Unfit parents.

[anais]

Is anyone watching this? Any thoughts?

I watched a lot of it last night and was at first a little sceptical. The baby at 7 months is easy (and also a real cutie), but how are they going to deal with him from the "terrible twos" onwards. Dh and I are sometimes stumped on how to deal with our 19 month old and I think it is only going to get harder from now on... so how will they manage. Also, at some point their child will know A LOT more than them and might feel the burden of looking after them from a too young age (with things like shopping etc...).
By the end of the programme I wasn't so sure... they were both really sweet people and I was particularly impressed by her strength of character and some of the things she was saying so I don't know really. It is true to say that we are all "learning disabled" when you think that there are things that all of us cannot do. I do think they were a little naive to think that it would be ok to have another child so soon as they wanted to... Or maybe the rest of us think about things and plan far too much and should be as spontaneous. I thought it was interesting to watch a programme which talked about the "learning disabled" and the differences in their circumstances now to what they would have been not that long ago - ie. shut up in institutions. What did you think?

I watched it(although I did doze of a few times) and I thought the support they had in place was great. It was nice to watch how some everyday situations were different for this couple, like when mark went missing tracey didnt shout at him the social worker came round and gave him a good telling off!. My daughter is learning disabled and if she turned out like tracey I would be happy. As far as when the child is older(toddler etc) social services provide day care in nurseries for children of families such as this, to give the parents a break and the child some early years education.

IMO (and maybe I am a little biased) I think they deserve to have a 'normal' family life(with the support of course.) It would be a crime to lock them away in institutions-glad society has moved on a bit. Also dont forget this couple didnt have the support of their own families, I am pressuming most learning disabled also have the support of their parents.

I'm not sure either. The baby was beautiful and they clearly adored him, but I can't help but think that things will get difficult as he gets older. It would be interesting if they did more programmes as Lewis gets older. What did concern me a little was the next door neighbour - Michelle. Was she in it for the money or was she genuine? Everybody in my office is debating about this programme this morning. But who are we to judge? There are lots of children out there who have parents with out learning disabilities who will not be brought up in such a loving environment. I wish them luck.

I really wanted to be very PC and feel supportive towards them. Tracey in particular seemed very brave, and did at times seem quite aware of the difficulties she would face. But I just felt there was something wrong about the whole thing. I'm very prepared to have my mind changed, so feel free to disagree with me, but my gut reactions was that they wouldn't cope with a toddler, and definately not a teenager. Lewis (if not learning disabled) will either take advantage of them, or feel he has to care for them and grow up far too soon. Mark was quite childlike himself - how can he provide a stable background for a child to grow up in when he dissapears for a day without warning?

I was very very angry at the idiot in cahrge of social services who said that Lewis would be advantaged because he had both parents at home all day, but some children only saw their parents morning and night. SFW! Good to know the head of Essex social services is so on message with the governments support for working parents!

And I'm not proud of this view, but when Mark was asked at the end what he saw as the future he said "another baby, a bigger house, bigger bedrooms, a room with a pool table maybe" I was thinking - yeah - I'd like that too - but I'll have to wait until I can afford it. Helping disadvantaged people to live a normal life is great, but there has to be a point at which we say the state cannot support you any more. - Or does there?

Prufrock has said what I'm too much of a coward to say, the head of disability services was particularly offensive, my reaction was "my taxes are helping to pay for him to have parents at home", similar feeelings about them having another child that they can't support. I know it's very un PC but it does annoy me that people who are on benefits think they have a "right" to have more children when they are unable to support them.

I don't think people with learning disabilities should be shut away, but I do think there comes a point when you have to say that it costs too much to support their every whim. I'm also assuming that Mark's disabilities must be quite severe if he's unable to do any work at all.

The Michelle woman seemed a bit suspect, thought it was interesting that they didn't like the previous carer telling them what to buy, she seemed quite reasonable to me, is it because they were a bit childlike and wanted to buy on impulse rather than plan?

