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.

So how would you limit men to 3 dc if women are nit allowed to pursue them for child support?? How would anyone know if they are not named on birth certificates in the first place?

The capping per man may screw over single mothers who don't always know about previous children. I work with a family where 'Dad' has 7 children and he has contact with one. Others have come out of the woodwork and newest xp had no idea. She would be left with no CB and no maintainence as he's on benefits.

Not sure how it could be controlled though.

I'd like to know how much Louise Casey has cost the country over the years in her various well-paid tsar roles telling us that something really should be done about things.

Something really should be done about this woman.

Perhaps op would like to come back and explain why she thinks this woman can turn this situation around?

Where do you start? Figures from 2004 of the most deprived families now regularly trotted out as 'troubled families'.
The seven criteria for deprivation - earning a low income; nobody in the family working; poor housing; parents with no qualifications; the mother having a mental health problem; one parent with a longstanding illness or disability; and the family unable to afford basics including food and clothes - brushed under the carpet and without any evidence the same families are linked to criminality, anti-social behaviour, lack of school attendance or even poor parenting at all. The criteria were purely about deprivation!!!

These people put it much better than I do

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/18/problem-families-poverty?INTCMP=SRCH

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/19/troubled-families-report-anecdote-evidence?INTCMP=SRCH

I'm particulalrly iintrigued by the fact that in her 'report' 50% of the families in her report have 4 or more children - it's only 4% of fgamilies in the general population and there is NO EVIDENCE that the 'troubled families' are any different in this respect from the rest of us.

It's easy, it's simple, emotive, great judgeypants material when you don't look into it any further so most people get that superior holyer than thou glow that's very addictive in itself and it's a pack of bullshit.

I'm touchy on this subject as had my son lived we would have been one of these 'troubled families' until we were moved into suitable housing and magically dropped most of our criteria. We've never broken the law, never taken part in antisocial behaviour, and I don't even drink! The government programe is all about getting them into work - well I despair about how that would help us, even on the new ESA reigime I'm considered too disabled to poke, prod and harasss and sending DH off to work isn't exactly going to help when I'm left minus a carer.

From what I can see to genuinly tackle the issues that lead to the £120,000 figure you need investment in health and social care, sure start and housing, not some Emma Harrison wannabe who will spout nice simple lies as a smoke screen for the real underlying problems this country has.

By all means tackle those families that are huge, addicted and chaotic I'm under no illusion they do exist - but do some proper research, find out how many there really are, what the true root of the problem is and work out how best to target them, don't lie cheat and manipulate in order to justify poor bashing.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/18/problem-families-poverty?INTCMP=SRCH

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/19/troubled-families-report-anecdote-evidence?INTCMP=SRCH

sorry

Miss Casey warns that the state must start telling mothers with large families to take ?responsibility? and stop getting pregnant, often with different, abusive men.

I'm not really clear how this is supposed to work. A social worker calls round and says "love, stop getting pregnant with different and abusive men!".

If you cap benefits, what do you do - take additional children into care? If a family has 4 children, but are clearly functional and providing good care for their children, do you still take the 4th child into care?

Do you not provide benefits for people who have a 3rd/4th child whilst on benefits, or do you also include people who start to claim benefits already having had 5 children?

Or, to put it another way, what exactly is Miss Casey going on about?

The new cap comes in soon so the benefits angle will be a useless argument

I disagree with it completely. The article is woman bashing. It doesn't talk about men, it talks about women. Mothers. Women must not do this, women must stop doing that, women must...

where are the men mentioned? where is their responsibility discussed? Cos I don't see a word about it.

Mothers should feel ashamed - what, not fathers?
Mothers should take responsibility - what, not fathers?
Women should not get pregnant to abusive men - what, men shouldn't just, erm, not be abusive? - and considering most abuse starts during or after pregnancy, and that is well known, how's that work anyway?

Funny how the topic is troubled 'families' but the blame and the responsibility in each and every point is firmly all eyes on the woman.

Quite, Hecate. And then you get people like Jumping claiming its all the fault of women for 'marginalising' men.

""I'm not really clear how this is supposed to work. A social worker calls round and says "love, stop getting pregnant with different and abusive men!"."

I have a lot of conversations about contraception with my families. No guarantee it works but at least someone has put it out there.

The hatred towards women is shocking. And terrifying. Did you read the comments on that article? My god.

" one fifth of them have more than five children"

If upthread suggestion that families with 4+ children are around 4% of the population, this is a startling statistic. But it only means "trouble" families are more likely to have many children, not vice versa. They are more likely to have big cars, too, but taking away the car doesn't solve the underlying problems.

If I enjoyed pregnancy and the number of children I had wouldn't make a difference to my wealth, I'd have more and more. Why not? Children are nice (well mine are) and maybe if the older ones were going off the rails I'd want to keep trying to prove it wasn't my fault.

There comes a point in poverty/overcrowding/etc where one more in the family makes no difference. If you can't afford three, you can't afford five, so what difference does it make?

Demonstrably what breaks generational cycles is aspirational education, not punishment.

