Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Troubled families have too many children ?

444 replies

BridgetJonesPants · 21/07/2012 09:52

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.

OP posts:
claig · 21/07/2012 23:11

I like Zoe Williams. She seems to talk a lot of sense on the Sky News newspaper roundup on which she often appears.

Zoe says

'I believe the ulterior motive is the demonisation of the poor, with the aim, in the long run, of simply slicing off these families at the bottom of what we think of as "society".

I don't think she really understand what it is about.

Karlos says
'What I take issue is the notion that the way to deal with them is solely through controlling female fertility.'

What I think it is really all about and why controlling fertility and saying that problem families should have less children is part of the message, is to limit the population growth of what the elite sees as the underclass.

There is talk of 'shaming' mothers, of more 'education' about birth control, and cutting benefits for some families with more than 3 children, and some posters have talked about sterilisation.

I think it is about controlling the growth of what some consider the 'underclass' and spending less money on them.

Sure Start was cut and now there is talk of benefit cuts.

In reality we have a declining birth rate, but we are told by the greens and the great and the good that we are over-populated and that this is not 'sustainable', However, we need more yoing people to help pay for the pensions and care of our elderly, which are also experiencing 'cuts'.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim · 21/07/2012 23:17

Sky News, eh? She keeps that one bloody quiet when she appears at lefty feminist conferences.
I'm afraid as the parent of a child with ASD, I think making disablist jibes automatically disqualifies you from the category of people worth listening to. not that I thought she met the membership criteria to begin with, to be honest.

edam · 21/07/2012 23:18

jumping dear, do think about what you said. You sound very bitter.

claig · 21/07/2012 23:20

Sky News every night at 11.30 p.m. She often appears on there, often with Ian Dale as her Tory supporting counterpart. She is very good, funny and makes a lot of sense.

Ryoko · 21/07/2012 23:21

I don't like this womans attitude, why is it the woman who need to stop having kids with useless men.

What about the bloody men, make them responsible for their offspring and see how fast the birth rate drops when they have to pick up the bill for their own legacy.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim · 21/07/2012 23:23

Slightly off the point of the thread, but I wonder if you'd be defending her if she'd made a racist remark. I doubt it. yet calling people "educationally sub-normal" you can let slide. Not very nice at all.

claig · 21/07/2012 23:28

I haven't seen that quote, and I don't know if she has apologised and my guess is that she made a mistake when saying it, and would not say it again, having realised her mistake.

Scarredbutnotbroken · 21/07/2012 23:32

I thought she called yeti he government educationally sub normal?

KarlosKKrinkelbeim · 21/07/2012 23:33

She did not write it, she said it at a conference I attended.
I approached her afterwards and forced an apology out of her, which was very gracelessly given. And if you are so severely "mistaken" as to say something like that in public, I don't think you can really lay claim to being a member of the "progessive" classes, do you?

KarlosKKrinkelbeim · 21/07/2012 23:35

Calling the government educationally sub-normal is OK, is it, Scarred? Hell, why don't we just cut to the chase and call them a bunch of retards? Or mongs? Or spazzes?
Angry

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 22/07/2012 00:48

I find it bizzare that there is so much opposition on this thread to the idea of encouraging women to make better family planning choices.

Why is it such a terrible idea? It's not about placing blame on women and it's not about giving men a 'get out of jail free' card.

It's about preventing children from coming into the world to recieve a poor level of upbringing and being supported entirely by the state. If women had better and easier access to contraceptive advice and a range of contraceptive options, then we may end up with less 'troubled families'.

Surely that's a good thing?

I don't consider myself a feminist, but I think it does women a disservice to have a system that doesn't expect them to protect themselves for a lifestyle that isn't that great. As women, we are more than capable of accepting responsibility for ourselves and any children we create.

Scarredbutnotbroken · 22/07/2012 04:43

Not a feminist? So you don't believe in equal rights for women?

Xenia · 22/07/2012 07:07

I am certainly a feminist (which just mean women and men have equal rights under the law and fairness at home), but I do not see tackling this issue as demonising women. No one should have children they cannot support. I would certainly be in favour of rounding up the men who fathered all these children and forcing them in groups three to care for them for 10 hours a day in local community centres whilst their ex girl friends did work fare to earn their benefits.

Rights come with responsiblities. If you choose to have a lot of children as I do (I have 5 and hae always worked full time and support them alone pretty well, have never even qualified for tax credits) then whether you are male or female the law ought to oblige you to support them but equally - so as much burden in terms of childcare on men as on women and as much burden in terms of work on women as men.

Perhaps it could be done on the basis if you do not name the father on the birth cert then that's fine but you support the children for life and don't get benefits from the rest of us - that your freedom to have children without the involvement of two parents comes with a responsibility to take on all responsibilty for them, same if a woman wants the baby and father wants it aborted, same if the woman doesn't want it and the man does - he can have it 100% particularly once we wokr out a way to remove it from the woman who wants to abort it and transplant it into a surrogate paid by the father who wants the child to be born.

