Parenting,Child Abuse and Welfare payments

Great Debates
1

Recently in the U.K. we have had a lot of justifiable outrage over two serious child abuse cases.

In one we had a young,very immature and feckless mother whos baby was beaten to death by one of her boyfriends.

In the other we had a not so young mother of seven children(By seven different fathers)who arranged to have a relative organise a fake kidnapping of her young daughter with a view to claiming any subsequent reward money when the child was"found"

Cases like these are sadly quite common in present day Britain.

Both of these "mothers"were proffessional benefit receivers.
There has been endless castigation of the Social Services who had been alerted to the plight of both of these children but who in the event failed to prevent what happened and I totally agree with their public condemnation.
But that is not the point that I wish to raise.

There has been a deafening silence on changing the Welfare system that actually offers financial and other incentives to those least qualified for parenthood.

I.E. The immature, the lazy,those who were “awkward” pupils at school and left without any qualifications and have never worked,drug dependants and alcoholics to name only some of the categories of those IMO unfit for parenthood.
I was told by a Social worker friend that it was considered in the childs best interests to remain with its parents no matter how disfunctional except in the most extreme of circumstances.

Maybe this policy has changed but it doesn’t appear to have.

A young woman on leaving school and pregnant can be assigned social housing(rent paid),have her Council Tax paid and receive welfare payments for at least twelve years.

Not every single mother gets this,I know of one case personally where a young woman deliberately got her self pregnant,pretended to row with her mother at home when the Social Worker was present(So that she would get a council flat) but who on learning that she wouldn’t be housed, immediately had an abortion without consulting her boyfriend (Who I worked with and was livid)
I think that there is a very strong case for refusing ANY welfare assistance to those who quite patently are in no position to support a child financially,those who have a long history of unemployment or of very irregular employment for a start.
Plus those under a certain age where emotional maturity or personal discipline/responsibility is less common.
And yes I do know that there are really mature sixteen olds around but if its my tax money being paid out then I prefer the parents to be a little older.
If people like this insist on having offspring then they should be fostered out/adopted by responsible people or even,worst possible case put into childrens homes.

I suspect that the number of lowlifes who decided to have children would drop dramatically,saving a lot of children a lot of pain in the future.

2

These are complex problems (and we have our share of them in the US) where there are no simple solutions, mainly because young children are involved.

But what about taking on a program to prevent these situations to begin with? If the government would offer $5000 to anyone who agrees to be sterilized. I’m thinking drug addicts, alcoholics, etc would sign right up just to get some cash for their next fix. These are people imo who should not be reproducing anyway. This may sound nazi-like to some and is certainly very radical, but I think it’s worth considering.

3

I’m a liberal’s liberal, but I agree with this. It’s one thing for them to cause problems in society through their own actions and irresponsibilities, but it’s quite another for them to transmit their dysfunction to their own children.

I guess some would argue that by offering money, we’d be exploiting those in desparate situations. But as long as the measures are irreversible and people who sign up are aware of all the risks, I don’t have a problem with this type of exploitation.

4

I am presuming that you are referring to the Baby P case, which seems to be weird, and while it has caused a great deal of public outrage, there is very little that has been made known because of the legal secrecy that has blanketed it. I think what has to happen is that if you are found onc to be an unfit parent, you cannot retrieve the baby, it should be adopted out. The mother/father can no longer have ANY legal claim on the child, and restraining orders should be automatic. Unfit parents should include anyone who was on dope, alcohol, crack etc during the pregnancy, any one who has provably abused the child previously, and the like. What has happened is in the wake of some of the sensational cases where birth mothers have reclaimed infants who were adopted and thriving, many parents who would love to adopt internally have been going abroad for infants, so that reclaiming the child is far more difficult.

Additionally, once one child is removed, removal of additional children should be automatic, unless dramatic changes are proven. Also, home visits should be more regular in these cases.

5

I generally count myself among the anti-welfare, but I must tell you not to pin your hopes on this. In the United States we instituted welfare reform in 1996. Single mothers, with or without jobs, are no longer guaranteed a lifetime stream of welfare payments. Rather, they get payments for a time of one year, then they get cut off for one year, then they can reapply.

But contrary to what some people hoped, this did not drive down the illegitimacy rate. We percentage of out-of-wedlock births has stayed pretty flat since '96.

My take is that it’s more about social values rather than economic motivation. There was a time when we simply expected children to be born in two-parent households. Starting in the 60’s that social norm disintegrated, and by the 90’s it was totally gone. Rewriting the welfare system won’t make it come back. In all probability, nothing will.

But I do think that welfare can’t go on forever. Americans eventually faced the fact that welfare hurts the people who it’s supposed to help. Europeans (and others) will eventually have to face that fact as well.