I dont want to get into an argument about this but they cant really help being on benefits can they? They havent chosen not to work-they are unable to work ( or Mark is unable too from what I can gather). That is what the welfare system is for isnt it? I agree the man from social services was particually ignorant and hasnt really done them any favours by some of the things that he said. He would think my dh was terrible as he only home 3 days out of 7 at the moment.

There are schemes run by mencap to help adults with learning disabilities find work but it all depends on what areas you live in etc.

On the flip side marialusia, if a person on disablity benefits, rather than one who is able to work on say job seekers allowance, got pregnant accidentally (and birth control can fail so it was't a case of irresponsible sexual activity) would you expect them to have an abortion because they couldn't support the child without the welfare state?

I'm not saying they shouldn't get benefits, or help to live a "normal" life. I actually think they are a great example of care in the community really working. But at what point do you say their needs are real needs that should be covered by benefits, or luxuries, that shouldn't. Should state benefits guarantee a minimum standard of living, and if so, what is a minimum? I do feel Tracey had a right to have a child - her learning disability should not take this away, but if she wants 6, why should I pay for that? There are many people (myself included) who would love another child, but have to put off having one until their financial situation warrants it. Does having learning disabilities absolve you of basic responsibilities like this?

And I thought Melanie was a bit dodgy too, and where were their parents?

Oh - and this isn't arguing - it's reasoned intelligent debate

I think everyone should be entitled to reproduce (well there are a few individuals - like MIL2B that I would have preferred not to!!), as long as they can understand certain things - health issues, nutrition, things which could harm child etc.. things which make people a good parent - there are so many able bodied/able mind (sorry if that sounds unPC am crap at being PC) people around who are awful parents.

Not good arguement - not arguement at all but I hope you get what I am trying to say - just drank 2 lattes in quick succession and am a bit juddery!!

It bothered me that Mark was incapable of working but seemed to think they would manage to have another child around.

When I said it annoys me that people on benefits have children they can't support, i'm talking about deliberately setting out to get pregnant, as Tracey was planning to do. Accidents will always happen but unfortunately there are people who think they have a right to reproduce but take very little responsibility for the financial consequences.

I'm a bit wound up about this because of a project I've been working on, I've found the attitudes of some of the people I'm interviewing mind-blowing and TBH Tracey and Mark's situation seemed like more of the same.

I wouldn't say that have learning disablities, or any disablity absolves you of any responsiblity. And I agree that the thing about the big house and the pool table is beyond the call of duty.

But I think that as a society you either say 'yes we will take care of those who aren't able to take care of themselves and we treat and understand that they have the same desires and rights as others' or you start setting limits. And whatever these may be you start getting into, what I think, is very shaky ethical grounds about the rights and capablities of those who are different. And thats why there aren't any limits. I mean say you thought that 2 children was enough,, could you force a woman to have serilisation?

I ask because as a woman who is currently living on disablity benefits and who has become accidentally pregnant I would be saddned to live somewhere where I couldn't have this baby. As it is if I am still receiving income support when the baby is born it will be £38 a week for the new child, which in the cold light of day is a terrible price to put on a child's head. Though of course DH's 300 job aplications may pay off and this is all theoretical in my case. I wouldn't expect a big house, holidays etc. And I would think that having learning disablites would lead to someone respoonsible to enough to have to explain that these are unrealistic explanations.

But again I ask the question, are your rights to pay lower taxes more important than another's right to have a child?

I'm not trying to argue either, I just saw these comments and wanted to probe further

I am pressuming that social services would step in if there was a possibility they were going to have too many children as for practical and emotional reasons they wouldnt be able cope, I too thought it would be foolish of them to have another child so soon. I thought the guidance they received regarding family planning was very good. I agree with you that 'some' people on benefits take advantage of the system, especially where having children is concerned.

As for their parents, I am pressuming they were both fostered as children. At the begining of the programme it said they had both spent most of their childhood in residential care.

glad we aren't arguing, its always difficult to tell isnt it?