It is a problem, there isn't an easy answer. We are talking about the "Karen Matthews'" of the world here, not "large families per se.

And it's bloody easy to whine about "what about the men", but since the dawn of time it's been the woman holding the baby through biological necessity.

To the lily-livered liberals who claim the mothers shouldn't be "punished", I'd ask you, did Shannon Matthews deserve a transient paedophile father-figure and a troubled mother?

If we have to choose between the rights of a troubled adult and a troubled child - I choose the child each and every time.

It really doesn't matter about the benefits/money side of things - these are the types of families for whom the children will never see the benefit of the cold, hard cash.

It's an ugly situation.

Miss Casey warns that the state must start telling mothers with large families to take ?responsibility? and stop getting pregnant, often with different, abusive men.

Sorry, what? How about lets do something about the men she admits are being abusive?! Why do people launch into sterilising the women or wondering why they are not using contraception - why aren't they talking to the men about getting the snip or taking responsibility for their contraception. This just makes me angry.

AlpinePony talks sense to me.

How about: "Men, stop taking advantage of these vulnerable women"

"men, start taking responsibility for all the children you father"

just for starters

This article really is a big pile of horseshit. Chaotic families who really are not coping have their children removed by social services. The state does tell women to stop having children - if you have 5 children in care a social worker will warn you that if you get pregnant again there us a big chance (unless you turn you life around) that the baby will be taken into care.

There is a big difference between three children and five. People's resources are finite and each child stretches those resources.

I am sick of all the women bashing in the media in general in the UK. We get blamed for all the social problems e.g. the mothers discussed here, SAHMs with a husband supporting them should not receive CB, but be out working....yet if you are a working mum you get bashed for working, if your DH/DP is a SAHD we are emasculating men..... Every day we are being told what we are doing is wrong! What about men and their role in fathering children? If more men hung around and fathered their children instead of getting women pregnant, buggering off and starting another family then we wouldn't have so many problems.

I've just read the article. I hope the Families Tsar isn't as stupid as she sounds and that words have been taken out of context. It hasn't been possible to "shame" people into desirable behaviour for decades. It's a dead concept.

"And it's bloody easy to whine about "what about the men", but since the dawn of time it's been the woman holding the baby through biological necessity."

Yes and it's always been the woman that has been blamed; for having too many or sometimes for having too few. For going out to work or for staying at home and not earning money to look after said said children.

It hasn't worked so far, so obviously the tactics need to change. I'm not saying that these women are selfless victims, I cannot over-empasize that, but it does take two to make a baby and perhaps a more effective angle to take would be to look at the fact that men can prevent unwanted pregnancies if they want to.

The belief that a person who isn't emotionally willing or financially able to care for a child should keep their legs crossed has been pointed out a million times in relation to women (as article shows) but very rarely in relation to men. It has always been women's chastity that has been regulated, not men's.

I suspect the real reason is that telling men not to have uncommitted sex would be regarded as revolutionary and an affront to manhood.

"We get blamed for all the social problems e.g. the mothers discussed here, SAHMs with a husband supporting them should not receive CB, but be out working....yet if you are a working mum you get bashed for working, if your DH/DP is a SAHD we are emasculating men..... Every day we are being told what we are doing is wrong!"

Capuccino, you are so right and it is amazing the feats of logic that some people will go through to lay the blame at the door of women. I was amazed to find that one Yahoo commenter even managed to blame the Colorado shootings on the discrimination that men face at the hands of women!! It was quite a head shaker!

Alpine Poney, when you say punished, do you mean punished for actually having done something wrong (e.g. child neglect)? or punished for living an irresponsible life which might lead to a crime being committed a a later date (e.g. child neglect).

I don't think anybody has suggested that a person shouldn't suffer the consequences for committing a crime. However, I'm still not really clear what the point of this article is. Others have said that it is already likely that the children of 'troubled families' (people identified by social services, not the 120,000) will be taken into care and they already receive advice from social services, and it is already government policy to cap benefits.

I think one of the problems is that the parents of these families are emotionally and intellectually still children and need parenting themselves - is the government suggesting much strengthened continuing care for the children of troubled families/children in care once they reach 16? From what Eric 'less understanding' Pickles says, no.

Are they perhaps talking about enforced contraception/sterilistion? - if the government do support this, they have been quite quiet about it.

Are they just generally trying to convey an image of being tough/common sense/not being lilly livered liberals, without bothering to come up with policies that make any sense/cost money, or is it all general background chitter chatter to fuel support for benefit cuts?

I'm thinking fuelling support for benefits cuts, but would be open to changing my mind if anybody could point to the tories proposing a course of action that actually made sense.

I am enraged by the women bashing in that article!

I live amongst families like this, my children go to school with chdren from 'problem families'. They are not bad people. The mothers often have very low self esteem and absolutely no belief in themselves. They, like the rest of us, are just trying to find their own bit of happiness. I see mothers who do love their children but just have absolutely no idea how to parent.

Instead of demonising these women we should focus on building their self esteem and confidence and help them improve their life and parenting skills.