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.

Life can spiral downwards on the flip of a coin. For ANYONE. It doesn't mean that THEY have changed, just they the amount of money they have has changed.

All it takes is a diagnosis of a disability in one of the adults in the family, particularly in the main earner, or a diagnosis of a disability in one of your DC, that requires one parent to give up work to care for them.

The flip of a coin...

CouthyMow, I had myself in mind when I was talking about mistakes - not you! I admire you.

When God gave out common sense, he didn't have enough for me. Sad but true.

LisaD, I know a bit of your situation, and I'm guessing that on paper, you would probably be classed as a 'problem family' too. Doesn't mean that you ARE a 'problem family'.

Doesn't it bother you to be 'lumped in' with those 'Karen Matthews' of the country? Because it bothers ME.

And it makes me wonder if it is worth fighting for the help that I could really do with from Social Services, when it could leave me open to my DC being taken off me simply because of my income level, if this is where the Government are heading with their classification of a 'problem family'.

When all I want is some support with mine and my DC's disabilities, and the level access shower that I have waited 8 years for. That can only be gained through a referral to OT from the Adults with Disabilities team from Social Services.

Makes people slightly concerned that pushing for help they NEED will have them seen as a 'problem family' that don't 'deserve' their DC's, because they are pushing for help and support that will cost State money...

Well I know that one. Few years ago I had a great job working for ss and dh was working his way up. Dd1 was at a great private nursery and then great infant school, 2 cars, holidays in the sun. Within 3 years dd1 was dx with autism and muscle problems, dh was dx with cancer an dd2 was born a dx with autism and loose muscles. I had to leave work to care for kids and be there for dh. He is back at work now but isn't looking towards management, we had one car which broke down and went bang and had to rely on my dad for a car and our holidays are now
Camping trips. (although managed to book Disney Paris with help).
Life is so quick to change and trust me that not everyone has ended up in bad situation via choices.

Oh FGS, stop making this about "YOU". You are clearly NOT a shit parent who is unable to meet the basic needs of her children. You do NOT fall into this category of problem families just because you have a disibility and a low income. Or, is it actually the case that you'd like to come out right now and admit that you're a shit parent on the Social Services "risk" list?

Dont stop fighting for help you need. Trust me when I say that after six years in ss I know what families they will be looking at and yours wot even cast a shadow. You certainly wouldn't loose your children, SN kids are too costly to care for
I don't care, they can lump me with whomever they like, what difference does It make to me? Pretty sure none as we aren't in a bad enough situation to require any help (according to ss on my request for help), I highly doubt they will be banging on my door!

My DC's are not on the 'at risk' register, I don't currently have any involvement with Social Services.

However, I DO fit the Government's criteria if what makes a family a 'problem family'. And by using myself as an example, I am trying to illustrate how ridiculously absurd these criteria are.

How about the Government changing the criteria used to assess 'problem families' to include just the things that most of us DO think make 'problem families' a problem? Rather than the arbitrary criteria they are currently using?

Anyway, I'm off for a bit now, DD needs to do some more of her GCSE folder, DS1 needs to do a practice VR test, DS2 needs to do a page of his punctuation work book, and while they are doing that up the table, I'm going to be sitting down with DS3 getting drawn on doing drawing.

Will be back later.

AlpinePony people use personal examples all the time on MN in order to make their point. What CM wrote about so eloquently should give us all pause for thought. Have you ever wondered, for example, what you would do if one of life's events just came and smacked you in the face?

I would say that most people are 'special' cases, and should all be treated as individuals.

Oh FGS alpinepony It is about Couthy and many others like her because she fits at least two of the categories from the study ebsln quoted which was used to dream up the figure of 120,000 problem families.

Did you miss that bit by accident or deliberately?

Alpine, the children of the families in the report are already routinely taken into care at no small cost. Perhaps you are suggesting that at risk should be moved to the adoption process more quickly? This would seem to be a good idea but may have pitfalls that I don't know about.

You may be able to spot the difference between couthymow and the parents in the report, but it would seem that the government, with their continued talk of the 120,000 can't .

i don't have a problem with people who have fallen on hard times who need help. It could happend to any of us.

However, I do think girls are having children too young with no means of support. what happened to the idea of having an education, saving up for a house etc. getting married then starting a family. maybe not having sex 'til you are older.

often the problem families' kids will cause problems in the education system and will disrupt other's learning. they will probably get some sort of support in a pastoral sense from the school. This is my experience.

they still can't pull themselves up so they leave school and guess what they have a child. they are housed and so it goes on.

their relationship doesn't work out (probably because they are too young and the dad isn't mature enough either) marriage is old hat.

sure enough a couple of years' down the line. The girl hooks up with someone else and lo and behold she is pregnant again. more money and benefits.

