Troubled families have too many children ?

[BridgetJonesPants]

AIBU to agree with this article written by Louise Casey, the Prime Minister's troubled families tsar?

uk.news.yahoo.com/troubled-families-too-many-children-022219547.html

Although I have no idea how you can get 'these mothers' who have probably had a chaotic upbringing themselves to take responsibility for not having any more children.

Many of her ideas are patronising and offensive, but she is being misrepresented on this thread.

I think the thread represents the articles and opinion pieces that have been written/broadcast about the report in the media.

From what I can see, the research may have been a useful starting point for Louise Casey and those working with her, but it is just a series of interviews with a small group of people. You could put them together with some hard hitting black and white photos and publish them in a Sunday supplement.

However, I don't think that it provides new information to people already working in this field.

There is no detail to show what kind of intervention these families have already received, so it is impossible for another person to draw conclusions about how improvements could be made from the report. This was not the aim of the report, but in that case, why has it been presented to the media in this way?

dna ALL children at birth

That would make things rather difficult for a lot of high-earning, supposedly functional families, not to mention Prince Harry.

MrBoJangles - that is not true, and it is an opinion that SW's hold too, and I would like challenged.

Almost ANY parent can become a GOOD parent, despite their background. I consider myself a good parent, despite the fact that my mother was only 18 when I was born, despite the fact that I was raped by my mother's boyfriend at 4yo, despite the fact that I was in FC for a while then, despite the fact that when my Dad won custody, it was only another 5 years until he committed suicide (after having been abused himself as a child), despite the fact that I was then moved back in with my mother, who was then emotionally and physically abusive until I got MYSELF removed at 15, despite the fact that I then spent the next year with TWO different kinship carers, despite the fact that I was only 16yo when DD was born, despite the fact that I had 3 DC by the age of 21yo, despite ALL of this, I still ensure my DC's get to school on time, and are clean, well fed, taken care of even though I am disabled and so are two of my DC's.

It DOESN'T follow that I will be a bad parent - it followed that I needed some input when DD was tiny to ENABLE me to become a good parent.

I REALLY hate the 'cycle of deprivation' theory that is peddled. IMO it is just an excuse that is used to avoid the financial outlay that would enable these parents to become good parents.

The aim is to ensure these families rae helped. To suggest there is no cycle of deprivation is wrong. Many of those abused abuse. Many of those smacked as children smack their children. These are facts. However it does not mean some people do not break cycles, many do nor does it mean that those not within that cycle cannot also be bad parents.

If a few families are costing hard working tax payers a fortune and generation after generation in their families continue to do so then whatever we can do to break that cycle within the limits of limited budgets is a good idea.

Also if some people are just not up to being a good parent then encouraging them not to have children or not to have more than 1 or two might be a good plan as well.

I DO agree that there are 'bad' parents out there, my own mother is one of them.

But it DOESN'T follow that their DC's will automatically be bad parents. In fact, most people I know that DID have bad parents are VERY determined not to make the same mistakes their patents did.

I know that in some cases, the situation is such that the DC NEED removing, I'm not disputing that, if I hadn't been removed from my mother at 4yo, I'd probably be dead by now, but I think there should be much higher thresholds put in place when there is no physical or sexual abuse involved.

What may seem neglectful to SW's may be cultural in the client, and just need education to stop. Not always, I reiterate, but in quite a few cases I have personal knowledge of, teaching the parent HOW to parent, INDIVIDUALLY, not in groups (I wouldn't have attended in a group without the threat of losing my DD, and I got nothing out of the group, it was a charity that taught me INDIVIDUALLY how to be a decent parent), would have been all that was needed to make a change.

No-one wants to have discussions in a group about where they are going wrong with bringing up their DC's. They DO, because it is a choice of do that or lose your DC's, but as they won't FULLY engage, it can mean that parenting GROUPS are an ineffective way of getting these parents to change their ways. Individual help is far more likely to effect a PROPER change in behaviour.

I have come across the odd 1 or 2 cases where nothing would have worked, but these are the exception rather than the rule.

Sorry, Xenia, but I just cannot accept that because Social Services have spent money on your parents, that you should not be afforded the same opportunity to change.

