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.

sorry, ebsln*

Zoe Willkiams wrote about the '120,000' families in this article.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/18/problem-families-poverty

"The figure of 120,000 "problem families" was taken from a study done in 2004 which determined that there were 117,000 poor families. None of the criteria included criminal behaviour."

This point has constantly been reiterated on these boards over the past few weeks by the more educated posters, but to no avail. This Government has managed to convince the electorate and most of the fuckwits on MN that these so called "problem families" are all anti-social feral criminals.

Truth is, they are just families WITH problems.

'Truth is, they are just families WITH problems.'

And part of what they are being told is
Troubled families have too many children

Is that what the troubled families think the problem is?

From the Zoe Williams article, we have

'This figure of 120,000 crops up a lot: in June, Eric Pickles used it as a springboard for his "no excuses" lecture, in which he vowed that his government would be "more forceful in language, a little less understanding".

No excuses, it's a shame that isn't the case for even 120 bankers.

I don't understand why so many totally unsuitable people choose to have so many children. What on earth do they think is going to happen?

'I don't understand why so many totally unsuitable people choose to have so many children'

But that is what the elite think and have always thoght, They think we are all unsuitable.

Greens and other puppets push their line to us in their media. They say that is the only way to save their 'planet'.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-467728/Families-children--thinktank.html

Really? Splitting hairs over alleged criminality? I'm not sure anyone has alluded to what we might call "traditional" crime. But personally I call it a crime if you don't educate, feed, shelter and offer hygiene to your children.

Yes, these families have massive problems, but just because mum isn't an international arms dealer working out of the communal stairwell doesn't make the situation less serious.

I'm sick of people saying we need to do more (I.e., throw more money). I think the solution probably lies in the removal of the children. Of course this is unpalatable to you and I who are able to sympathise with our perceived horror of having one of her children removed - but, and sorry to wheel out Karen Matthews again, but when Shannon told social workers she didn't want to go home do you suppose Karen felt as though her heart was torn out or thought "stupid fucking little hitch competing with me for my boyfriend"?

This type of mindset doesn't think like us.

If someone came on to AIBU and said that next door kept a puppy farm and knew the pups were sick and not being fed, kept in sanitary conditions - there would be OUTRAGE and demands of removal. Nobody, but nobody would suggest throwing money at the situation or educating them on animal husbandry.

How have we reached a point where animal welfare gathers more pragmatism than that of human children?

As I said earlier, we imagine the pain of being separated from our own children - but the situations are not the same. Our children are not being mistreated.

i have worked most of my life with uneducated parents, not working living of the state etc, not able to afford to pay their bills but yet still able to have lots of children, the state makes it easy for them as we the tax payers will pay for their children. I would have loved to have had four children but knew that we could only AFFORD two. Wanting to provide finacially, emotional and give my children oppourtunities in life and to be able to continue with the life style i was used to. England is the only country that pays a parent when they have children, sending a message that 'you have them we pay for them'.

How do you decide which family fall into the 'Karen Matthews' category and which families are doing a good job but with problems such as disability and poverty?

Is the benefits system going to be able to distinguish between them? At present, it relies on a tick-box system with no room for discretion or individual circumstances whatsoever. If you tinker with it to penalise the 'Karen Matthews-type family', you are inevitably going to hurt far more families that don't deserve it.

IMO the price we pay for looking after decent people who have fallen on hard times is that we expose ourselves to manipulation from those who don't. Personally, I can live with that because the alternative is turning our back on thousands of people who find themselves in dire straits often through no fault of their own.

And given the appalling outcomes of children in care, removing children from these families is only acting as a form of punishment, rather than breaking the cycle. I'm not sure children should be used in such ways.

Alpine - due to the fact that I have been unemployed for 4 years, though 3 of them as a SAHM while my Ex-P worked, so in the eyes of the Government figures, I've only been unemployed for a year ( ), and the fact that I have disabilities, the fact that I am now a Lone Parent, and the fact that I have 4 DC's, I class as one of these 'problem families'.

While being one of these 'problem families, I am prepping my 10yo for the 11+ exam in September, I am helping my DD to complete her first GCSE portfolio, I am teaching my 8yo the punctuation that his school said in his end of year report was an issue, mostly due to the fact that due to his SN's, he has not been TAUGHT that yet, so I am helping him to catch up at home.

