She has 15 kids and on the public dole

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by charles brough

I agree.

Sophia 8 doesn't think there there is a wellfare mother problem at all. LionKing indicates it is supported by demographics. Rangan thinks welfare mothers don't have more kids than rich people. And Bookitty believes all kids should spend as much resources at rich kids do.

Shuize, do you think I should take all that seriously and try to deal with it or shall we just go on to another thread?

How did you get that from a comparison of different resources used by different social classes based on wealth?

No seriously. How did you?

[MNBrant]

Originally Posted by sophia8

Facts and figures, please. Not just your opinion.

The mother of my best friend in grade school had 14 kids. Professional welfare mom. Almost all of them were Native American, but most of them didn't have enough native blood to draw a stipend from the government. This was back in the 70's though. I dont think it is quite as easy to be a professional welfare mom these days.

[Joecool]

Originally Posted by charles brough

Its a Florida case. A young woman lives alone with her fifteen kids all supported by the taxpayer, and she is pregnant again. Some of the older ones are a neighborhood nusance and cause trouble. The police come and she and her kids scream at them and won't talk with them about the problem. She threatens to sue for being "mishandled."

Without quibbling over the details, is such a situation acceptable? All the kids are being turned against the system that is supporting them. The girls would tend to grow up and live just like their mother. The boys would grow up impregnateing other females and too often tend to build a criminal record. Over time, this pattern has been expanding like a cancer to society.

What in our secular and Christian ideological system keeps us from ending this?
I propose that our secular system has grown over-humanistic. I think a real-world solution would be to sterilize such a women after the second child.

When Bill Clinton was president, congress passed a time limit on cash welfare.
There's a 60 month limit:

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/60month.pdf

[DragonLady]

I'm sad to see the lack of compassion for this woman and her children.

Someone mentioned the low price of condoms, but I ask: what difference does it make how much they cost if her husband or boyfriend won't wear the damn things? And speaking of the men in this situation, supposedly there are three. One is in jail; where are the other two? And why hasn't anyone suggested castrating them? She is near the end of her child-bearing ability, but between them those three men might make six million more they can't or don't support.

I also feel badly for the way the social services are treating her. I know full-well the kinds of "hoops and hassles" they put women through in these situations, and don't blame her one bit for having a meltdown over it. They're even refusing to let her visit her kids without what is apparently a long (and probably entirely impossible) list of demands.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

what difference does it make how much they cost if her husband or boyfriend won't wear the damn things? ....
.... They're even refusing to let her visit her kids without what is apparently a long (and probably entirely impossible) list of demands.

If her partner won't use a condom, she should refuse to keep playing. Saying her partner won't use one is no excuse for going ahead and getting pregnant yet again.

What are a couple of the impossible demands?

[DragonLady]

Quote:

If her partner won't use a condom, she should refuse to keep playing. Saying her partner won't use one is no excuse for going ahead and getting pregnant yet again.

What a quick and easy thought that is! But...not very real world for people in her position, IMO.

"Look, Bitch, either roll over here and give me what I want, or I go find someone else -and you and all (five, six, seven, eight...) of these kids can go find someone else to put up with your crap."

or worse -I wouldn't rule out phsyical abuse and rape. Of course, she doesnt call it rape, 'cause she loves him.

or even worse -he's the kind of jerk who wears a condom, then slips the damn thing off when she's at the height of passion and has forgotten why it was important.

Quote:

What are a couple of the impossible demands?

Well, I'm not there. But I grew up in foster care, and have seen first hand how hard they make it for parents to get their kids back. I'm guessing the state is probably recieving $1,000 or more dollars per kid per month right now for keeping them - which is probably $9,000 more per month than she ever would if she were getting welfare, so they have quite the incentive.

