To think this is a shocking waste of taxpayer’s money??

[Ticklyoctopus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9v12dwddmwo.amp

Not the boy having some form of placement or help of course, but 300k for a little over 4 months! I’m sure this will be ‘controversial’ but I think we need to seriously rethink how much can be spent on just 1 person, unless (for example) they need round the clock nursing care to stay alive and specialist medical equipment of course.

Or maybe they need to categorise them clearly for severity and have 1 of each in every county?

There were children with complex needs 30 years ago but not so many. We keep very disabled children alive from a very early age.

The goverment in the nineties decided that lots of metal health hospitals were on vast grounds that were now worth a fortune. So the residents became 'care in the community' and the goverment got a nice cash injection selling off the land to property developers.

Now we spend vast amounts more caring for them in the community. The goverment also brought PFI (private finance initiative) where private companies bid to provide services. No doubt their bids were competitive at the start to win the contract but after all the public services shut they could jack up their prices.

Now we have lots of ill people in the community and we see the results of this ie the train stabbing the other week. The police spend more time attending MH calls than anything else (although I believe they have now stopped this). Council tax pays for private companies to care for disabled children and old people and what's left (not much) is used for everything else.

Part of prevention is financial in the home too. Which is why when I see benefit bashers I just think STFU. If there is less pressure financially in the household, then there is less risk of dysfunction and bad outcomes.

I can understand why you’d find that surprising but those two groups of children are not at ‘different ends of the vulnerability scale’. Their behaviours might be different, but the root causes of it are similar, their needs for close supervision similar.

Well this is exactly what the judge has said, isn't it? Private firms hold the council to ransom.
I think we need intervention at national government level to resolve the whole issue of funding young people and supporting families in need. I feel in this case real support during the boy's earlier years might have prevented his journey into crime - eg one to one support getting him to school - but that kind of support isn't something social services or local councils are able to provide.

perhaps this is the issue. Children that would have died years ago because there was no treatment are now kept alive with medical improvements/inventions.

Perhaps we now need to move to a more thinking way where we say 'yes we can keep this child alive but we shouldn't'. Same for some old people with dementia.

😯

Of course there were children like that. You just weren’t aware of them because there were none in your “circle”. Kids like this would have been institutionalised.

"It's definitely time private SEN schools were banned from making a profit. I've recently dealt with a case where an independent SEN school for complex autism charging £110k p/a for day placements refused to take an 8 year old because he had high profile behavioral needs and they 'couldn't' provide 1:1 support. Where is the money going then?"

The independent schools now have enough children wanting spaces to be able to pick and choose who they want. It's now become difficult for the most complex children to get places. A school can ask for higher fees for a child with more complex needs but there is more overall profit to be made by taking more children with less severe needs because they don't need so much staffing.

However I think lots of bad parents dont' actually use the money to make their childrens life better. I think they use it for drugs, drink, luxuries while their kids go without.

I actually would support things like free meals for these kids and free clothes etc but not payments to the parents who have the discretion to spend it on what they want.

Absolutely right.

I heard very similar from the ex when he decided not to pay any maintenance for his children...

Now that we have come full circle from caring for them in institutions to what we have now is it time to go back to a more modern, improved version of the institutions.

I mean what we have now is not working and it's costing far more.

Same with old folks homes. Get rid of this caring in the home thing. If they can't look after themselves at home (or with willing free family members) they get a place in a state run home. Their quality of life is probably the same but the cost is far cheaper.

If you can't trust the family to provide good care (and I assume social services have to visit these kids in the home to check?) then there needs to be a boarding facility that cares for them. No, it shouldn't get to that point but the other option is to tell them at the first scan where it is apparent they are having a disabled child that they financially are not "allowed" to have a child with such high needs because it will be a burden to the state. Is this what some posters are actually suggesting?

Where is your evidence that parents in receipt of DLA etc are using it for luxuries?

Some but not all. Why should that penalise the families where the money would go on the kids?

Is it also not just lazy stereotyping when people say parents on benefits spend it on drugs and drink?

This was the early 2000s, there were no institutions. We had plenty of disabled children in the community, just not this profile of poo smearing, non verbalism and violence we see time and time again now

Not going to rip you to shreds but you’ve mixed up quite a few different and (imo) conflicting issues. Quality of life varies for people, care is expensive, some carers are not very good, sometimes people’s needs aren’t met, suicide happens and is often violent and upsetting, you don’t see QOL for some people. All of those things are true, so you’re not nuts for pointing them out. But what are you actually saying? Let’s have assisted dying? Ok but then how will very impaired adults or tiny babies give consent? And those who don’t consent will still need care, even though in your judgement it’s too expensive.

Where have you seen the behaviour you’re describing? Do you work in a school or care setting? I sincerely hope not.

Exactly. Those parents have fought hard for their kids to have the support they need, including financially. They’re hardly going to then spend it all on booze are they?

This is what happens when governments privatise everything.

This is the quandary though, because those larger facilities were feared more for those running it than the services they did/didn't provide. I do remember my mum being appalled at some of her manager's attitudes and things she saw and I can only imagine similar issues would resurface. We have seen the abuse in elder care sectors, caught on camera. It's largely the reason they shut in the first place; the patients were often treated like second class citizens. Less public liability to do care in the community, but it's at a higher cost ultimately and possibly less scrutinized. Neither solution works perfectly.

if the child is going to have a poor quality of life then yes. It is not just a case of financial requirements it's that despite huge amounts of money (which the country does not seem to be able to afford and is heading for bankruptcy by the way) their quality of life is also very poor.

Is it kinder to allow the child to live and 'suffer' or is it kinder to put it to sleep while it does not understand what is happening and is not frightened.

If you are a good parent and all the things for your child are paid for rather than the money paid to you then you will not mind. The child is provided for just no cash changed hands.

If you are a bad parent who spends the benefits/money on drink, drugs, luxuries then yes you will have to do without.

The evidence is all around us that not all humans are fit to be parents. So our priority should be providing for the kids not giving the money to the parents.