You can't judge someone on their parent's failings. That is inherently unfair.

And this is what the continuation of the 'cycle of deprivation' theory does. It punishes the children for the sins of their parents. How could those people have HELPED the fact that their own parents were not decent parents?

Does it follow that my DD's friend, currently in FC, as her Lone Parent father is in prison, will ALSO be and parent because she was in an unacceptable situation for 10 years? Will she be pre-judged if she falls pregnant in the next 4 years (she is 14)?

I don't think that is the case. I think that if that does that happen, with the correct, tailored support, she could LEARN to be a good parent.

I also believe that had Adult Social Care and the MH team helped her father appropriately, it would never have come to this. He was diagnosed with bi-polar a year after his DS was dxd with autism, and then his wife died of cancer, within just 6 weeks of each other.

IMO it is society's failure as a whole to offer her father enough support to cope with both the loss of his wife and a dx of severe Autism in his son in a very short time period that has caused him to be in prison, his DS to now be in residential school, and his DD to be in FC.

All of this could have been avoided had he been effectively supported when he needed it. Which he wasn't.

Sorry, 'and parent' in the fourth paragraph should read 'a bad parent'.

It DOES come down to money in the end. How much is Society willing to break the 'cycle' by providing tailored, meaningful support to parents needing it, rather than just removing the child. Which may be an 'expensive' option, but is not as expensive as offering tailored, meaningful support, and is the 'easier' option in terms of workload.

Why not break the 'cycle' by helping the parents, so that they don't keep having DC's that are not looked after properly? FC doesn't exactly have a good 'track record' on outcomes, does it?

So why do people persist in saying that it is the best option for these DC's? It isn't. That much is patently obvious when you look at the stats for care leavers. So why not change it, and see if intensive short-term tailored, meaningful support (which is NOT what is currently offered, sorry Birds, Spero et al. It is currently constrained by budgets. It would take just a generation or two of this approach to effect MEANINGFUL change. Yet it isn't done.

It's baffling to me, tbh, when you look at what is awaiting care leavers, that the system won't change.

Yes, some people DO need their DC's that are at risk of physical and sexual abuse removed. But low/medium level neglect? Education is what is needed. Obviously if there is a high level of TRUE neglect (unfed, unwashed, no school, no stimulation etc) then removal is the only option, but in a lot of cases, this wouldn't be necessary with tailored, meaningful support WITHOUT the threat (often voiced by SW's) of removal.

Currently some SW's threaten to remove DC if the parent does not attend a parenting group that the parent knows will be a waste of money because they know they need individual support to feel secure enough to effect a meaningful change. So they jump through the 'hoops' set by SW's, even though they know it is not what will enable them to become better parents. And often still end up with their DC's in FC because they haven't had the tailored, meaningful support that THEY need.

If dysfunctional and abusive parents have loads of children, how many, really, are going to make it through life without the help of SS/psychological help or the prison service or without self-medicating? How many children of a family are needed to continue the cycle of deprivation? One unhappy child from an unhappy family is quite enough to continue the misery. Some people also do not want to be helped.

How much support are 'looked after' children routinely given once they are 16? It seems to me that most people need parenting (financial support, a place to go in an emergency, advice, love,practical support) long after they legally become adults. Does the government provide any support for fosterers to maintain contact with their charges when they are young adults? Is support only given once they get into trouble?

The purpose of all these studies being (mis)reported the way they are is simply to demonize the poor. Yes, there are some seriously dysfunctional families who need extra help; there are a lot more families whose only real problem is lack of money. Think about the families where no one can hold down a job because one of the children (or indeed another adult in the family) needs full-time care. Remember that right now, never mind what happened to your family 20 or even 5 years ago and how your dad or grandma scrubbed floors and walked miles to earn pennies because they were 'better' than other poor people, there are dozens of applicants for every job going, and while it used to be feasible for unskilled people with a good work ethic to make a living, now not only are all jobs demanding qualifictions, most unskilled jobs involve 'flexibility' which is the modern term for unpaid overtime at zero notice: not feasible for anyone with dependents.

