Parents to pay for children in care (From Worcester News)

So more children are going to be put at risk of things such as abuse, neglect and poverty. just to save a few pounds. so how much more is it going to cost for social services to intervene in circumstances where the parents couldnt put the child in care for their own safety. and ends up severely neglected or abused or even worse dead. no-one just chooses to put their child in care because they cant be bothered anymore. they do it because they have no choice.
at the moment most famlies are being hit hard with price rises in food, fuel and bills, while benefits and wages are going down. so everyone is struggling. im a mum of one and if i was faced with being homeless, or not being able to feed my child, and i had no one to turn for for help. i would reluctantly have to put them into care because it would be for their own good. i personally would move heaven and earth for my child and would do anything to make sure they wouldnt go without. but there are some people who wouldnt have a choice.
the care system is supposed to be a care service provided to make sure these children get looked after.
Another bright idea from our government. if their goal is to reduce the population, they are doing well. forcefully selecting who they want to live in this country. as in nature, the weakest die, only the strong survive. in humans it will be the poorest die, the richest survive.
tory police all over - always has been. look after the rich, 2 fingers to the rest of us!

user66 wrote:
So more children are going to be put at risk of things such as abuse, neglect and poverty. just to save a few pounds. so how much more is it going to cost for social services to intervene in circumstances where the parents couldnt put the child in care for their own safety. and ends up severely neglected or abused or even worse dead. no-one just chooses to put their child in care because they cant be bothered anymore. they do it because they have no choice.
at the moment most famlies are being hit hard with price rises in food, fuel and bills, while benefits and wages are going down. so everyone is struggling. im a mum of one and if i was faced with being homeless, or not being able to feed my child, and i had no one to turn for for help. i would reluctantly have to put them into care because it would be for their own good. i personally would move heaven and earth for my child and would do anything to make sure they wouldnt go without. but there are some people who wouldnt have a choice.
the care system is supposed to be a care service provided to make sure these children get looked after.
Another bright idea from our government. if their goal is to reduce the population, they are doing well. forcefully selecting who they want to live in this country. as in nature, the weakest die, only the strong survive. in humans it will be the poorest die, the richest survive.
tory police all over - always has been. look after the rich, 2 fingers to the rest of us!

Very strong words said there User66 but you know what,i agree with you 100%.

Good! Their children, they have chosen to have them, they can pay for them like anyone else. Saves my taxes being used for other peoples children.

just because you were able to support your children when they were born, doesnt not mean a few years down the line nothing would have changed. in this economic climate no-ones job is safe.
someone could have to get out of a violent relationship and become homeless. someone may have an accident or become ill and may not be able to continue in their current job. there are endless situations that may arise which change a persons financial status.

so TDH123 - i think the comment you make is not only stupid but not even relevant! - at a guess id say you were a tory supporter?? and maybe dont have children of your own??

if you lost your job, your partner lost their job, you ended up losing your house and not be able to afford to feed yourself and pay your bills and you had no family to rely on. what would you do???

put yourself in others shoes before making comments...

Of course the parents should be made to pay for the care of their sprogs if they suddenly decide for one reason or another that they can't cope with them or just decide that they no longer fit into their lives! Why the hell should taxpayers pay for them as they are the ones who produced them in the first place...they should pay the whole 100% of the cost that their kids cost to be looked after by others!

if worcester council wants to save a few pounds, try not wasting money on pointless things, like:
- building a new library - there was nothing wrong with the old ones.
- painting a bridge.
i could go on to list a huge list of money wasting projects they have thought up. but im sure everyone is aware of these.

instead of cutting services like nhs and social care, try looking at what doesnt need to be done.

so if vital services are going to be cut, does that mean our taxes are too?? - no.

i would happily pay to protect a child, regardless of whose it is, over paying for a bridge that did not need painting or a library that didnt need to be built!
and frankly if you dont then you have no heart and i really hope one day you do not need such services.

ballymoss - you saying that a single parent, who is severely depressed/ill/disabl
ed, can no longer cope with their child. should be penalized for admitting they can not cope??
if the parent/s could afford to pay for a fine they more than likely wouldnt be faced with having to decide if their child goes into care or not. ??
just a question.

if anything they should be improving the service they provide before trying to fine people.

user66 wrote:
just because you were able to support your children when they were born, doesnt not mean a few years down the line nothing would have changed. in this economic climate no-ones job is safe.
someone could have to get out of a violent relationship and become homeless. someone may have an accident or become ill and may not be able to continue in their current job. there are endless situations that may arise which change a persons financial status.

so TDH123 - i think the comment you make is not only stupid but not even relevant! - at a guess id say you were a tory supporter?? and maybe dont have children of your own??

if you lost your job, your partner lost their job, you ended up losing your house and not be able to afford to feed yourself and pay your bills and you had no family to rely on. what would you do???

put yourself in others shoes before making comments...