I think this is all wrong and should have been stopped years' ago. PC and our 'non judgemental society' got in the way. No one in authority was allowed to criticise people's lifestyle choices.

this is why it is all such a mess.

then the children grow up in this sort of environment and so it goes on.

I know my post is harsh but I think this is what the benefits system creates.

the girl never goes out and actually works. she loses respect for society as whatever she does or her family, the money keeps coming. No disciplinary for bad time keeping or rudeness which would happen in paid employment.

I know this is negative and every family is different. but is my example so far from the truth in some cases.

So presumably Alemci you are suggesting that children of teenage mothers relying on benefits should automatically be put up for adoption? I can't think of any other way that they could be cared for without causing further cost to the tax payer.

what happened to the idea of having an education, saving up for a house etc. getting married then starting a family. maybe not having sex 'til you are older.

isn't this a fairly new concept? I thought the norm up until that last few decades was to get married and have children whilst still quite young.

I dont have any problem with people having a couple of children young, you can still can still get an education and/or a job whilst having children. Its the people having more children than they can handle which can result in families who are 'problem' families (and by that im mean anti social/criminals etc) whilst having no intention of getting a job, ever. I know they do exist, i live next door to one.

Let's say you had a system whereby the children of troublesome mothers were removed for adoption by decent people.

Most people want babies and even then sadly reject babies of some ethnic backgrounds or with medical problems.

But let's assume they all found happy homes. What are you going to do with older children? Most people don't want to adopt anyone over toddler age. And if they do they may be reluctant to take on an older sibling because they are more likely to have problems fitting into a new family.

Another of my problems with Louise Casey's brilliant idea is selfish - while I would like all children to have an education I don't want that to be at the expense of my child's education.

I would strongly object to a disruptive child being frogmarched to my child's class and forced to stay. And how do you make a reluctant child attend school? Is the social worker who does a 7am knock up at a feckless household going to be paid to stay with her charge all day. That's going to get quite expensive especially if we have to employ people skilled at controlling an abusive child who might actually be bigger than them.

Perhaps we can take them away too and lock them up in institutions.

no I don't Merry necessarily but I think some of them have used the pregnancy option to obtain a house. they have no other way of achieving this or so they think so pregnancy is their career choice if you like.

I don't really know the answer.

The system seems to almost reward them. I know of a couple of girls at least who were given very nice flats in a good area with gardens from the same family. They were really disruptive in school and neither of them took any GCSE's.

then you've got the kids who work really hard, go to university and are saddled with huge debts. they meet someone, get married, maybe they would like a family. No help for them even though they haven't messed up.

I hate this teenagers get pregnant to get a house! Do anyone of you work with teenagers? I do and can tell you none have ever got pregnant to get a house. They get pregnant because they truly believe it won't happen to them, a man promises then the world and then buggers off or they just want someone to love them and think a baby is the answer. I know plenty of girls with kids who are stuck in homeless shelters, half way houses or bedsits.

If you haven't got the answer, and bearing in mind that girls have'got themselves into trouble' since the beginning of time (or at least the human race), do you not think there might be more to solving the problem in a humane way than complaining about lax morals, political correctness and benefits?

Once a child is born they need money. There are alternatives like forced sterilisation and contraception, automatic adoption at birth, some kind of modern day work house or slums. However, if you don't like to contemplate these i dont think its logical to complain about families receiving benefits to look after children in their homes.

And ALL the people I know that had children while they were still young continued their education. I completed my degree with first one DC, then two. Not everyone IS capable of being educated to a degree level, but all the 'teen mums' that I know continued their education after having their DC's, to the highest level they were capable of.

One of my friends is currently studying an OU degree, as she is fed up with working in NMW jobs. When her youngest DC turns 3yo, she is aiming to go back to FT work, at a much higher level of income than when she last worked.

I myself am starting an OU degree in October, as it is the only way to dig my family out of the hole we are in. I am lucky in a way that my family is going to pay my course fees and for my textbooks. Without that financial support, I would be stuck forever.

I know another two that have finished their training, one for a HLTA, one who is now a radiographer.

But not everyone has the ability to educate themselves to a higher level. Does that mean they are a 'problem family' because they aren't clever? OK they can't earn as much, but does that mean they shouldn't keep their DC's?

And a LOT of DC's get help from the pastoral care at school, and most of them have SN's. Have you any idea of the frustrations that can be caused by a primary school refusing to accept a DC's dyslexia, meaning they they join Secondary functionally illiterate? They KNOW what they should be able to do, they KNOW they should have been helped at Primary level, and they are often bullied for being 'thick'.

IMO, sort out the education system out first so that it picks up EVERYONE with SN's, and give them ALL the help they need to fully access the curriculum, no excuses, and then see the change in pupils who HAVE chances in life.