Family dysfunction/abuse/domestic violence/drug & alcohol addiction is for everyone. It is a great leveller. Do not believe that bad things only happen if you're poor.

What we can do is seek to ensure good health, encourage parents to have children in the numbers they can afford, incentivise those people whom we want to have a lot of children to do so and those we do not not to do so (at present the system is skewed the other way - all those good parent mumsnetters who don't ever use benefits and stop at 1 or 2 children due to cost would probably bring up 3 or 4 children very well and we need more babies to support all the pensioners).

We can look at how to ensure parents look after themselves, don't marry their cousin, don't forget to take their folic acid don't smoke, drink or take drugs whilst pregnant etc etc.

It certainly would be a lot cheaper if those people who will not be good parents simply did not have children. if we can help Mrs Jones who earns £25k a year and is a good mother to have a child by giving her child benefit nad a bit of help with childcare or we can spent £100k a year ensuring a problem family of Mrs Smith has 4 more babies in the next 4 years who will rarely amount to much most of us would think we want Mrs Jones helped and the system to do all in its power to ensure Mrs Smith never has another child.

yes unfortunately what you say makes sense Xenia.

Thanks Mouthy Cow for sharing your situation with us on here. Glad that you could turn things round.

i don't think parenting is easy for anyone. We all have our own issue.

Regardless of how we personally feel on the worthiness of the Mrs Jones' of the world, and the unworthiness of the Mrs Smiths. We can't stop Mrs Smith from having children, she can't be forced in to taking contraception and she cannot be sterilised against her will.

The things we as humans do to every other species, yet to our own, ethics gets in the way. Women have known to have babies because they want to feel loved and needed. Young women may feel this particularly acutely and think that having a baby will solve the problem. This was an issue when I was at school. Although it does not necessarily mean bad parenting, it does bring up issues of its own. Having baby after baby after baby to feel the love is not quite right. They grow up if they are allowed to. This kind of breeding can be very abusive. It is not a pretty sight.

But why SHOULDN'T Mrs Smith be helped to care for the children she has properly, to ensure that the 'cycle' is broken?

You can't say it isn't possible. It IS. Yes, two of my DC's are going to need a LOT of support, into their adult lives, because of their disabilities. They WOULD NOT get this support from SS if they were taken into care when the time came for them to leave care. That support as an adult would still have to come from me.

So what would be the point in taking the DC's away for a short time, only for them to return at care leaving age?

Why NOT just provide the help NOW, to enable me to help them gain the ability to live independently one day?

I am never going to be 'Mrs Jones' again, due to my disabilities. Does that mean I am some sort of 'substandard' parent? I don't believe it does.

OK, the help I really need is more expensive than putting my DC's in FC would be. But it will get a better OUTCOME for my DC's than FC will. Of that I am definite.

But that isn't going to happen, due to budget constraints. The only offer on the table from SS is FC or struggle alone. There is nothing for the 'gap' in the middle.

Most of us probably do not want to have the one child per family policy of China - the fines are huge for the second child (except in some rural areas). However it worked very well. I think a quarter of people were/are Chinese and they were just not going to be able to feed them all had they carried on having as many children as they had.

We cannot stop Mrs Smith (or more likely Miss Smith) from having 10 babies (and actually not that many do have massive families to be fair) but we can have someone come round to give her her contraceptive injection or we can say we support babies 1 - 2 on state benefits but if you have any more you are on your own.

have someone come round to give her her contraceptive injection

Only if that's what she wants

or we can say we support babies 1 - 2 on state benefits but if you have any more you are on your own.

Then we'll have more children being raised in even more extreme poverty, greater dysfunction etc. I think the aim here is to decrease dysfunction.

I think the government suspects thar mrs smith's children were responsible for last year's riots and mrs jone's children were tagging along for a laugh.

You can't force someone to use hormonal contraception if it a) Causes them horrific side effects, or b) Just doesn't work for them (which it doesn't for me).

Offer sterilisation as a way of lowering the birth rate, as a meaningful option, not one that requires someone to be celibate until their mid to late 30's to be allowed to do. That is just far too late for some people.

Also, while I agree with capping on benefits from a set point 12 months in the future, I think it should apply to all NEW benefit claimants, not those who already HAVE large existing families.

