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.

I have seen a number of cases where state intervention has knocked parents out of work through inflexibility and onto benefits. It is well known that I believe that a lot of the government's approach on intervention is not well researched.

Although if your argument is for better sex education and more work opportunities for single mothers, then I don't think anybody would disagree with you.

When I was a passenger assistant (assisting taxi drivers who take children to school) I seen a mother like this first hand. Her 12 year old son was 1 of 5 children and neither parent worked. Every time they had a major argument the dad would leave and when they made up she would get pregnant....both know what they are doing and choose to be in that situation. Their son needed to be escorted to school because he was no longer in his local school and couldn't keep his hands to himself. He was always scruffy and getting into trouble and his parents did nothing to disciplin him. One time the teacher stopped me and told me to make sure he had his school pants on when he left the house - he hadn't earlier that morning because his school trousers had holes all over them to the point you could see his underwear. He was bullied for it and his so called parents couldn't afford to buy him another pair..... But still choose to have more kids. It's unbelievable and I didn't believe it until I witnessed it first hand.

Mouthy cow, yes I hear what you are saying but I was thinking more of the situations like Chelc described.

its good to hear about the success stories.

TBH though I don't think the girls i were talking about in my experiences in the school were very bright academically and they used the baby option as a way of getting accommodation.

I think Louise Casey was describing families where being on benefits was a way of life and the parents or grandparents hadn't worked and the offspring would follow suit because that was what they had seen.

I suppose if you are older and fall pregnant you have usually paid into the system and may have your own house etc.

Merry do you not think we do pay quite high taxes already in GB.

Chelc, that family had skewed priorities, and were neglectful.

But they weren't neglectful BECAUSE they were poor. They were neglectful because they obviously prioritised something (I can't hazard a guess, not knowing them) over buying their DS a pair of school trousers.

Now, to me, THAT is a greater indicator of problem families than the criteria used by the Government - people that don't ensure their DC's are properly attired. It's not expensive to buy school trousers for boys, £10 for two pairs in Tesco, and if you do what I do and wait for double up on the club card vouchers, it in essence costs nothing...

So IMO, it's things like THAT that should be used. If I can ensure that my DC's have proper hideously expensive in 14yo DD's case school uniform, then so theoretically can anyone else on benefits. Unless they choose not to.

Why use poverty as an indicator of neglectful parenting, rather than, erm, signs of neglectful parenting?!

You know that GP I spoke about on an earlier post? Her parents never worked, and neither did her grandparents. Hasn't seemed to stop HER. Her DS is now at the local superselective Grammar school.

You CAN'T pre-judge someone on the actions of their parents, it's far too fatalistic, simplistic and arbitrary to do it that way.

If you pre-judged ME on the actions of my parents, you would think that I was a very abusive person who shouldn't have DC's, was incapable of putting my DC's over my alcoholism, was neglectful, and far more.

Doesn't mean that ANY of that is true.

It's just that to give people like me, who had the start in life that I did, the help that was needed when I first had my DD 14 years ago, is now deemed to 'cost too much', with no thought about what the ALTERNATIVE costs will be.

Because cutting money from this area WILL impact on others - a greater budget for FC to take away DC's from those deemed to be 'problem families', a greater budget for MH issues caused in those parents by losing their DC 's, and also a greater budget for police, because someone who has lost everything that meant anything to them is going to have no further reason to even attempt to follow the rules of society. Especially if they DO have MH issues due to lack of support after the removal of their DC's.

Where are these "work opportunities for single mothers" going to come from?

If you pre-judged ME on the actions of my parents, you would think that I was a very abusive person who shouldn't have DC's

Most SW go into CP because of theirown experiences as a child, as do most SW's, most are now from 'disadvantaged' backgrounds and their life experiences are welcomed.

Chelc the family that you describe existed because the CP threasehold was to low, transport is no longer provided under those circumstances alone and a childshouldn't be going toschool with holes in theirclothes, if that happens then all of the professionals around that child, should hang their heads in shame.

For the families that the Zsar is talking about, withdrawing benefits won't change their reproductive,or child rearing habits.

It is well known that I believe that a lot of the government's approach on intervention is not well researched

That isn't true but there are always gaps in the funding and the first thing when the coalition came in was to try to close Children's/Surestart Centre's, which was a well researched intervention, that had proven results. All of the after school intervention went, as well and disabled children's services in the most disadvantaged areas went.

And not every girl I have come across through my time helping at the M&B unit were particular 'bright sparks'. But they have taken vocational courses more suited to them, and are working as hairdressers, chefs, one is a plumber, they do shop work, or care work, or work in childcare.

Does it mean that because they are low paid, by dint of their profession being undervalued, that they are automatically 'problem families'? No? The Government seems to think so.