Can I just point out that I'm making a distinction between those on disablity benefit and those who are able to work because I do feel the latter is open to system abuse. But no one chooses to be disabled so I'm not sure where a feeling of taking advantage would fit in.

pie I wasnt refering to people on disability benefits, sorry I wasnt very clear.

pie raises interesting points- and as someone who is in receipt of higher rate disability living allowance (for my son) and invalid care allowance (totalling over 90 pounds a week- neither benefit is means tested) I am kind of shocked by the arguments. (I am also allowed to earn up to 75 pounds a week without affecting my ICA- I earn 50) Finacially we would be a lot better off if we didn't have a disabled child. Financially disabled people are amongst the poorest in the country, and no-one chooses to be disabled as pie pointed out. Personally I would quite happily swap 90 quid a week to have a normal child- I would then be able to work properly and earn a proper wage for starters.

Anyway back to the programme - didn;t see it. But I do know two disabled adults who have two children (third on the way). They couldn't cope by themselevs, but they do have input from social services, and they are a loving happy family. The children are doing well, the parents are coping very well (with help), and I don't really see the problem.

Pie, sure they can have the same desires, but like everyone else they should accept that they won't necessarily have those desires fulfilled.

In the US some states now force drug-addicted, welfare dependent women to have sterilisations and i think that's ok. At the moment I'm feeling very reactionary and think that we can't look at everyone and assume that we all look at the consequences of our actions. You are pregnant accidentally and I don't think £38 is going to help you have a great standard of living, but bluntly I would question your right to get pregnant deliberately at a time when you are living off benefits. Many couples delay having children because they can't afford to live on one low income or even 2 ok incomes because of ridiculous house prices etc, why should people who cannot support themselves think they can have kids as and when?

I'm not trying to offend, although I'm sure these posts are a bit right-wing, just feeling incredibly frustrated with "the system" at the moment.

Pie - Yes they bloody well are. My dh and I currently pay over 58% of our monthly income in tax and childcare. I would love to have another child, but have decided to wait until we have managed to save enough to buy ourselves a bigger property. So my high taxes are preventing me from having a second child - so why should they pay for somebody else to do so?

But again I think it's a question of where do you draw the line? Should you not be allowed to have this child - no of course not (if you can get your head round the multiple negatives!) but as you said, you aren't expecting the state to buy you a big house or pay for your holidays. (and I agree that £38 is a pitiful amount) Should I get peed off at the stereotypical parents of 6 who have never worked and demand bigger and bigger council houses to house their growing family - why not?

But maria, if you can question whether I have the right to get deliberately pregnant and feel it is ok to force women to be sterilised, then would you feel ok about forcing me to have an abortion? The outcome would be one that sits with your idea of controling who can have children wouldn't it? If it doesn't can I ask how you make the distinction?

You feel it is ok to force some women to be sterilised so I'm assuming that you don't see that any physical interference in a violation of sorts, and you think that having a child is a privilege rather than a right. So by this thinking forceable abortion could well fit into that picture, couldn't it?

No £38 will not really make any difference, but if money were the only thing that made a difference to a child's life then most of us probably wouldn't be here. Yes people delay having children because of money, but then perhaps everyone in the developing world should be refused aid as well if they have children.

By all means get pissed off with the stereotypes, and yes get angry with the benefits. But the amount of disabled people having children is not where the majority of your taxes go. If you are talking about those who can work I think that is a different debate and I think that by lumping disabled people and people who take advantage of the system is insulting.

I'm going to bow out as all this is doing is making me feel very protective towards my DD and the baby growing in my womb. Sterotypes, which is all they are, is all very well and good but there are real people out there who have not been dealt a good hand in life and to make out that they are abusing the system is terrible.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Lisalisa you make very good points. I am not entirely happy myself with how right wing my views appear to be on this - I used to be so much more liberal. I recoil in horror at the suggestion that anybody (even a druggie welfare mother) should be forced to have an abortion, and yet can see that that is the ultimate extreme of my argument. But the desire and longing to have a child is affected by financial situation for thousands of people every year - I'm one of them.