But impossible demands typically include:

mailing out a request that she appear at a hearing on the day after said hearing, so she gets it a day or two after it's over. Then penalizing her for failing to follow through.

demanding that she only visit the children on weekday mornings. When they're in school. Then making her out to look like an unfit mother if she actually expects to see them. After all, they can't possibly pull one out of school for an hour, now can they? What kind of parent would even ask for such a thing?

expecting her to find a job, work full-time, and find a place to live and move in, but simultaneously expecting her to attend hearings, visit a shrink, attend parenting classes, visit the kids, fill out piles and piles and piles of paperwork, etc, etc...knowing fully well she cannot possibly comply with all of it.

You can see on one of those videos where her lawyer brings it up: her concern that the more she complies, the more they demand, and the social worker told her that if she wanted a visit she would have to play by their rules. They just didn't publicly admit they have 167,676,977,797 rules, and her failing to comply with one of them will be broadcast far and wide as failure to comply, period.

You can Google CPS abuses, and find long laundry lists of the different ways it's done. In the end, parents always look like Billy goats, CPS always looks like they're "doing everything humanly possible" and the kids stay in foster care until their parents don't know who they are anymore.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

What a quick and easy thought that is! But...not very real world for people in her position, IMO..

I'm sorry, but after 15 kids and no means of supporting them without public assistance, I think we are not out of line to start calling her out on her lack of responsibility.

Now, you can call it "not realistic" to tell her that she needs to keep her pants on, but that's obviously what is needed.

The "poor victim" excuse ran thin maybe 5 kids ago.

[Joecool]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

I'm sad to see the lack of compassion for this woman and her children.

Someone mentioned the low price of condoms, but I ask: what difference does it make how much they cost if her husband or boyfriend won't wear the damn things?

And she probably loved these men. But you can love these men all you want without necessarily making babies with them.

[xjx388]

DragonLady: I agree that the men are just as responsible as she is.

However, I can't agree with much else. All parties involved should have exercised responsibility. It is not wrong to call her out. I do sympathize but 15 kids? I'm sorry, but she obviously does not have the capacity to act responsibly. Taking her kids is the best thing for them, even if it's not all that great in itself.

I also have to question your examples of tactics used to keep parents away from their kids. I have some personal experience with these situations and many of these are just the excuses deadbeat parents come up with. I'm not saying that CPS agencies have never abused the system, just that it's very rare.

[autumn1971]

Quote:

The mother of my best friend in grade school had 14 kids. Professional welfare mom. Almost all of them were Native American, but most of them didn't have enough native blood to draw a stipend from the government. This was back in the 70's though. I dont think it is quite as easy to be a professional welfare mom these days.

If you think that government programs are enough in even extreme cases to completely offset the cost of raising a child, then you are a blithering idiot.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by autumn1971

If you think that government programs are enough in even extreme cases to completely offset the cost of raising a child, then you are a blithering idiot.

This is very true.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by autumn1971

If you think that government programs are enough in even extreme cases to completely offset the cost of raising a child, then you are a blithering idiot.

I don't see where anyone has suggested they think that ...

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by autumn1971

If you think that government programs are enough in even extreme cases to completely offset the cost of raising a child, then you are a blithering idiot.

I think this is both a bit extreme and untrue.

If you're raising a kid, you make the costs fit your means, whatever they happen to be. In the same way supporting only yourself or yourself and a partner costs whatever you're willing to spend on it, which is usually at or less than your means.

Very little is a fixed cost, there are always cheaper or more expensive options. Whatever lifestyle you lead, there is someone who gets by on a little less, and someone else who has more. It's just the way of life.

[jskowron]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

...And speaking of the men in this situation, ... why hasn't anyone suggested castrating them? She is near the end of her child-bearing ability, but between them those three men might make six million more they can't or don't support.

