Unfit parents.

[anais]

Is anyone watching this? Any thoughts?

Yes, it is bloody hard to get anything from the state because there are limited resources and it annoys me that people living on benefits and having kids don't seem to grasp this.

I'm frightened by how Southern Baptist/Newt Gingrich I'm getting, but I don't believe anyone has a "right" to a child/children. Yes, Nye Bevan's vision was that the welfare state would help those who couldn't help themselves, but I sincerely believe that the Welfare State was not created so that people could demand their "rights" but take no responsibility for their choices, which is happening. At the moment I'm interviewing low income families in one of the most deprived areas of the country; yesterday a pregnant mother was complaining that the council wouldn't allow her a further school uniform grant and that her son needed shoes. She got him to show me the blisters on his feet. Despite the fact that her child is desperate for shoes she was chain-smoking, had a vast array of electrical goods and Sky TV. Now, fine, i'm not saying she shouldn't have these things but I do think she should see to her child's needs before splashing out on fags and Tv, she is given money (yes, I know it's a tiny amount) to do this.

Children growing up in desperately poor families are often not very happy and not very well-parented and i do think at some point we need to face up to some very hard decisions about what the state can provide and what it can't.

Message withdrawn

I know I said I would stay out of this, but just one more comment, prufrock, I agree that in the case of the parents in the programme, their kid(s) would probably not benefit from them becoming a large family and that they would need guidance on this. But this is because of their individual capabilites rather than money, which is where this debate ended up going!

Ok, I've shown my mum this thread, so I'm off.

marialuisa- I can understand why that annoys you- but it's not the same arguement to withold money from disabled people, or to decide who can and can't reproduce. It is totally different.

I believe that in the States (which I'm not holding up as a shining example of a welfare state!) after so long on benefits you are forced to take a job to get them (the job is found for you). Maybe something like that would work here. You can only have benefits if you do some sort of community service. Wouldn't it also provide training etc? Of course this is a totally simplistic idea but would perhaps be a place to start.

Yes, there is a difference when people are disabled, but Tracey and mark's attitude "we want another child" is no different to that of the people I'm dealing with. I do not believe that their attitude is OK because they are unable to work rather than choosing not to.

I think the system in the states is "voluntary", the women get paid to be sterilised, but I do think that there are situations when someone needs to say "you are not an adequate parent, we are not prepared to support you indefinitely".

I've noticed that the uni library still keeps "Eugenics Quarterly", even I'm not suggesting we go down that path! It's more that I think a time is coming when we as a country need to explore what and who we are prepared to support and why.

not particularily wanting to get involved in this discussion (interesting though it is) can I just add to Jimjam's last point.

"I believe that in the States (which I'm not holding up as a shining example of a welfare state!) after so long on benefits you are forced to take a job to get them (the job is found for you). "

I don't know if any of you have seen Michael Moores documentary "Bowling for Columbine" - it features the 6 yr old boy who shot dead a 6 yr old classmate after finding a gun in his uncles house. Digging into the background it becomes clear that the boy's mother was longterm unemployed and had been forced to take a two state-provided jobs to make ends meet. This entailed her taking a bus at 6:00 am to an upper class district 1 hr away, not returning until her children were asleep - not exactly a shining examply of how forcing a job on someone works, and yet another arguement for the fact that although there are spongers out there, this should not effect the level of benefits available to them as then genuine cases will also get left out in the cold. I feel for that poor mother, being unable to see her children often yet she was the one blamed for her son's actions.

I knew there was a reason it couldn't work eefs!

eefs, if you know anything at all about Michael Moore you will know he was making the point that access to guns in America is ludicrously easy and that is why gun related deaths are so high.Not trying to criticise but it's a very tenuous link you must agree ? Do you really think the fact that the mother was forced to work was the cause of this death ? is the cause of death not the fact that the boy's uncle had a loaded f***g GUN in his house ???????get real.

phew, i was afraid that it would come out all arguementative in cold print, showed me how hard it is to put forward a potentially controversial point without offending. Thanks for not getting narked Jimjams

emm, yes donnie i do agree that the reason that the little boy shot his clasmate was because he got access to a loaded gun. Is it the access to loaded guns that is the cause of America's huge murder rate - well I though that was the point of the documentary - Michael Moore made the point that Canada has as much access to guns - the Canadian murder rate is wonderfully low so there are obviously other factors involved.
That was not the point I was trying to make - My point: forcing people to take a job because they have been on benefits for "too long" is not necessarily a solution.