Pie - I think there is a difference between physically disabled people and learning disabled, in that you fully understand the consequences of your having another child, and have made an informed decision to continue with your unplanned pregancy in the knowledge that although money will be tighter, you will still be able to bring your child up well in a happy environment. I'm not sure that Tracey and Mark had full understanding of what it would mean to have 2 or 3 toddlers, but instead were just looking at the joys of having a lovely little baby. In situations like these where people cannot make truly informed decisions, should somebody not step in and make those informed decisions for them?

Amria luisa - if you are feeling pissed off with the system- try getting something from it!

I am stunned at people's attitudes here. As pie said there is a huge difference between people choosing not to work and live on state benefits (and lets face it if people are managing to live in big houses on state payouts they are probably conning the system) and those claiming disability allowances.

I paid taxes whilst I worked. My husband pays a ludicrous amount in tax and now that I am unable to work becuase of a disabled child I get 90 pounds a week- but and this is the crux- absolutely no access to the services he needs. Why am I unable to work a)becuase he needs full time one to one at nursery. After a mssive fight the LEA agreed to fund one term for 15 hours a week, nothing during holidays. This is open to review every term. He is starting school in September, but becuase the statement will not be ready (and therefore nor will the funding) he will not have an LSA (who will also need to be trained). Therefore he will be starting school for one morning a week. Add into that regular hospital appointments and you begin to see the problem. Now in actual fact I feel that the benefit that I receive (especially when compared to pies 38 quid a week) is pretty generous, but if you think it's an easy ride no- way!

And these arguments always end up being a bit dodgy. I am considering having a third child. That child would be at a higher risk than average of having an autistic spectrum disorder. Should I be allowed to reproduce (bearing in mind I would then get and extra 50 odd quid a week from the state and the cost of extra schooling etc and SALT (ha ha ha if that ever materialises), or should I be sterilised on account of my somewhat dodgy genes?

The advantage of receiving benefits and being able to stay at home with my disbaled child of course is that he does then get some speech and language therpay and some OT etc etc thus increasing his chances of living independently in the future. Your taxes aren't paying for him to have any of those as they are not available. lisalisa's situation is already happening. Your taxes pay for a child with dysfluency to receive 6 sessions of speech therapy. They will not provide that for my son who is now 4, has the lanaguage ability of an 18 month old, and verbal dyspraxia (so no one can understand what he does say) but an IQ that is normal (and above average in certain areas).

Taxes should be used to benefit those who are disadvantaged not as a means of justifying who is allowed to do what.

And if we can afford to spend billions on Tony Blairs personal crusade in Iraq can we not afford to pay for people who are disabled to live as near a normal life as possible.

Message withdrawn

Has this been on before? I have a vague recollection of it....

Prufrock as always the difficulty with the argument is where to draw the line. I believe there was a court case recently where it was decided that the parents of a man who had DS were not allowed to force him to have the snip- it had to be his choice, so in other words the rights of the disabled are protected in law. In fact DS provides a good example of the problems. It is a spectrum condition so the most able would probably be able to understand and cope, the least able wouldn't. I think people with DS are sub-fertile though so it may not be such an issue.

The people I know who have children and cope with help from SS both have autism. This provides another tricky problem. Both parents have high IQ's but are unable to manage their lives independently. Do they fit the definition? Their eldest child is definitely not autistic and teaches them social skills and play skills Seriously parenting for them with help is not a problem, so who is to say they shouldn't have children?

I know some of people with normal IQ's, etc who I would say were unfit parents. I don't think society can say who should and shouldn't be a parent. It's an inbuilt biological urge. No-one has the right to be a parent. On the other hand no-one has the right to dictate who shouldn't be a parent. What society should do is help children who are born to parents unable to cope for whatever reason.

People's inability to afford more children etc has more to do with house prices, than the amount of your tax that goes on helping disavbled people.