6

I like the idea of using some of the money that goes into welfare for teaching job skills; I think that if you are from a family where welfare was the mainstay of your support, you may never have learned how to interview properly for a job, do basic office skills, or have basic computer skills. I think that it would be an excellent idea to do some community outreach. I also think that life skills courses in high school that handle these things AND teach some money management skills would be fantastic, and go a long way towards helping poverty-stricken neighborhoods.

7

A few years ago I was in an Arbys at lunch. There were 3 teenage girls eating at the table next to mine. They were laughing and joking with one girl who was pregnant. They were completely accepting . Jokes about eating for 2 were made. But when I was a kid ,that would not have happened. She would have some degree of ostracization. In the 60s a pregnant girl would just disappear. There were special schools for them.

8

My personal ideal is that with a properly applied concept of welfare, it would be possible to be a single mother and complete job training and be productive. Instead of paying money out to people ad infinitum the way that we are now, (I know that welfare has to be reapplied for and all that, but it seems like there are people who are permanently reliant on the system), we would do better to clear up some resources and establish a good daycare (with mandatory enrollment for the child!), and a job training program, and get the mom out to work.

9

You seem to be talking about two different things here. Yes, welfare tends to mostly go to single mothers, but just looking at “illegitimacy” birth rates isn’t going to tell you whether or not welfare reform is working. Out of wedlock doesn’t mean that the mother needs welfare, isn’t getting child support from the father, isn’t living with the father and being supported by him. Plus, I’d say if the “illegitimacy” birth rates aren’t climbing, that is a good thing since birth rates seem to be climbing everywhere else.

In my opinion the best way to tell if welfare reform is working is to see if the birth rate among those on or who have had welfare is dropping.

(Note I have no idea if welfare reform is working or not, I just don’t think you can tell by looking at “illegitimacy” birth rates)

10

Plans are afoot to stop benefit payments when any child reaches the age of 3, it’s currently 16.

There are also plans to scrap the incapacity benefit which is being completely abused along with most other state benefits.

It seems that the new minister (name forgotten) for health and welfare is determined to stamp out this scrounging of the system, whether or not he suceeds is another matter

11

I like this thread. I was just thinking earlier, what if. What if welfare was stopped; what would happen?

12

I couldn’t let this one pass…cite?

13

The same thing that used to happen before welfare? I seem to recall things kind of sucked back then…

14

Yes there are people who abuse the system, but there are people who abuse ANY and ALL systems. That’s why we have prisons, for people who abuse our systems of law.

The DPB (the acronym in my part of the world) is a very useful tool for many and a way to get back into fulltime employment.

I found myself as a widow and single parent at 25. I NEEDED some time to adjust to the whole idea and study to get a job to provide for my child. I was on welfare for about 4 years.

I have been in fulltime employment for many years and my child is now 17. He won school awards in software design and classics recently. If there was no “welfare” (I paid my fair share of taxes so it was not a gift) who knows where we would be.

I know that benefits/welfare have been negative for some people but for many people their intent and purpose holds true.

I like belonging to a society that looks after vulnerable people. Yes some abuse the system but I would rather look after an abuser WHILE looking after a person in need then neglect the person in need.

15

I presume you mean Child Benefit? (Not exactly a sum you’d try to live on.) WIth regards to other benefits such as Income Support, there’s a requirement for single parents to look for work once children reach 12.

16

With the tremendous advancements we have in the drug field, why cannot any nation simply place a universal birth control agent in the public water system and mandate that same water be used in all food perperation and packaging. It would render EVERYONE sterile. Then, if a married couple wanted to have a baby, they could apply for a license. They would be investigated to see if they made enough money and were mentally and socially healthy. They could take a series of mandated classes on child care and parenting. Then they could get the neutralizing injection to permit them to concieve a baby.

Sounds extreme?

What does the present system do?

Oh - nuthin’.

Thats pretty extreme too but on the opposite end. Maybe the solution is somewhere in the middle?

17

Hmm. I think allowing the state to decide who may or may not reproduce might well be problematic.

18

Calm Kiwi you do what you have to do; my objection isn’t to people who need it for a bit to get going- that is why I want to simultaneously contract and expand the program- contract how long someone qualifies for, while expanding what welfare can do. If I were in charge, I would be providing job training, daycare and counseling services, to get folks on their feet and pointed in the right direction.

19

I was indeed meaning CB and agree that the benefit for one child is not enough to live on.

However it is often the case where there are 5, 6 or even more kids being claimed for, in addtion to this recipients normally receive housing benefit along with council tax benefit.

The professional scrounger knows how to milk the system for every penny, and they do just that.

Also: More often than not no child support is being paid by the father of the kids, matter of fact I doubt very much if a lot of these mothers even know who the father is

20

Child Benefit for five kids is just over 80 quid - but more importantly it’s not means tested, so you should also be complaining about all those middle-class families getting a handout they could cope without.

‘More often than not’…‘most’…any evidence to back up this speculation?