I take my DC's to the library, my 10yo is currently reading Jules Verne right now, I very rarely drink, I don't smoke, I don't take drugs, and I am celibate until I get sterilised.

I don't play loud music, I know where my DC's are at all times, I feed my DC's the very best diet that is possible within the budget I have, I worry about the nutritional balance of their meals, they always have clean clothes, they are always clean themselves.

Do I sound like your idea of a 'problem family? No? But I class as one. Which I find amusing.

To me, a problem family is defined by altogether different criteria than is used for this. And wouldn't include someone like me.

Sadly it's not a new thing
I spent a good few years working in social care and we sometimes had countless extended families all under child protection. We also did a big family tree for the families in the area over a 5 year period and sadly most were interlinked via family, babies daddy's or siblings groups.
There were many families who when their children were removed went on to have more children or if children on CP would have more children.
It's a cycle which is hard to break and something SS have spent years trying to break, so wonder how these government high bosses will do it!?

Oh yes, and all of my DC got 100% punctuality at school, for the sessions they attended. The ONLY reasons my DC's were absent this academic year were D&V, and in DS2's case, severe asthma, then time off on the advice of his respiratory consultant because he was immune suppressed due to the medication for his asthma, and CP was going round the school, that due to his lack of immune system, could have killed him.

I am not poor because I have had 4 DC, I am poor because I was diagnosed with a disability that barred me by law from working in my old profession. And I can't afford to retrain.

On my diagnosis, my insurances refused to pay out, and the DWP insisted that they wouldn't help me until I had lived off my savings. £20k doesn't go too far when you have to use it to pay for everything for a family.

And how many of you have £20k in savings? I'll bet not many. So you would soon end up as a 'problem family' if you were diagnosed with a disability that prevented you from working in your current career, or even at all.

How far would your savings going your insurance refused to pay out?

I am nearly 9 years on from my diagnosis. I burned through the £20k in living expenses in the first year, trying not to allow my beautiful home to be repossessed. I failed in the end. 9 years down the line, I have gone from being a well respected professional person, to being a 'problem family'.

Can you see how amusing that is? I'm still the same person I was before, I just don't have as much MONEY.

I think you are right to a certain extent Alpine. I think the problem families make the problems by having too many children and having the expectation that someone else will pay.

also a lack of morality e.g. Karen Matthews. various boyfriends, not putting their children first

Mouthy I admire what you are doing. you sound fantasticHowever does your ex partner offer you any financial assistance and support.

Couthymow you would not be classed as a problem family, trust me.
They aren't talking about single mums and those with large families on benefits. They are talking about those with SS involvement, trouble for police, difficulties within schools, the sort that you would hate to live next too because they are trouble.

He does to a limited extent, he pays slightly more maintenance than the CSA says he needs to, as our youngest is on a limited, expensive diet due to being severely allergic (to the point of anaphylaxis) to Dairy, Soy, and nuts, and I just can't afford to pay for his limited diet out of my benefits.

Two of my DC's are my Ex-P's, my 8yo DS2 and my 18mo DS3. He has DS2 overnight 26 nights a year, and DS3 just 6 nights a year.

My Ex-H (DS1's father) pays no maintenance, but has him overnight almost half the year.

My DD's father pays what maintenance he can afford, and sees DD only in school holidays, as he lives 600 miles away. DD flies up to spend two weeks with him on the 2nd August.

So yes, I have 4 DC's with 3 different fathers, which DOES sound bad, but I was engaged and had a wedding date set with DD's father, but we split up BEFORE I found out I was pregnant. DS1's father I was married to, until he decided to sleep with his OW in my bed with our DS in the room. DS2 & DS3's father I was with for 9 years, but he walked out when DS3 was just 4mo.

None of it was my choice, to have relationship breakdowns, and except for DS3 (much loved contraception failure), I COULD afford all the DC's I had. I was diagnosed with my disability when I was on Mat leave with DC3 from my career in which I was the main earner for the family - so I believed that even as a Lone Parent, I could support my family. I didn't have a crystal ball that told me that I would be diagnosed with epilepsy that would mean I lost my career. Or that I would later get another diagnosis of Fibromyalgia to go along with the epilepsy.