Actually I do have children. One must take responsibility for your children rather than palming them off to someone else.
I would not expect anyone else to pay for my children so why should I pay for someone elses'?
There is not an endless pot of tax-payers money!

If you can't (or don't want to) look after your children, don't make babies in the first place!!

Good on you Worcester Council.

user66 wrote:
ballymoss - you saying that a single parent, who is severely depressed/ill/disabl

ed, can no longer cope with their child. should be penalized for admitting they can not cope??
if the parent/s could afford to pay for a fine they more than likely wouldnt be faced with having to decide if their child goes into care or not. ??
just a question.

if anything they should be improving the service they provide before trying to fine people.

Anyone who decides that they wish to bring a life into this crazy world and inflict a life upon a child when we are overpopulated needs to take responsibility of the sprogs that they have regardless of the reasons for not wanting the sprog any more. Far too many children in the country and too many women consider it a right to have a child and it isn't!

spider666 wrote:

user66 wrote:
So more children are going to be put at risk of things such as abuse, neglect and poverty. just to save a few pounds. so how much more is it going to cost for social services to intervene in circumstances where the parents couldnt put the child in care for their own safety. and ends up severely neglected or abused or even worse dead. no-one just chooses to put their child in care because they cant be bothered anymore. they do it because they have no choice.
at the moment most famlies are being hit hard with price rises in food, fuel and bills, while benefits and wages are going down. so everyone is struggling. im a mum of one and if i was faced with being homeless, or not being able to feed my child, and i had no one to turn for for help. i would reluctantly have to put them into care because it would be for their own good. i personally would move heaven and earth for my child and would do anything to make sure they wouldnt go without. but there are some people who wouldnt have a choice.
the care system is supposed to be a care service provided to make sure these children get looked after.
Another bright idea from our government. if their goal is to reduce the population, they are doing well. forcefully selecting who they want to live in this country. as in nature, the weakest die, only the strong survive. in humans it will be the poorest die, the richest survive.
tory police all over - always has been. look after the rich, 2 fingers to the rest of us!

Very strong words said there User66 but you know what,i agree with you 100%.

Me too!

You all are forgetting the children.
IT IS NO FAULT OF THE CHILDREN AND THEY ARE OUR NEXT GENERATION.

Jabbadad wrote:
You all are forgetting the children.
IT IS NO FAULT OF THE CHILDREN AND THEY ARE OUR NEXT GENERATION.

well said jabbadad!

TDH123 wrote:

user66 wrote:
just because you were able to support your children when they were born, doesnt not mean a few years down the line nothing would have changed. in this economic climate no-ones job is safe.
someone could have to get out of a violent relationship and become homeless. someone may have an accident or become ill and may not be able to continue in their current job. there are endless situations that may arise which change a persons financial status.

so TDH123 - i think the comment you make is not only stupid but not even relevant! - at a guess id say you were a tory supporter?? and maybe dont have children of your own??

if you lost your job, your partner lost their job, you ended up losing your house and not be able to afford to feed yourself and pay your bills and you had no family to rely on. what would you do???

put yourself in others shoes before making comments...

Actually I do have children. One must take responsibility for your children rather than palming them off to someone else.
I would not expect anyone else to pay for my children so why should I pay for someone elses'?
There is not an endless pot of tax-payers money!

again, i will ask in simple english. . .

what if there was no other choice?? what if your circumstances changed and you had no choice but to ask someone for help???

Ballymoss wrote:

user66 wrote:
ballymoss - you saying that a single parent, who is severely depressed/ill/disabl


ed, can no longer cope with their child. should be penalized for admitting they can not cope??
if the parent/s could afford to pay for a fine they more than likely wouldnt be faced with having to decide if their child goes into care or not. ??
just a question.

if anything they should be improving the service they provide before trying to fine people.

Anyone who decides that they wish to bring a life into this crazy world and inflict a life upon a child when we are overpopulated needs to take responsibility of the sprogs that they have regardless of the reasons for not wanting the sprog any more. Far too many children in the country and too many women consider it a right to have a child and it isn't!

again, it feels like im talking to one or two very small minded people.

right, in plane english. . .

just because you can support your children at the time they were conceived/born, does not mean that your circumstances will not ever change.