Give everyone a fair warning of this change in policy, let them make their own choices, but without putting DC that already exist into further poverty.

I can see that I shouldn't have any extra benefits for any FURTHER DC, but I DON'T think this should apply to hard-working families on NMW that need state top-ups from WTC or CTC or help with their childcare.

If you include these people, then what you are in essence saying, is that unless you earn £25k+, you shouldn't ever have ANY DC's.

Which borders on Eugenicism, as they can't help the fact that as their EMPLOYERS are allowed to get away with paying them LESS than a living wage, why should the actions of others who are exploiting them (and I DO believe that people working hard for NMW are being exploited as they are paid LESS than a living wage, which has been proven time and again), mean that they shouldn't ever have a DC as they 'can't afford it'.

Just give everyone fair warning that starting 12 months from now, if you are unemployed and on benefits, if you choose to have a 4th, 5th or more DC while still unemployed, there will be no extra benefits for that DC.

Just don't apply it retrospectively, pushing CHILDREN into poverty. They didn't ASK to be born.

God knows how you would prevent some DC's and families being plunged into poverty if there was an accidental pregnancy, or a contraceptive failure etc. and these things DO happen, there's enough threads on here from MC mums who have contraceptive failures. No-one tells them they should terminate. So why give poorer people who have this happen the stark choice of termination, or trying to spread their benefits between her existing DC's and a new baby?

I'm on the fence so much with this policy that I have splinters in my bum.

On one hand, with fair warning, and not applied retrospectively, I can see that it would save money, and SOME people on benefits might choose to have a termination in the event of an accidental pregnancy or a pregnancy through contraceptive failure.

I can still see that a lot of people, when faced with an accidental pregnancy, or a pregnancy through contraceptive failure refusing to have a termination due to their personal beliefs. This would then mean that the whole family would be pushed into poverty under these rules, as they would have to make the money stretch to cover an extra person (the baby).

How would that be got around?

Just don't pay them any benefits after two children and make failure to pay maintenance towards your child a criminal offence punishable by prison. How much money has been wasted on these people in the last 10-15 years.

I would agree cm that the any benefit restrictions couldn't be applied retrospectively, and what you suggest is fairly reasonable. With regards to any accidental 3rd child, well it would be rather difficult. That said other than buying stuff for a newborn, i dont think the actual day to day costs of one extra child, when you have two already would be that much.

I just can't see it changing the behaviour of people like the Government assume this policy will.

Someone who is morally opposed to termination as a form of contraception, who feels that while women SHOULD have the option, choice of termination in certain circumstances, would never do it themselves, is NOT going to change that belief just because it will leave their family poorer.

All I see this policy doing is pushing more families into poverty with no safety net.

Why is it fine for rich people to have certain strongly held beliefs about termination not being used as a form of contraception, but poorer people aren't allowed to hold that view, and if they do, and they have an accidental pregnancy or a contraceptive failure be told that either they have a termination or their existing DC's will suffer extreme deprivation.

That is a pretty stark choice for someone like me. I KNOW that having a termination would leave me personally feeling like a murderer, and leave me with MH problems, yet I wouldn't want to push my existing DC's into further poverty.

What a choice!

Until I can persuade the NHS to sterilise me, I have no choice but to stay celibate, despite the loneliness that causes me, because I am in the 1% of people that contraception just doesn't work for. And I HAVE tried everything.

That's an awful triad of choices - stay celibate through most of my 30's to prevent an accidental pregnancy, terminate in the event that that does happen, or push my existing DC's into poverty.

I have made the choice to stay celibate until I can be sterilised. Not everyone can make that decision, especially of it stretches over a period of years rather than months. We are, at base level, animals, and DO have sexual urges. This is why this policy is doomed to push many more DC's into poverty I feel.

Having loads of children made sense in an age when you expected most of them to die before the age of 5. In those days pregnancy was pretty dangerous and a woman had 1/5 chance of dying herself. It also made sense to have children to do the work. These days there is not the work. We just have our biology to contend with, but without the negative outcomes, unless anyone calls churning out children a negative outcome.