A lot of these girls had dyslexia that had been undiagnosed right up until they started ADULT education. If they had been diagnosed at school, and taught appropriately, they may have made different life choices.

That's not to say all would have - I was headed for A's and A*'s at GCSE, when I found out that I was pregnant. The fact that keeping my DD meant a much harder route to my degree didn't stop me from continuing with the pregnancy.

And it is not the case that they CHOOSE to get pregnant to 'get a house' (because in RL, that DOESN'T happen without at least a year in a scummy bedsit where you are afraid to sleep lest you are broken into by the drug dealers that share the hostel who are looking to rob you, so it would be a pretty dumb way of trying to get a house), but more that after having their DC and enduring at least a year in some of the worst accommodation in the Country, they get a council flat and start trying to make their way in the world.

And JH - no matter how many DC I have had, provided only one is in Nursery at a time, and I am healthy enough to work at least 22.5 hrs a week+ (which I am not right now), I have not been worse off in work since 2001. Before that, yes, work made me worse off. Since then, even in NMW jobs, even with 3 DC's, two in after-school care and one in Nursery, I have ALWAYS been financially better off in work.

It's only because a) I personally am barely fit enough to work 16 hrs a week at a stretch, b) I have two DC's with disabilities whose childcare would cost me three times as much as 'normal' childcare, and c) I can't find anyone daft enough to employ someone with fibromyalgia and uncontrolled epilepsy who WILL frequently require time off at short notice, despite trying very hard, and applying for 100+ jobs in the last 4 years since I was last made redundant.

So can we have less guff about how the benefits system traps people. Because it doesn't. LACK OF JOBS traps people. Duh!

If a teenager becomes pregnant just to get a council house, what does that suggest about her current home life? Or maybe I live in a magical mystical fairy bubble world where happy teens in happy homes don't normally want to move out and set up their own establishments before completing compulsory education.

how the benefits system traps people.
I have seen people who are better off not working. I have been an elected politician since 1990.

When i studied Sociology we had done a lot of research on "Problem Families" and found that a lot of families were stuck in the 'Poverty Trap' because the Welfare state can provide more money than a low (hence why some families are actually better off not working). We also studied "Problem Children" and found that if children weren't meeting the basic criteria for learning from a young age (basic skills for their age group) then they would grow to be problematic (through stuggling, labelling etc) and a lot of the kids i've worked with haven't have the best start and have been 'labelled' which eventually led to them fufilling that label.

*Low Wage

"Merry do you not think we do pay quite high taxes already in GB."

More than some, less than others. If you take higher taxes to mean more state provision of services and lower tax to be less, in European countries with a policy of high taxes and a high level of government involvement in health and social care (e.g Sweden, Denmark) teenage pregnancies are low.

On the other hand in a country like the US where there is a culture of mistrust for 'big government' and where low taxes are highly valued, teenage pregnancies are high.

Obviously, this is a very unscientific way of looking at things and other factors affect rates of teenage pregnancies. However, it's enough to make me question the idea that if we cut benefits for teenage mothers they wouldn't get pregnant.

Where are these "work opportunities for single mothers" going to come from?

Good question - declining work opportunities for many people at the moment. However, I think good state childcare (e.g. in the holidays) and incentives (lower employer's NI?) for companies who allow people to work flexibly might help.

My comment was really addressed to Alemci, who as far as I could tell was suggesting that benefits are too high and encourage teenage pregnancy, (which I don't agree with) but was also proposing better sex education and provision of training and apprenticeships (which I do agree with).

For the families that the Zsar is talking about, withdrawing benefits won't change their reproductive,or child rearing habits

I don't believe that would be the case. If the money dried up there would probably be fewer children.

If the mothers were homeless there would be less chance of them pairing up with some deadbeat dad as the house the state provides (for a mother with children but not a single male) wouldn't be there as an attraction for the dad.

But that is hypothetical as the state won't leave a mother with children without income or roof over her head.

I think the problem is a bit like alcoholics and drug dealers in that the bad family has no friendships or relationships with 'nice' families. Alcoholics mix with other drinkers, junkies with junkies. So you need a small community around these bad families who are 'nice' ordinary people. Then the bad family will see that all children go to school. Parents and children should be healthily fed. Children are not hit (because you would be ostracised by your new 'friends' if you did it). Unfortunately they are in their own little world of bad behaviour and getting other families to mix with them would be hard. At the moment it is done by SWorkers and their work will eventually reform them but it takes alot of SWs and time. (and thus money)

i think I agree with you Glaring.

also the community of the families makes sense.

Also how come most people do family plan and don't keep on having children - because they know apart from CB there won't be any state help. No one will give them a pay rise at work or a larger house unless they fund it or get a promotion.

I think the benefit system does encourage people to have children.