This is the opinion of the head of Barnardos, who believes that many more babies, born to families that are deemed to be problem families, should be taken into care at birth.

What do you think?    How would we decide when a family becomes a problem family?   After one or or children are completely out of control?  Or before then?

And who would decide?   Social workers?????

Crikey, thats sweeping.
He/she would perhaps like the breeding family members spayed or castrated too.
They probably need a more 'P C' person for Barnardos 'P R' 

Karen

I think that it's refreshing that someone actually tells it as it is instead of do gooders telling us that we must be PC about things. :)
No idea who is best to make these decisions but I know of a local family who's Mother is not capable of looking after her two children who are now in care and is pregnant again. :(

I do believe some mothers shouldnt be allowed to have more kids.
One family around here is notorious.
There is a 'dan' in every year, thats the saying, as there is a child in every year from the same family and has been for the past 60 years. All the same. All really bad bullys, most had time at her majestys pleasure. Some still terrorising the town and the shop dont do anything . 60 years after I know the first one did
The cycle wil never change.
BUT the questio is, how do you choose who can have kids who cant???????#
There would have to be very stricty guidelines, and very trustworthy people to enforce them.
Thats where the problem arrises :(
Lea :) :)

But how can any body say who can and cant have babies...............
I agree and say myself...it shouldn't be allowed, however, it is just not right, and who indeed can have the right to dictate who may or may not procreate.

Karen :)

I'd like to hear/read the interview in full.  Typically the snippets I've seen so far have been slanted for highest shock value.

I agree with the following comment:

Chief executive Martin Narey explains his view that the current preference for keeping families together is putting vulnerable children in danger

I had some dealings with social services and the adoption and fostering team.  Those I discussed it with have found they've felt 'tied' by the above practise which I think came from a government directive (I'll check...)

Sweeping statement indeed, I have good friends that adopted a child of 6 months, by the time she was 2 they knew they had a problem with her behaviour, they tried everything to give the child a good life, with love, security, and a really good lifestyle, but all to no avail, the child was expelled from numerous schools from an early age either for torturing or killing the school animals, and was/is very manipulative and her first child  was born in prison, she has had numerous children by numerous fathers and they all seem to be following in the same footsteps, so I am afraid I have to agree with the person that mentioned castration, I think I have to agree - sad but necessary :( 
A debate I think for it is nature rather than nurture :(

i actually have extreme views which i know not many will agree with.
i believe girls at the age they reach puberty should have the contraception implant and be refreshed every year until the age of 18, where they would need to see a phsycologist (sp)  to prove they are mentally able to look after a baby and also be physically fit.
if they still prove to be unfit and have a child taken off them, they should never ever be allowed to have another, i also believe unless you can prove you have the finances you should not be allowed to have any more than 2 children. again i know this seems extreme but coming from a family where i was not wanted i believe the for the long term effext on the child is paramount.

they keep having kids because it keeps thier bank balance flowing!!! I have been behind people in the PO collecting thier money and it runs into hundreds of pounds for not one days work SS and family allowance ..the first time I saw this I was flabbergasted ... for 'making babies' my opinion ...
I am not aiming this at people finding themselves in a position where they are out of work but those who ..have never worked a day but have 6 kids and holidays in Spain!!

> i actually have extreme views which i know not many will agree with.
>

I agree with the idea of some sort of control.  I've often seen people with kids, that should never, ever be allowed to breed.

>I've often seen people with kids, that should never, ever be allowed to breed.

While I can agree with this statement, there is a world of difference between thinking it and putting it into practise ;)

Once the remit is there for someone from 'welfare' to decide who can and cannot keep their children - or even have them in the first place, how does it end?   Have read today of parents being threatened (and in some cases the threat is carried out) with having their children put into care because they questioned the medical profession over treatment of their children  - this has led to needless heartache. 

Then there was the 'Orkney Case' where people were falsely accused, children removed, examined intimately and put into care - very distressing for both parents and children, and nothing was ever found!  

Personally, I think the checks and balances are already in place - they just need to be implemented in the correct way by people who are suitably trained ;)  

I'm assuming that the head of Barnardos was commenting on the case of the two boys currently in court?   So he was bound to be using strong wording ;)    Unfortunately the authorities were well aware of these two boys and their situation, but nothing was done - according to the Times  :(

> A debate I think for it is nature rather than nurture :(

Well those of us who breed animals know full well that many behavioural and character traits are inherited.

From a human perspective my son never new his Father at all, yet he has so many of his character and behavioural traits and the same addictive personality yet never set eyes on his sire more than twice in his life and that when already almost adult.

I am so thankful that we can practise selective breeding.  Certainly people who have had several children taken away should not have any more, but how would we go about it.