I sound ok on paper, don't I. Yet I am counted in the figures of these 'problem families'.

But LisaD, given the criteria that have been used to decide whether these families are 'problem families', I meet at least 3 of the criteria, which DOES put me firmly into the Government's 'problem family' classification.

Which is what makes this seem so laughable.

Where's the criteria?

LisaD - I don't currently have Social Services involvement, but will soon, and these criteria make no exceptions for those who have help from CP, Children with Disabilities or Adults with Disabilities teams from Social Services, just that there is 'Social Services involvement with the family'.

Knowing that I have disabilities myself, and two DC's on the Autistic Spectrum, who both have other disabilities too, I WOULD meet that criteria, simply through having involvement with the disabilities teams.

And two of my DC's DO have some difficulties at school - because of their ASD/HFA, because of their LD's, because of their time off to attend hospital appointments in respect of their other health issues.

So my family would STILL meet all the criteria of a 'problem family'.

Doesn't mean we ARE a problem family. Which is why I feel that the classification of who IS a 'problem family' is a joke.

Brave posts, CouthyMow.

I'm glad you made the point about how your life can change in the flick of an eyelash. You get hit by a car. You survive but you are disabled. You can't work. You lose your home. It's as simple as that - and it could happen to anyone!

We read Dickens and we shudder at how things can take a turn for the worse in even the most hard-working, 'deserving' families, and then gradually gather momentum until you hit rock bottom. What are those who want to reduce benefits suggesting? That we just walk by when someone stumbles and falls - or maybe even give them a kick for good measure?

I agree with Dahlen (yet again!) that I would also rather look after people who are struggling, even if it means that a small minority take the piss.

If the government don't use your taxes for welfare, hospitals, schools, job creation, what will they spend them on?

Criteria :

• Earning a low income. I'll tick this one if I ever DO get back to work.
• Nobody in the family working. I DO tick this one currently.
• Poor housing. I DO tick this one.
• Mother having a MH issue. I don't tick this one.
• One parent with a longstanding illness or disability. I DO tick this one, twice over now.
• Family unable to afford basics including food and clothes. I DO tick this one, I had to get a loan to cover school uniform for the DC's, and new mattresses for two of them, as their's were knackered after 7 years.

So I meet at least 4 of the criteria at ALL times, whether employed or unemployed.

According to these criteria, my family DOES class as a 'problem family'. A problem in that we cost too much to support.

I am a problem because I am poor. Not because I AM a problem.

Actually, I would go further. I would say that we shouldn't punish people for making mistakes in their life choices, either. We should help them get back on their feet. Better for them, better for society in the long run.

Do you think that a person employed as a TA has a 'problem family'? If they have a partner with a long-term illness or disability, and they are the only worker in their family, and they live in poor quality housing, then they WOULD be classed as a 'problem family' because they would meet three of these criteria. Despite being hard working, caring for their disabled partner, and living in poor quality housing that they may well have had little choice over, due to having to take what the Council offers them.

Is that a fair assessment of their family? I don't believe it is.

X posts, CM.

I HAVE made some awful life choices. But if you understood the abusive childhood I had, in a firmly MC family, then you would understand why it has taken me until my 30's to stop making crappy life choices, and ensure that all my choices from then on have been, and will be carefully thought out.

I don't deny that some of my issues have been caused by poor life choices, but the thing that has caused me the biggest problems, and has meant that I am no longer able to support my family, was completely out of my control, as it was my diagnosis of epilepsy, that will never be fully controlled (30% of people with epilepsy never gain full control, and I am one of them), that has messed my life up the most. Not my childhood, as I overcame that to gain a very specialised degree (that I now can't use, as the skills are non-transferable to anything I am NOT barred from by law), not my further life choices, but the fact that my disability bars me for LIFE from working in my previous career, even if it vanishes tomorrow. And that I don't have the money to retrain in anything that would enable me to earn more than NMW.

Wondering if they would us a problem family on paper too, but tbh don't care as I know what families they plan to target and trust me it's not me or you couthymow