For example, a couple had a baby before the recession started. they both had good jobs, had thought about starting a family for many years. so they did.
the recession hits, the mother has to stop working due to childcare being too expensive. the father loses his job a year later due to cutbacks. a year passes by and he has not been able to get another job due to the lack of opportunities out there. they cant afford the bills, they get into debt. they lose the house, they become homeless, they cant afford to eat. the best thing would be to put their child into a situation where they have security, food, warmth etc etc. this is by asking someone else to look after them. they have no other family. they have to put their child into care, not perminantly, but until they can get a bit of stability in their lives.

you are saying that the child should be made to suffer not helped. - this is a very cold hearted thing to say. it is not the childs fault. they are the next generation and should be given the best starts, regardless of other people decisions or wrong turns!

Ballymoss wrote:

user66 wrote:
ballymoss - you saying that a single parent, who is severely depressed/ill/disabl


ed, can no longer cope with their child. should be penalized for admitting they can not cope??
if the parent/s could afford to pay for a fine they more than likely wouldnt be faced with having to decide if their child goes into care or not. ??
just a question.

if anything they should be improving the service they provide before trying to fine people.

Anyone who decides that they wish to bring a life into this crazy world and inflict a life upon a child when we are overpopulated needs to take responsibility of the sprogs that they have regardless of the reasons for not wanting the sprog any more. Far too many children in the country and too many women consider it a right to have a child and it isn't!

you didnt seem to answer any of my points...

yes the country is overpopulated - there are far too many foreigners here claiming our tax payers money. if they were all deported (the ones who are claiming benefits) then there would be more than enough money to go around!

but this is another issue altogether.

i also noticed you have turned sexist too now! "too many women consider it a right to have a child and it isn't!". there are just as many men who consider it a right to have a family!

if someone can afford a child at the time of conception/birth whos to say who can and who cant???

you?? torys??

no one thats who!

user66 wrote:

Ballymoss wrote:

user66 wrote:
ballymoss - you saying that a single parent, who is severely depressed/ill/disabl



ed, can no longer cope with their child. should be penalized for admitting they can not cope??
if the parent/s could afford to pay for a fine they more than likely wouldnt be faced with having to decide if their child goes into care or not. ??
just a question.

if anything they should be improving the service they provide before trying to fine people.

Anyone who decides that they wish to bring a life into this crazy world and inflict a life upon a child when we are overpopulated needs to take responsibility of the sprogs that they have regardless of the reasons for not wanting the sprog any more. Far too many children in the country and too many women consider it a right to have a child and it isn't!

again, it feels like im talking to one or two very small minded people.

right, in plane english. . .

just because you can support your children at the time they were conceived/born, does not mean that your circumstances will not ever change.

For example, a couple had a baby before the recession started. they both had good jobs, had thought about starting a family for many years. so they did.
the recession hits, the mother has to stop working due to childcare being too expensive. the father loses his job a year later due to cutbacks. a year passes by and he has not been able to get another job due to the lack of opportunities out there. they cant afford the bills, they get into debt. they lose the house, they become homeless, they cant afford to eat. the best thing would be to put their child into a situation where they have security, food, warmth etc etc. this is by asking someone else to look after them. they have no other family. they have to put their child into care, not perminantly, but until they can get a bit of stability in their lives.

you are saying that the child should be made to suffer not helped. - this is a very cold hearted thing to say. it is not the childs fault. they are the next generation and should be given the best starts, regardless of other people decisions or wrong turns!

I think if you read the article again, your scenario would be covered.
The safety net is there.

Ballymoss wrote:
Of course the parents should be made to pay for the care of their sprogs if they suddenly decide for one reason or another that they can't cope with them or just decide that they no longer fit into their lives! Why the hell should taxpayers pay for them as they are the ones who produced them in the first place...they should pay the whole 100% of the cost that their kids cost to be looked after by others!

Agreed!

jovialcommonsense wrote:

user66 wrote:

Ballymoss wrote:

user66 wrote:
ballymoss - you saying that a single parent, who is severely depressed/ill/disabl




ed, can no longer cope with their child. should be penalized for admitting they can not cope??
if the parent/s could afford to pay for a fine they more than likely wouldnt be faced with having to decide if their child goes into care or not. ??
just a question.

if anything they should be improving the service they provide before trying to fine people.