> i believe girls at the age they reach puberty should have the contraception implant and be refreshed every year until the age of 18,

I think this is almost a policy if my local health authority are anything to go by.

They were pushing the injection on my daughter and her friends that were on the pill, but as I knew she was very sensible and used her contraceptive carefully (she is nearly 22 now and on second long term boyfriend) I worried about the possible effect on future fertility of something as long acting as the injectable contraceptive.

I would agree though that perhaps your right on this one, there is no need for any young woman under 18 to have a child (my own Mum was a month short of 17 when I was born)..

>I worried about the possible effect on future fertility of something as long acting as the injectable contraceptive.

For health reasons I don't think many of us would use hormone therapy to prevent our bitches having unwanted litters until they were more mature, so why on earth would we want to put our daughters at even greater (because the treatment would last many more years) risk?

> For health reasons I don't think many of us would use hormone therapy to prevent our bitches having unwanted litters until they were more mature, so why on earth would we want to put our daughters at even greater (because the treatment would last many more years) risk?

This was the reason I was not hapy with staying on the pill longer than neccesary, and opted for the most reliable female mechanical method as soon as I had my first child.  But even that is now combined in some versiosn with hgormones, adn I opted for the old fashioned version this time around.

Coming for a very fertile female line I wanted the most reliable methods available.

I think the value of abstinence needs to be pushed, but failing that teh best contraception available..

you only have to look around on any high stret to see that its the ones who are continuously breeding who prob shouldnt be!!! if they were dogs they wouldnt pass even the most basic health test!!! LOL

Crikey, thats sweeping.
He/she would perhaps like the breeding family members spayed or castrated too.


having seem some of the inter-council estate cultural brainwashing that goes on throughout the generations, i have to admit at sometimes having this thought myself.

I agree with him, there are some families that are unable to give their children a good life. I think that in certain families it is in the children's best interest to be given the chance of a better life. I would not wish to be associated with that decison the "authorities" would have to be 110% sure, but hand on heart some kids will never amount to much because their parents are too ignorant to give them that life and children are produced to get more income support. IMO.

I agree my two were bought up by me and later by my OH & I. I see a lot of him in them and a lot of my OH so I think its a bit of both.

I think if the parents, particularly the mother are incapable of looking after a child and giving the adeqate care and attention it needs then yes, they should be removed and put into foster care/adoption as early as possible before the damage is done. Better than that would  be if these women weren't able to concieve. Babies (newborns) are born completely innocent and should remain so. Not subject to drug/alcohol dependant mothers or abusive violent relationships in the home.
A lot of issues in society and in the education system at present are largely due to the dreadful home lives some youngsters endure

> i believe girls at the age they reach puberty should have the contraception implant

So they all end up with STD's and the tax payer has to fund their expensive IVF treatments !!
They can't get off their backsides to get FREE condoms , so why would they take the trouble to go for an appointment for an implant .
Maybe we should make it that they recieve their benefits in cash on the way out of the implant appointment , and hold the clinic in the booze and fag section of the local Tesco , whilst showing Jeremy Kyle on a big flat screened TV in the waiting room .

 

I think to address this the Government need to police TV and music more . Kids are too s@xualised these days .
I haven't watched Corrie and Eastenders for years due to the content . The content of song lyrics and some music videos is disgusting , i don't know how they get away with it .

> So they all end up with STD's and the tax payer has to fund their expensive IVF treatments !!
> They can't get off their backsides to get FREE condoms , so why would they take the trouble to go for an appointment for an implant .
> Maybe we should make it that they recieve their benefits in cash on the way out of the implant appointment , and hold the clinic in the booze and fag section of the local Tesco , whilst showing Jeremy Kyle on a big flat screened TV in the waiting room .
>

the thing is your paying for them as it is for std's and for the welfare of their children so surely a preventative measure is better?
if it was enforced they wouldnt be making appointments it would be like the nit nurse coming in and giving the implant into the arm.

this is all pie in the sky as people will scream human rights, but what about the human rights of the baby whi is born to a 14 year old or someone dependant on drugs or alcohol?

and yes it is extreme and i know people wont agree but i think its too easy to be a parent, its the biggest responsibility anyone will ever have yet anyone can have a baby

I know there are a lot of bad parents out there, lots who let their kids run wild, lots who drink or take drugs and are not there for those children. Violent parents, so many different types of bad parent out there, and when known about these types of suffering children are often rescued and then what fostered, put in homes, where life can be just as bad, passed from pillar to post, if lucky adopted?

I can't help but think of that show SHAMELESS with the forever drunken dad, useless dad, but he still loves his kids and they still love him, a family like that would want to stay together, not be split up in homes etc, and they would fight to keep a baby.

