18 kids and counting C4 tonight (9pm 10/12/2015)

[seasidesally]

new episode shall we have a thread about it ??

I'm going off track here but I remember watching the run up to one of the Duggar girls getting married. They had a girly outing to choose a dress and Michelle read out an emotional speech which made me (and everyone there by the look of it) cringe. I could barely watch it.

the dugger want to adopt now I think.

their lifestyle is unbelievably abusive I can't believe there are no external agencies involved.

The Duggar family said children's services were happy to leave the children in their care. Jessa, I think even picked out a small part of the report that suggested the parents went above and beyond. I gather there were recent dealings with children's services as well and the children are all still in the family of origin.

I doubt they will be approved for adoption.

I bet if it wasnt religion related they'd have removed them.years ago

The Duggars are a law onto themselves. They live in Arkansas which is Bible belt-ish. The police officer who "reprimanded" Josh Duggar for molesting 5 minors was done for child pornography!

Michelle is such an attention seeker. At Jill's wedding Michelle made an "exhibition" of her wedding dress for guests to view. It was only for the fact that she couldn't fit into it otherwise she wanted to wear it herself.

They are a very exaggerated version of some adults I know who were adopted. Both started their families young (though not as young and by no means had as many children).

I can't fucking stand the Radfords. Personally I think having that many children is neglectful.

I totally agree chipped, again it's another form of hoarding. Just because you are able to have that many kids does not mean you shoukd. The children are not getting much quality time, the environment chaotic and noisy, which can impact on psychological health.

My dd has ASD and would hate that environment, it woukd make her behaviour worse. What if they have a child with ASD who hates it, what are they going to do.

Aero I doubt they would even notice.
I wonder if they still lock the kids in their rooms at night?

I wonder chipped, I think they did on the very first programme, but I don't know if they do now. On the very first programme, the dad said that they lock them in at night.

I imagine they had a lot of negative publicity about that. They're probably a lot cleverer about what they allow to be shown now.

This might sound odd, but in a way I don't understand why social services aren't involved.

Firstly very young mother originally. Both parents in care system. Then things shown on programme that show difficulty in coping eg 'Redford time' (being late to school all the time), locking children in bedrooms.

Surely there's a maximum limit per parent of capacity to care adequately for their own birth children? Like I know locally a single mum with 6 and on the birth of the 7th, lots of intervention started/ stepped up for this reason. I mean a pre school/ school the ratio of adults to children would be higher. And adoption/ fostering wise the max would be 4/5 across this age range (starting at newborn and 3 others under 5).

I don't understand why they are allowed to continue with no outside involvement. I mean every time she is pregnant and it is number 'teen' something alarm bells would ring and first birth at age 14.

Is the publicity almost serving to protect them (a bit like we've seen before with acting in plain sight).

Thing is, london, social services aren't going to get involved with a family where all the children are fed and bathed and clothed and attend school. Emotional neglect through having such an enormous number of kids just isn't a safeguarding issue. It's a problem, obviously, but plenty of children have inattentive parents, and they aren't necessarily one of 18.

london I wouldn't be surprised if Social Services were involved, but we're not going to be told about it.

A bit like the Geldof children and sadly Peaches own sons, I'd be amazed if there hadn't been social services involvement but we're never going to know either way.

I agree with Vague. I don't think social services would necessarily be involved with this family.

It's possible they are though. they joke about "radford time"

but surely with the way things are now the late arrivals have been noted and referred to EWOs

Sue got a lot of support from her Mum when the children were small (3 days per week) I also read an article where Sue said she had a Nanny. Now they are older the older ones help out. SS don't have enough resources to remove all children from homes where abuse/neglect are confirmed, so I very much doubt they are even under their radar.

The lack of punctuality I imagine would be a problem in school. It seems that they are 20 minutes late rather than 2, which if happening regularly at my dc's school would warrant a visit from an EWO.

Someone upthread said that they would be refused as foster carers due to the age they had their first child (Sue was underage) Is that speculation or is that a rule?