The education system CAN screen for those that need help - it is done Nationally at the end of Y9 to see who needs extra time or a scribe or a laptop for their GCSE's. Why in the name of hell leave it till Y9?! Do it at the end of Y2 at the very latest, and help them effectively through the rest of their school career. Crack down on bullying PROPERLY by having a national framework to follow, and ensure ALL schools, LA, VC, Academy AND Free Schools follow it.

Education is the key, especially decent SEN screening and SUPPORT.

no i haven't got the answer but I think what i am saying is fair enough. I am questioning the system. also I think it is fair enough for 1 or 2 children then maybe the parents could think about getting a job to fit around school hours etc not for the unplanned pregnancies to keep on happening, more benefits, bigger house etc and then this does create a problem in my mind.

Of course girls have got themselves into trouble over the years' but Britain is the teenage capital of pregnancy or so the media tells us. it doesn't seem quite as prevalent in other European countries.

and I have worked with teenagers and we know of one girl whose sister did this (another one) and sure enough she has followed suit. The girls we know in the area are quite nicely housed. They put pictures on facebook.

My friend who I worked with had kids who knew some of these students and my friends daughters and son who are in their late teens and early 20's used to moan about it. they had seen their own mum struggle who was divorced (my friend) and it really got to them that these ex class mates or kids in their school year were putting pictures on fb.

maybe more sex education in school and telling girls and boys they don't have to have sex and the idea of looking after dolls who imitated babies was quite good.

also more opportunities for apprenticeships and training for students.

And Alemci - I have not come across ONE out of the group of mum's that I know from first living in the Mother & Baby unit, and then volunteering to help there (they have a network of 'old girls' that volunteer and donate old clothes and equipment), that has never worked. Not ONE. Out of 14 years of being involved with a M&B unit with 18 flats. When the average stay is just one year. That's a LOT of teen mum's (lots who, like me, are in their 30's, and the 'old girls' from before me who are nearing their 40's now) who have ALL done their best to work as hard as they can at education, bringing up their DC's properly, and to work hard to support their families.

Some of these 'teen mums' are now in occupations as varied as lawyers, a GP in one case, I was an on-site Architect until my diagnosis of epilepsy, there are numerous nurses and Care workers and HCP's, three teachers, two who run a local pre-school, shop workers, chefs, hairdressers, and many more...

Yes, having a baby as young as I did is not ideal, but it is far from these girl's ambition or career choice. The help they got from the mother & baby unit helped them to make a success of their lives. Without that support, which is ongoing, I can still call on an 'old girl' if I need support with anything, just as those who came after me can call on me.

If there were more places available like this, then many more of these 'teen mums' would get into the workplace IMO.

Women in their 30's and 40's can have accidental pregnancies too, they can end up single too, doesn't make them scroungers when they have a need to claim benefits and access support, so why is it seen like that if you have a DC when you are younger?

And also, in many cases, these 'teen mums' that I know, have married the father if their baby, and are still married to them over a decade later. Are they still irresponsible, unfit parents? Or are they coping as best as they can with an unplanned pregnancy, just as someone in their 30's or 40's would try to do.

We have enough POAS threads on MN from MC women who think they might have fallen of accidentally, saying they don't know how they'll cope financially etc, what is the difference, except their age?

And those, like me, that have more than 1/2 DC, had those DC while in a settled relationship, with both parents working, so felt ok to have another DC financially. They then had life happen to them, losing a job through redundancy and being unable to find another, their partner cheating on them, their partner becoming any dive when they weren't before pregnancy (which has statistical evidence to back that up, I just can't link to it on my phone).

Some have been diagnosed with disabilities themselves that stop them from working, some have given up work to care for a disabled partner, yet others have had to give up work to care for a disabled DC. And then there are the ones who have given up work to care for ageing parents or grandparents.

There are 101 reasons why they may not be working right NOW, but it doesn't mean that they have NEVER worked, and never will do.

I would hazard a guess that given my experiences, and the fact that I haven't met ONE 'teen mum' like that, with that outlook on life, that the number who ARE like that are incredibly few, and certainly not as many as the 120,000 that is being quoted as a direct result of flawed assessment criteria on who actually IS a 'problem family'.

With the criteria the Government are using, they are basically saying that anyone low paid is a 'problem family' that doesn't deserve to have their DC's, that aren't able to care for their DC's.

I personally feel that income is NOT the main factor in somebody's ability to effectively parent, yet according to these criteria, which ALL point to poverty rather than ASB, neglect or cruelty, it is the ONLY thing that matters.

Eugenicism for the 21st Century?

'any dive' = abusive. Curse Autocorrect.

I'm not sure that rates of teen pregnancy support your argument Alemci.

Apparently (after a bit of googling), Britain now has the lowest teen pregnancy rate since the 1960's, and the common feature of countries with low teen pregnancy rates (Italy, Denmark, Finland) is high taxes.