EdithWeston · 22/07/2012 07:34

I think men/fathers would receive equal attention/bashing were the 120,000 or so "problem families" (as identified by the 2004 criteria mentioned earlier in this thread) were headed by men.

They're not.

The question I suppose is: what can we do right now to deal with these families (in terms of improving how they function in society, reducing the numbers of such families in the future). The analysis of why current gender roles produces these results won't produce solutions fast enough for those affected at present. Those mother-headed problem families identified over the last 8 or so years actually need the intervention and support now.

Improving those women's lives might be part of a more durable solution too - in terms of ambition for a live with more possibilities.

Better that than seeing a race to the bottom, in terms of increasing the number of father-headed chaotic families (would mothers be forced to surrender their children, BTW?) so this is no longer a tendered issue.

merrymouse · 22/07/2012 07:43

www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/listeningtroubledfamilies

This is a link to the actual report.

The report describes the 16 families. These families are very dysfunctional.

The most striking common theme that families described was the history of sexual and physical abuse, often going back generations; the involvement of the care system in the lives of both parents and their children, parents having children very young, those parents being involved in violent relationships, and the children going on to have behavioural problems, leading to exclusion from school, anti-social behaviour and crime.

At the end she observes that a common feature of the families is large numbers of children. However, I don't think you could conclude from the report that cutting benefits would motivate these families not to have more children. Many of the families interviewed seem to have older children (i.e. not babies) in care anyway.

One mother, observed at family court proceedings during the writing of this report, had twelve children and said she kept getting pregnant to ?get over losing the previous one to care?. She had not been able to keep any of her children due to her drug addiction.

All of the people she interviewed seem to have been in and out care.

There is national research which shows how damaging this cycle of moving in and out of care can be. For example, around half of children who entered care as a result of abuse or neglect suffer further harm if they return home. What also became clear was that there did not seem to be any intervention or help given to the parents after the child had been taken into care, to look at causes. So when left with the next child on its way, or step children entering the household, or grandchildren left with them by their own daughters, nothing in their behaviour or ability to parent had changed.

The report doesn't make any concrete recommendations

It has not been the intention of this report to provide a detailed range of conclusions or recommendations about how services should deal with difficult and troubled families.

She's still talking about the 120,000 - doesn't anybody in the government listen to More or Less?

This new programme of work with 120,000 troubled families is an opportunity to not repeat the failed attempts of the past, but to get underneath the skin of the families, and of the services that are now going to be working with them to find some lasting ways to make changes.

But seems to recommend a stronger approach from Social Services.

the traditional approach of services reaching individual family members, at crisis point or after, and trying to fix single issues such as 'drug use', 'non-attendance at school' or 'domestic violence' in these families is most often destined to fail. Their behaviours and problems can be properly understood only by looking at the full cycle - and the full family. This requires services who work with families to take the long view;

I imagine most social workers would agree with this.

So basically, the report doesn't really say anything new, doesn't explain how dysfunctional people might be encouraged not to have children they can't cope with; and the right wing media has picked up on the idea that society's ills could be solved if poor women would keeping their legs crossed. Plus ca change.

merrymouse · 22/07/2012 07:45

"would keep their legs crossed"

CouthyMow · 22/07/2012 08:03

Xenia, a woman who isn't married cannot just 'name' the father on the Birth Certificate. The man HAS to go with the woman to the Register Office. If he refuses, for whatever reason, then the Father's name will NOT be put on the certificate in his absence. That would be illegal and the Registrar would be hauled through court...

Most women who don't have a Father on the Birth Certificate haven't done that by choice. They are happy to name the wanker who fucked off father, but if he denies Parentage, then they have to go through the clunky CSA to demand a DNA test.

It took them eleven and a half YEARS to do a DNA test on my DD's father. He now, after the results of the DNA test, has stepped up and taken responsibility, but I'd this had been done when she was a baby, he may have done so long beforehand.

Why on earth are you blaming WOMEN for the father's name not being on the Birth Certificate?! I'll reiterate - for unmarried parents, BOTH parents have to be present for the father's name to be put on the Birth Certificate. The mother cannot FORCE him to go, so therefore it is down to the MAN whether his name is on the Birth Certificate.

Maybe you should do a bit of research on laws surrounding Birth Registrations BEFORE you spout such ill-informed bullshit, Xenia...

EdithWeston · 22/07/2012 08:19

I read what Xenia proposed as a change to existing practice, not a reflection of ignorance of it. The new aim being that one would only breed from men who you believed would acknowledge paternity?

