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.

For the long term unemployed, I would hope that it would make them think twice about falling pregnant without looking at the financial implications. And perhaps it is harsh but a human being (be it male or female) can't think ahead about how they will provide for their third child (bearing in mind that the first two would be financially provided for) then they shouldn't be having any more children, and makes mandatory contraception seem like a justified option.

I decided to give upwork to care for my DH as he died from cancer.

I could have stayed in work and cost the country five times as much, with 3 children being on benefits.

I was out of work, whilst i and my children grieved. We lived in poverty.

Had i have only recieved benefits for two of my children, i wouldn't have managed, i couldn't have got back into work any quicker. SS would have had to be involved, which would have ment that i couldn't go back to work at all, as i am a SW and would not be able to be registered with the GSCC had i of had SS involvement and possible removal.

If i had of done then the outcome for my children would have been less. My eldest has always worked full time and my middle DD wants to be a MW.

And what happens when one of these 'troubled mothers' (me) asks to be sterilised REPEATEDLY but keeps being told that they are too young? There are very strict age-based criteria on sterilisation in most PCT's.

Mine won't do the actual operation until you are 32 IF you have 4 LIVE DC's. I am 31, and after 10 YEARS of asking to be sterilised (hormonal contraception just doesn't work for me), they have FINALLY given me an appointment with the gynaecologist to SEE if he will put me on the waiting list that is over a year long...

It's NOT that easy for these women to get sterilised, even if they want to, and have asked every 6 months for a decade.

When you have a chaotic life, you are less likely to remember to take a pill, or to have the childcare to get longer term contraceptives from a clinic that is two bus journeys away and doesn't start until 7pm...

If the made these things easier to access, I think people in general would be surprised at how much of a difference it would make.

Same as making Adult Education more accessible to Lone Parents. If you can't get TC's for the childcare, you can't go. And often the buses you can get to the college are two buses, that after a school/ preschool drop off, get you to
The college over an hour late. Which gets you kicked off the course.

It's all just so inaccessible, to make real improvements to your life, so a lot of people in a situation like mine just start to accept that this is their 'lot' in life, and that they can't do anything about it.

It takes a lot of strength to dig yourself out when it's half your food money each week to get to college only to be an hour late...

Arf at "mandatory contraception"! Do tell, how does that work then?

For the long term unemployed, I would hope that it would make them think twice about falling pregnant without looking at the financial implications

For the families that the OP has linked to, then it wouldn't as that much thought isn't put into 'life'.

As i said in an ealier post, life sprials out of control for these families and contraception isn't the top of the list.

Your sugestion, titty, would have turned mine into a problem family.

Why bring in all these other issues, why not stick at the one at hand? Is it because none of you have an answer either, preferring instead to rail at the entirety of social injustice instead? It's all a bit pointless, if your aim is to have an actual discussion.

There is also quite a lot of well meaning but insulting talk about "these women" and how they "can't help" this and that and can't be held responsible for how many children they have. They aren't a separate species you know, and they aren't all quite as stupid and helpless as you like to think. It's not very helpful to make such obvious characterisations.

Xenia er, what happens if its an active 2 or 3 year old? And have you missed the bit about the dads doing the off and leaving the mothers to it?

I know a family with 6 childen. Neither parents work, both are alcoholic, and both with mental health problems. They live off the state deliberately. The youngest dd is v ill and probably not safe where she is. Sadly SS aren't interested. The police know the family well. It is not a functioning household under any circumstances. The children fulfil the needs of the mother, and when young enough, provided the love she needed. V v sad No way to grow up.

It's something that has needed saying out loud for years now.

We should be paying women in the "problem" group and those bordering on the edges not to get pregnant rather than funding their family after they have given birth.

Less babies now = less youth unemployment in 16-20 years time.

Less "planned" single parenthood is good news all around, too many women have babies for the wrong reasons before they get their life sorted out emotionally/financially etc.

Let's offer a financial incentive for reliable contraception use in the target group of childbearing age.

It's got to happen, we can't go on funding a certain tranche of society to add to society's problems year on year.

And what is this work fare where you leave a baby/child in centre of the room?

Xenia i wondered how long it would take before someone mentioned workfare. Which does NOT create jobs. Why would an employer employ someone when they can get then for free?
And another claimant looking after someone elses child. Who is going to pay for the CRB checks then? AND insurance. Whats that i smell on the wind ................... ahh yes LAWSUITS.

www.redonline.co.uk/news/sam-baker-s-daily-letter/babies-in-the-office-and-addison-lee

And, more to the point, where is the MAN'S responsibility??

Why is it that the man gets off scot free, no point in paying MORE out than you will receive from maintenance.

So the man has no responsibility, and the woman has all of it?!

Fuck that.

Are we back in the dark ages or something? Why SHOULDN'T a man be made to be responsible for their DC too?

