS.

I tell you what, how about you "be kind" types go and take yourself on an experiment. You go live in the Isle of man,go out to work and fund multiple baby with multiple men families and men with multiple wives with multiple children families.

You enjoy the crime and being poor of your utipia when the rest of England gets on with life.