No not narked at all eefs. Actually I think it's illustrated a good point- if you try and withold benefits in order to force people to accept responsibility then someone usually ends up damaged (often the children). I would say that a big big problem in the UK is the gap between rich and poor. Unfortunatelty the people who carry the most burden for supporting the poor are the middle classes. No idea how you could get the super rich to accept their reponsibility though.

I reckon that society has a duty to support everyone. Witholding benefits from a dodgy family actually just means that the children suffer. It's not their fault that they were born into a dodgy family.

emm, yes donnie i do agree that the reason that the little boy shot his clasmate was because he got access to a loaded gun. Is it the access to loaded guns that is the cause of America's huge murder rate - well I though that was the point of the documentary - Michael Moore made the point that Canada has as much access to guns - the Canadian murder rate is wonderfully low so there are obviously other factors involved.
That was not the point I was trying to make - My point: forcing people to take a job because they have been on benefits for "too long" is not necessarily a solution.

jimjams the answer is simple - TAX THE RICH !! TAX THEIR BACKSIDES OFF !!!! Oh dear, don't get me started on this one.......gonna crawl under a stone now and just not go there !!!!!

THEY ALREADY DO DONNIE, THEY ALREADY DO.

Actually I wouldn't mind a slightly higher rate of tax if at the same time they exempted childcare from taxable pay. I have a well paid job which I enjoy, but will probably have to give up once I have two kids as I would be working long hours in stressful job for less than £500/month. So I miss out on extra money, the governemnt loses £1,000 month in tax from me and teh nursery I use loses customers - which will eventually lead to fewer jobs for nursery workers - how does that make sense.

I'm talking about the super rich prufrock ( Alfred J ? ) not people like you. The simple fact of the matter is that people who have huge wealth and loads of money should be taxed more. And while I'm on the subject - even though I said I wouldn't get started - want to know what REALLY GETS MY GOAT ??? tax exiles who try and keep their finger in the pie. Sean Connery is a prime example, always droning on about Scottish politics and how the SNP should be elected while he's living the life of tax free riley in Monaco or somewhere. HAH!!! anyway mumsnetters I humbly apologise for hijacking this thread and am now off to self flagellate, if that is the correct spelling.

No prufrock they don't! The 40% band is now set too low- so in other words it hits "normal" families hard. How can it be right that they are paying the same rate as the super super rich. Of course they will never be able to tax the super-rich because they'll always have little schemes in place to make sure they don't have to pay it.

Stamp duty is another example where the tax regime is out of step with cost of living.

I really don't think there can be a just and ethical conclusion to this.

I would though like to see State Nurseries set up where children are educated and parents are forced to work (inflamatory) but I think that the Government would benefit and society would also - children from poorer homes (and I am not saying they aren't intelligent) would probably get a better upbringing in their formative years and the moeny that these people are earning is going to be taxed so that could be used to fund this system. People should also have access to state nurseries if they are working - as I am - and are not on benefit, maybe at a subsidised rate.

I do sympathise with the lack of help people with disabled (sorry if not right word) children get and would quite happily cap the amount of children a single mother living on benefit could have if it meant that more worthy (and I am sure you understand what I mean by that) causes were funded adequatly.

At some point we have to be responsible and if that means not allowing these people to take advantage so be it.

Boe there are nurseries like the one you describe set up by social services that take children from birth to five years from families who find it difficult to cope and like the couple described in the programme.

Would be nice if they were there for the rest of us also!!

Think that people - unless there is a reason they cannot work should be made aware, somehow, that benefit is not a money pit and it has to stop somewhere.

Make people do community service - it would help the community, hopefully give the claiment a sense of responsibility and worth and make then in a way earn what they are getting.

Bit right wing but we all find it hard to make ends meet and I really believe that people are all too ready to abuse the system to the detriment of people like pie or jimjams.

Probably an infringement of their human rights somewhere along the line though!!

I don't know when to stop

I was talking to my mum about this and she said she had heard about the program maria mentions when there is forceable sterlisation for crack addicts.

I've just looked it up here and this is the actual thing as no state can force sterlisation as it is seen as a violation of the constitution.

What this organisation does it pay addicts $200 to get their tubes tied or take long term birth control.