Wow- not until the 84th post does somebody bring up the idea (even in jest) of sterilizing the men involved. That could be evidence of some underlying, subtle and not-so, misogyny. For a multitude of reasons (most cited above) I feel that forced sterilization is not a solution. However, if you're going to argue that it is, at least recognize the basic biology of the situation- if you don't want calves, it's much more efficient to castrate the few bulls instead of all the heifers.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by jskowron

Wow- not until the 84th post does somebody bring up the idea (even in jest) of sterilizing the men involved. That could be evidence of some underlying, subtle and not-so, misogyny. For a multitude of reasons (most cited above) I feel that forced sterilization is not a solution. However, if you're going to argue that it is, at least recognize the basic biology of the situation- if you don't want calves, it's much more efficient to castrate the few bulls instead of all the heifers.

The few bulls? You have to castrate ALL the bulls sans the ones you want to allow to breed. The whole feedlot is full of castrated bulls.

I don't agree with the sterilization approach or anything, but I will say, the common feature of all her kids is her. It's not misogyny, it's practicality. Either sterilize her, or all her potential mates.

[WildCat]

Quote:

You have to say this much for Desmond Hatchett: He has a way with the ladies.

The 33-year-old Knoxville, Tenn., resident has reportedly set a Knox County record for his ability to reproduce. He has 30 children with 11 women. And nine of those children were born in the last three years, after Hatchett -- who is something of a local celebrity -- vowed "I'm done!" in a 2009 TV interview, saying he wouldn't father more children.

But Hatchett is back in the news this week because he's struggling to make ends meet on his minimum-wage job. His inability to make child-support payments on such a meager salary also means he's back in court again and again, most recently to ask for a break on those payments.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3775716.story

Poor guy, it must be because he can't afford condoms!

[keale]

Originally Posted by MNBrant

The mother of my best friend in grade school had 14 kids. Professional welfare mom. Almost all of them were Native American, but most of them didn't have enough native blood to draw a stipend from the government. This was back in the 70's though. I dont think it is quite as easy to be a professional welfare mom these days.

Here in California its impossible to be a pro welfare queen. Theres a time limit on benefits and having more kids wont change that.

[Minoosh]

Has anyone said what the "welfare" is? There is no more AFDC. Florida is probably not the most liberal place in the country for handing out benefits. So I wonder how much in cash benefits is being funneled her way.

Maybe you still can game the system but I thought the biggest welfare programs were pretty much gone. If it's food stamps or disability it's not "welfare." The TV Web site link above doesn't say anything about how she's supported.

[Juniversal]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Has anyone said what the "welfare" is? There is no more AFDC. Florida is probably not the most liberal place in the country for handing out benefits. So I wonder how much in cash benefits is being funneled her way.

Maybe you still can game the system but I thought the biggest welfare programs were pretty much gone. If it's food stamps or disability it's not "welfare." The TV Web site link above doesn't say anything about how she's supported.

True from my understanding. Welfare doesn't completely mitigate or incentivize child baring. Surely not enough to make it worthwhile to increase the number of children you have for the benifits.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Has anyone said what the "welfare" is? There is no more AFDC. Florida is probably not the most liberal place in the country for handing out benefits. So I wonder how much in cash benefits is being funneled her way.

Maybe you still can game the system but I thought the biggest welfare programs were pretty much gone. If it's food stamps or disability it's not "welfare." The TV Web site link above doesn't say anything about how she's supported.

For Temporary Aid for Needy Families (cash welfare), there is a 5 year limit and she could get quite a bit during that time depending on family size (a 5 member family with housing costs of more than $50 will get $426/mo). The five year limit can be exempted in hardship cases.

And what makes you think food stamps and disability are not "welfare?"

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by xjx388

For Temporary Aid for Needy Families (cash welfare), there is a 5 year limit and she could get quite a bit during that time depending on family size (a 5 member family with housing costs of more than $50 will get $426/mo). The five year limit can be exempted in hardship cases.

And what makes you think food stamps and disability are not "welfare?"

TANF has a very strict work requirement, among other criteria, so it doesn't exactly fit the "welfare mom" theme.