There is this heart-wrenching maternal instinct in me that thinks it is wrong to take someones babies away at birth because human error will make mistakes, mothers who could 'make it' will loose their children, some who should not be given the chance will end up keeping them, mistakes are always made on both sides. I know some people are not good mothers and do not have a maternal bone in their body, I can't understand that. I feel terribly upset to read of cases where babies are taken at birth from the mother, often against their will. It feels wrong to me. I just can't agree with it. I'd rather persist with the help of social workers, parenting classes and child psychologists, maybe even second 'fostering' homes for a child to go to if they wish, but I do believe it should be a childs choice and not a third parties.

I don't know the answer because we can't force someone to take contraceptives either, we can stop money, we could only pay for the first 2 children born, it may have some effect on births, it may not?

But, I think we need an army of social workers, we don't have enough, they have too many case loads and not enough time, we need more training, more child psychologists. Taking away babies from their blood isn't an option for me, unless a child is in danger.

> it would be like the nit nurse coming in and giving the implant into the arm.
>
>

But that is enforced medication which is wrong .What about those that medically can't have hormonal contraception ?And why should the girls be the ones to have it ? It is bad enough that it is only the girls being injected with the anti-cervical cancer jab .
Condoms stop pregnancy AND STD's .

What we need to stop is that these kids feel the need to start so young .IMO it is the s@xualisation of CHILDREN by the media/TV/music/clothes shops /make-up aimed at kids etc . Also the lure of the benefit system .

> What we need to stop is that these kids feel the need to start so young .IMO it is the s@xualisation of CHILDREN by the media/TV/music/clothes shops /make-up aimed at kids etc . Also the lure of the benefit system .

i agree but that will never change its just how it is these days, and yes enforcing a woman to have contraception is wrong but so is a child having a baby

> enforcing a woman to have contraception is wrong but so is a child having a baby

Who says it is wrong ? Society ? You ?
Nature doesn't say it is wrong .

> Who says it is wrong ? Society ? You ?
> Nature doesn't say it is wrong

i dont undestand what your saying?

are you saying just because we are sexually mature to have childrean at sometimes as a=early as 11 or 12 does this mean its right?
how is a child mentally or indeed physically mature to have a baby?
i understand this is a debate but that is something that just cannot be argued about, a child of that age is not capable of bringing up a child correctly.

> i dont undestand what your saying?

You said that it is wrong for a child to have a baby , but wrong in who's eyes ? Society ? Church ?

As a society we have decided that it is too early  but the body hasn't .  I agree that they shouldn't be having children so young , but i also believe that everyone should have a fulfilling career and travel the world before they have kids , but that is my opinion . 

> a child of that age is not capable of bringing up a child correctly.

No , so the Grandparents are usually saddled with that responsibility .

I am ducking out of this one now as there is no right answer and everyone is entitled to an opinion .

> Who says it is wrong ? Society ? You ?
> Nature doesn't say it is wrong .
>

Hooray for a sensible attitude.
Karen  :)

> Who says it is wrong ? Society ? You ?
> Nature doesn't say it is wrong .
>

>Hooray for a sensible attitude.
>Karen  

Society says it's wrong certainly not nature, but it hasn't always been that way. For example it is quite likely that when Jesus was born Mary was a girl of 14 or 15 perhaps even younger.

I don't believe that any sort of compulsory birth control is right who decides who has the right to have children, just because someone has a poor emotionally or financially background doesn't mean they will be a bad parent.  If you want to control benefits then restrict the number of children you get benefits for or restrict what you can use benefits for eg you could always provide food vouchers that cannot be used for alcohol etc

Certainly it should be possible to only pay for the existing children when someone is already on benefits (including an existing pregnancy).

Of course what happens with someone going off benefits and coming back on again with more children?

If we want to go down the restricting of benefits I suspect the only way to do it is to say benefits are only available for say 4 children, if you want more than 4 children you have to pay for them.  You would of course have to put safe guards in place for example providing food vouchers etc that could only be spent on food.

Going back to the original point of this thread, social services do already take children at birth from people who have been proved unable to look after their children.  A friend of mine fosters and she currently has a baby who was taken at birth from her mother.

> social services do already take children at birth from people who have been proved unable to look after their children.

This certainly was the case in the 80's as I worked in supplementary Benefits and we had one woman on the books who was pregnant every year and the babies taken away.

sometimes single mums are better off on benefits say for 4 kids than she would be working, because of the childcare costs. and they are actually out if pocket when working and struggling to cope. Whats better a mum thats there to look after the kids or a stressed out mum trying to make end meet but is never there to actually be a mum.