To me its a bit like saying no program is ever gonna work, you'll always be an addict and you should never have children. Anyway aren't they just paying for $200 of crack???

From what I can gather from my American friends its causing a huge amount of controversy.

Sorry to side line the debate, just wanted to see if there was any place that did as maria said.

I watched the programme with a growing sense of unease, & agree with prufrock & marialuisa. Much talk of "rights" but only one mention of responsibilities. How can a couple who clearly cannot look after themselves without a huge support network, go on to have more children?

I thought the programme itself would have been better had they filmed it over a longer period- I wondered too how they will cope when Lewis is mobile/answering back/going to school.

Tracey seemed a very loving mum, but it was clear that she just could not cope with reasoning in the way that everyone else does. She'd say yes she understood, but then argue- like having Mark in the room for the hearing test- they must have explained 4 times why he couldn't be there, yet at the end she was still "demanding" he be there. She seemed to think people were getting at her, even when the FPC explained that they would say the same thing to anyone- not just her with a learning disability. She objected to being told what she could buy but didn't seem to be able to grasp that "normal" people can't just have everything they want either.

I also don't agree with the huge cost in keeping this family- 5 full-time support at £15000 each? but can see from the later posts where this logic ends up... no I don't know what the answer is either.

I would be interested in seeing an update, especially if they did manage to have another baby.

It is a tricky one this. The only thing I really disagree with in this discussion is the idea that disabled people are somehow getting loads from the system. The truth is they aren't. They are some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in society.

Another local example. A very good and very helpful scheme is portage. Visits are made to disbaled pre-school children once a week and a home programme is set up for parents to do at home. With good portage workers it is a lifeline for parents. Recently the type of family taken on by portage has increased to include those in sure start areas (in other words they now visit disadvantage children in poor areas- especially to implement help with behavioural problems and improve parenting skills). All very helpful - and all necessary. BUT the scheme hasn't been extended. In other words sessions have been taken off disabled children to help the disadvantaged. Why couldn't the scheme have been extended, rather than taking off one vulnerable group to give to another.

You see a similar problem with asylum seekers (and this problem is now reaching crisis point in so many ways). Of course there are genuine asylum seekers and as a rich country we should accomodate those whose lives are at risk. But economic migrants are giving al asylum seekers a bad name, and the backlash is affecting all, not just those who come seeking benefits or work or whatever. It's a tricky one though because where do you draw the line?

i don't see what is so wrong with being an economic migrant. for the most part they want better lives for themselves and their kids, and why not? and in many of the countries they come from even the limited facilities which frustrate you so much are an unattainable fantasy.

bossykate- I was using it as an example of a tricky situation. When I said it was reaching crisis point I meant in many different ways and in the ways these people are perceived in society. For example the majority of people I know on benefits (generally the older generation) pretty much hate asylum seekers. I hear more and more ridiculous stories which obviously aren't true - "they all carry mobile phones you know", "they're keeping that flat for asylum seekers and they're getting all new furniture" etc etc. And I currently live in an area where there are very few asylum seekers and there is no reason for it to be a local problem (when I lived in Kent it was a problem for local authorities- just because of sheer numbers). It's getting to the point where a group is being targetted- probably unfairly.

The reason I used asylum seekers as a particular example is becuase it is all about knowing where to draw the line. We can't afford to provide for Europe, but you have to be very careful about deciding who is genuine and who isn't. You tend to find that anyone who has paid taxes, and then tried to access a service is anti economic migrants. They can't get services and unfortunately services are taken from the vulnerable to provide for other vulnerable groups- therefore rightly or wrongly they become target for people's misgivings. Personally I would have preferred to see the money spent on Iraq being used to rebuild/provide help forthese people allowing them to stay in their own country. Surely it's got to be better than ending up in some sink estate surrounded by poverty.

If people were able to access the help and support they needed from health, education and social services I doubt they would begrudge anyone entering the country. But they can't and so grudges grow and it is getting to the point where it is a problem. I do believe that someone who's life is at risk has an absolute claim to settle here and that should be recognised and they should be given all the necessary help to get settled in this society. However if someone chooses to leave thier country in order to find work then no I'm not sure they should be given a lot of handouts. The NHS can't provide for people who have paid for it for years, the state education system is failing in many areas, social services is at crisis point, is taking on more people sensible?

maybe it is just that the money available is being spent incorrectly but that's another argument.