Xenia · 22/07/2012 08:32

I thought what I suggested though was a current Government proposal - that unmarried women be obliged to name the father and there has been a lot of debate about that in the press - quite rightly, along the lines of women may not know which of several men, why should they be forced to etc etc

If they did not have sex until they were married to the man they might avoid some of these problems of course...

limitedperiodonly · 22/07/2012 08:38

Next time you and Zoe are at a feminist conference karlos ask her about the year or so she wrote a column for Now magazine called A Bird's Eye View.

Do make sure you have an audience.

Dahlen · 22/07/2012 09:09

It's making women gatekeepers of reproduction and morality and absolving/removing men from any part of it.

Men can have sex before marriage with no consequences.

Unmarried men can currently father several children with no consequences.

Men can run off and start new families with no consequences.

Men can make all sorts of promises about being supportive when the baby arrives and then fail to honour that promise. Women cannot purely because the baby comes out of their body.

I'm with Couthy in the sense that men need to be made to face up to their responsibilities as much as, if not more so than, women. Especially in a country where sexually women hold much less power than men and are still subjected to rape, coercion and pressure to have sex in staggering numbers despite us being a 21st-century western democracy.

If we stopped benefits for more than two children, and banned sex before marriage, what do we think would happen? Would the birth rate fall or would actually more women and children suffer while men get off scot free. We only have to look at history for the answer to that. Placing all the responsibility on women does not work save for providing a convenient scapegoat.

However, I would not deny that there are significant numbers of families out there who really aren't fit to raise children. I see the solution as better help though, rather than punishment. More SS involvement, more resources thrown into deprived communities, etc.

scrablet · 22/07/2012 09:15

Will the state be providing the crystal balls required for that, Edith?

CouthyMow · 22/07/2012 09:50

And if you are engaged and have a wedding day booked, how are you meant to know that they will get cold feet at the last minute?

Or in the case of my Ex-H, should I still be married to him despite his insistence that he would NOT give up his mistress, who he was shagging in my bed, with my baby DS in the cot in the room, while I was out at work to support the family?

That was never going to happen...

Why put all the blame on women, just because more often than not, they are the ones left 'holding the baby'?

Surely the worse person in that scenario is the MAN THAT HAS WALKED OUT?!

Especially if he then decides not to bother supporting that DC.

I divorced my Ex-H when DS1 was just 9mo. He has NEVER paid more than £5 a week maintenance at most, has been unemployed ever since we split, and currently pays NO maintenance after having DC's with the OW his partner.

Is that MY fucking fault?!

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 22/07/2012 10:09

Of course I believe in equal rights for women. I don't call myself feminist because I think the feminist movement goes a bit too far with their stance, so I prefer not to identify myself as one of them. But that's a whole different thread.

The point is that women should feel more empowered to take responsibility for themselves and their own contraceptive choices. If it was made easier for women to access advice and contraception, then it would be women (and children) who benefited.

Again, it's not about placing blame on women, nor is it about telling men they don't have to bother with responsibility. But while we stay in this battle of 'men should be more responsible versus women should be more responsible' then no one is taking responsibility except the taxpayer.

Couthy, you are in a particular situation because of individual circumstances, and you sound like a brilliant Mum. Of course your children should recieve the support they need. But you have said yourself that you didn't choose to have all the children you have, (not saying that in a baf way, both my dc were surprises) and there have got to be other women in that situation but who can use contraception successfully. Wouldn't it be better to give them easier access to advice and options?

CouthyMow · 22/07/2012 10:31

I'm in agreement with you there, but I also know a lot of people that have tried lots of different types if hormonal contraception, and have horrendous side effects, so they stop using it.

They then get into what they feel is a committed relationship, using condoms for contraception, but still falling pregnant. As the think they are in a committed relationship, they continue with the pg, but then the man fucks off. Knowing full well that his contribution to the upbringing of that DC will be no more than a set amount. 15% of their wages going to that DC, or them having no spare cash because ALL their income will go on supporting their family?!

Too many men (and some women) are too selfish to lose all their spending money, and therefore leave their DC's so that they only have to pay a fixed contribution.

I don't deny that there ARE some chaotic families, I have personal experience of one, who refuses to listen to any sensible suggestions from friends on how to get her DC's to school and pre-school on time. She has 9 DC's ranging in age from 3yo to 23yo.

I think that the two things that would have helped her is her being sterilised when she first asked, when she had 4 DC's, and more support for her DTS2 who has Autism.

I still think that if the DC's fathers (9 DC by 3 dads), were made to pay her a reasonable amount of maintenance, her life would not be so chaotic. She has 1 DC at preschool, two in one primary school, one in another, one in one Secondary school, one in another, and one at college. She has to pay for before school care for her 10yo as she couldn't get him into the sane schools as her 7yo's, bus fares for one of the Secondary DC, and also bus fares for the one at college since they stopped EMA...

How could her life NOT be chaotic?!