IMO, there should be a basic level of maintenance (£20 a week per child?) that is due from ALL absent PARENTS (Mothers and Fathers) regardless of whether they are working or on JSA. If they are on JSA, they should pay £5 a week PER CHILD, and the other £15 a week per child should be put on an arrears account. Recoverable by debt collectors. That way, EVERY DC gets £5 a week, the arrears keep building, and eventually the absent parent would have to get a job or lose all that they own.

And if they have 7 DC by 7 different RP's, and it doesn't leave them enough to live off , then they will soon get a job won't they?! Man or woman, absent parent full stop. Still makes any absent parent responsible for ALL their DC's, to the same level.

I think that the cap on maintenance for absent parents is unfair - because once they have 3 DC's, the absent parent's liability doesn't get any larger, so they will pay the same if they have 3 DC's or 10 DC's. It's just each CHILD gets less.

Maybe if they were made to realise that they couldn't afford to LIVE if 15% of their income was taken for EVERY DC, then men wouldn't have so many DC's with different women, and THEY would take responsibility for their own fertility by putting a condom on, rather than persuading the woman that they life them and will always support them and they want a baby.

LapsedPacifistSat 21-Jul-12 17:09:38

Fuck it, I'm orf to "Religion and Spirituality" to sign up for (or START) a matriarchal religion.

Can i come with you?

Where is anyone saying a man shouldn't be responsible too?

I think you make a good point Mouthy about the absent fathers but then i suppose you would get all the crap about paternity and proof etc but it is still a step in the right direction.

Any campaign to try to lower the birth rate amongst the poorest in society that is aimed at the WOMEN is doomed to fail. Campaign after campaign like that has failed. Why? Because a man on JSA knows that he won't have more than a maximum of £7 a week taken out of his JSA whether he has 2 DC's or 10.

If you remove the liability cap on maintenance, it would quickly 'fix' the problem. IMO, it would take less than a year for the birth rate to go down.

Men aren't stupid, at the moment, they know that once they have 3 DC's, they can impregnate women with impunity, without losing an extra penny of their income.

And a man on JSA long-term feels that way after just ONE DC, as they will never lose more than £7 a week.

It has become a status symbol to these men to brag about how many DC's they have with how many 'babymothers' without having to lose more than £7 a week.

By the time they have 2/3 DC's, taking a NMW job where they would lose 20% of their income is a joke to them.

Fix that issue, and at least make it £7 per CHILD, with no limit on how much JSA can be stopped to pay for it, and these men would quickly change their tune...

But this won't happen because of the uproar it would cause!

PenisVanLesbianSat 21-Jul-12 17:32:29

Why bring in all these other issues, why not stick at the one at hand? Is it because none of you have an answer either, preferring instead to rail at the entirety of social injustice instead? It's all a bit pointless, if your aim is to have an actual discussion.

There is also quite a lot of well meaning but insulting talk about "these women" and how they "can't help" this and that and can't be held responsible for how many children they have. They aren't a separate species you know, and they aren't all quite as stupid and helpless as you like to think. It's not very helpful to make such obvious characterisations

Penis if you cant see the thinly veiled mysogyny in your own posts then i fucking despair. Some of the attitudes shown here proves that we still have a long way to go.

The thinly veiled misogyny? There is none, and if I had any, I wouldn't veil it.

If you can't see the problem with the characterisations of "its not their fault, they can't help it" as insulting, then I fucking despair of you. You still have a long way to go yourself.

It'd pay for one day's school dinner when I get back to work. Or two loaves of bread. Just think what I would be able to buy if they took away the maximum deduction from JSA and I got a whole £7 a week...

Men aren't stupid, at the moment, they know that once they have 3 DC's, they can impregnate women with impunity, without losing an extra penny of their income

Exactly. But the cunt hatred (sorry to nick that off you Lapsed but i love the phrasing) in our society is so ingrained that people refuse to see it. Unfortunately it will never happen.

couthy round of applause for that post!!

Completely agree! And actually, the best solution comes from those who are living the problem and know the ins and outs of it and how the 'system' works

My ex told me when we broke up that he would not work so the government couldn't make him pay 20% child support!

If you can't see the problem with the characterisations of "its not their fault, they can't help it" as insulting, then I fucking despair of you. You still have a long way to go yourself

I rest my case. Im happy to leave this comment as it stands!

Considering that women have far more contraceptive choices than men do, and are perfectly capable of shouldering some responsibility for the children they create, I don't see why the responsibility shouldn't be on women.

That doesn't mean that I think men are blameless for these situations, or that they should be allowed to absolve themselves of responsibility for their mistakes. But I honestly don't see what is so wrong with targeting support to women and asking them to take responsibility for their contraception.

It's not mysogynistic. It's common sense.