A person should only have enough children that they can afford!  My parents planned each child and weight up the costs etc.  Children are a privelage, not a right.  I personally think you should only get benefits and subsidies for your first 2 children (enough to replace the parents/workforce), after that the parents are on their own.  These are just my own personal opinions and I appreciate that they may be quite extreme.

no your opinion is fair, but say that this child was concieved would it be aborted just because they cant afford it? I dont agree

>  I personally think you should only get benefits and subsidies for your first 2 children (enough to replace the parents/workforce), after that the parents are on their own.

The problem with this of course is that it's the children who would suffer if the parents don't have the ability to feed and clothe them.

Personnally the reason we are on this earth is to reproduce. we are after all animals.  Therefore its our lifes wirth to look after the next generation, and its our kids that are the most important. I know not everyone shares this view, but those are the ones that shouldnt be having kids so it doesnt matter.

Why pump 14 year old full of hormones when we can teach them how to have sex responsibly becuase being a parent is the most valuable experience in life and when your ready for that big leap you want to do everything possible for that child, so why bring a baby into something that isnt the best it could possibly be. Raise these childrens beliefs and open their outlook of life.

Raise these childrens beliefs and open their outlook of life.

Sounds great but that's not possible in cases where their parental role models are non-workers (as opposed to unemployed!) are 2nd and 3rd generation living on benefits, smoke, drink to excess, are unable to have a conversation without swearing at their children and each other, who haven't got any qualifications for a reasonable job, and do little to teach their children anothing other than the more children they produce, the more money WE will give them and the more they can spend to p*$$ up the wall! 

There are more and more families like this than there have every been because our benefit system is too generaous for those sort of people and too tight for decent families who find themselves in temporary hardship. :(

It's time that something is done about it to break the cycle... :( :(

Nobody would vote for me!  I'd pay for utilities - no phone - and supply food parcels (not vouchers, they'd be abused!) and supermarket clothes - which I wear before anyone calls them second class citizens! :)  If they want anything else other than basic living (booze, cigarettes, phone) then they need to get off their backsides and get it for themselves. :)

Id vote for you aslong as you included something doggy in your legislation.

Vouchers all the way, for fruit n veg, kids clothes and books, day trips and activity vouchers (swimming lessons, trips to the zoo etc etc) and they could touch the trust fund either that would be saved until university. No alcohol, drugs, cigarettes.

> I personally think you should only get benefits and subsidies for your first 2 children (enough to replace the parents/workforce), after that the parents are on their own. 

Of course the family may suffer a severe change in circumstances through ill health/job loss, despite their planning.
We have 3 children, we get the child benefit to which everyone is entitled but we never have spare cash, once the mortgage, bills, food costs are covered - I can never understand how anyone says they benefit financially by having more children! We could not possibly afford to have any more!

>once the mortgage, bills, food costs are covered

Those on longterm benefits who have no intention of getting a job have their housing costs (rent/mortgage and council tax) paid.

Anybody watch Benefit Busters on Thursday evenings?  It shows some who are desperate to get back to work and others who have absolutely no intention!  Saw one (nice) man given £90, yes £90 to buy clothes to go to an interview for a gardening job last week!  Most working people couldn't afford to spend that!

Those on longterm benefits who have no intention of getting a job have their housing costs (rent/mortgage and council tax) paid.
Yep.  I know a woman with 5 children by 5 different Fathers, only 2 at home, who has never worked.   She's given money to have her fence repaired, for new carpet, she smokes, drinks, has her nails done, hair coloured at the shop and runs a Ford Ka!  Something is wrong with our system. 

We should be helping those who need help, not those who know how to work the system! :(

> She's given money to have her fence repaired, for new carpet, she smokes, drinks, has her nails done, hair coloured at the shop and runs a Ford Ka!  Something is wrong with our system. 
>

Yes something is seriously wrong then. We can't afford to smoke, drink, go out for a meal, go on foreign holidays, etc etc because the family earnings are all spoken for supporting the children, I did not even know rent and council tax is paid for if you have no job.

Forgot to say that she also enrols for loads of Adult Education classes for free (that many of us couldn't afford as they're really expensive these days!) then goes to one class and decides that she's not interested and doesn't go again.  I know 2 tutors who have given up teaching because they are loosing more than half their class students for the same reason. :(

go out for a meal
Her boys are taken to KFC or McDs at least once a week!

I'm all for Mothers staying at home to put time in to their children but those are not the ones who cause trouble. :(

> A person should only have enough children that they can afford! 

Ah but what happens when life throws changes into the equation.

I planned my children, but didn't expect to end up being a single parent.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211878/Mac-bad-parents.html

:)