Anyone who decides that they wish to bring a life into this crazy world and inflict a life upon a child when we are overpopulated needs to take responsibility of the sprogs that they have regardless of the reasons for not wanting the sprog any more. Far too many children in the country and too many women consider it a right to have a child and it isn't!

again, it feels like im talking to one or two very small minded people.

right, in plane english. . .

just because you can support your children at the time they were conceived/born, does not mean that your circumstances will not ever change.

For example, a couple had a baby before the recession started. they both had good jobs, had thought about starting a family for many years. so they did.
the recession hits, the mother has to stop working due to childcare being too expensive. the father loses his job a year later due to cutbacks. a year passes by and he has not been able to get another job due to the lack of opportunities out there. they cant afford the bills, they get into debt. they lose the house, they become homeless, they cant afford to eat. the best thing would be to put their child into a situation where they have security, food, warmth etc etc. this is by asking someone else to look after them. they have no other family. they have to put their child into care, not perminantly, but until they can get a bit of stability in their lives.

you are saying that the child should be made to suffer not helped. - this is a very cold hearted thing to say. it is not the childs fault. they are the next generation and should be given the best starts, regardless of other people decisions or wrong turns!

I think if you read the article again, your scenario would be covered.
The safety net is there.

if you are on benefits or a court order says they have to be removed. then yes. but there are plenty of families who have neither.
benefits are being cut daily and the government are making it extreamly hard for people to put in new claims.
there is a large group of people who will slip through the gaps!

All of us at some time in life have a crisis, we look to the local authority to help - this is a terrible move that will put economics before children’s well being.

The last thing we should do is make it more difficult for parents to approach the council when they feel, for whatever reason, they aren’t fit to parent at that moment.

user66 wrote:

jovialcommonsense wrote:

user66 wrote:

Ballymoss wrote:

user66 wrote:
ballymoss - you saying that a single parent, who is severely depressed/ill/disabl





ed, can no longer cope with their child. should be penalized for admitting they can not cope??
if the parent/s could afford to pay for a fine they more than likely wouldnt be faced with having to decide if their child goes into care or not. ??
just a question.

if anything they should be improving the service they provide before trying to fine people.

Anyone who decides that they wish to bring a life into this crazy world and inflict a life upon a child when we are overpopulated needs to take responsibility of the sprogs that they have regardless of the reasons for not wanting the sprog any more. Far too many children in the country and too many women consider it a right to have a child and it isn't!

again, it feels like im talking to one or two very small minded people.

right, in plane english. . .

just because you can support your children at the time they were conceived/born, does not mean that your circumstances will not ever change.

For example, a couple had a baby before the recession started. they both had good jobs, had thought about starting a family for many years. so they did.
the recession hits, the mother has to stop working due to childcare being too expensive. the father loses his job a year later due to cutbacks. a year passes by and he has not been able to get another job due to the lack of opportunities out there. they cant afford the bills, they get into debt. they lose the house, they become homeless, they cant afford to eat. the best thing would be to put their child into a situation where they have security, food, warmth etc etc. this is by asking someone else to look after them. they have no other family. they have to put their child into care, not perminantly, but until they can get a bit of stability in their lives.

you are saying that the child should be made to suffer not helped. - this is a very cold hearted thing to say. it is not the childs fault. they are the next generation and should be given the best starts, regardless of other people decisions or wrong turns!

I think if you read the article again, your scenario would be covered.
The safety net is there.

if you are on benefits or a court order says they have to be removed. then yes. but there are plenty of families who have neither.
benefits are being cut daily and the government are making it extreamly hard for people to put in new claims.
there is a large group of people who will slip through the gaps!

ok - for your benefit. . .

another example:
able to afford when convinced/born. recession hits, both parents are forced to work longer hours for less pay. the child ends up being left on their own a lot. due to work demands. if the parents stop working, they lose money, cannot afford to do that. they are already paying of debts left right and centre. they have no family to rely on.
the child is going without hot meals, being left to fend for themselves.

at the moment parents can ask for help to prevent this. when this new rule comes in they will be too scared to ask for help, the child will be neglected.

If children become, or, are in danger of becoming neglected, then they will be put on the 'at risk' register and taken away from the parents by Social services anyway so there wouldnt be any need to ask for help.

User66 you are obviously very concerned about this issue and are to be commended for it.
No system can be 100% foolproof and there will always be those that miss out in life. The important thing is that there is a system in place which has flexibility for individual circumstances, which appears to be in place here.
The system has also to try and reflect the views of all.
This never will be a perfect world, but that doesn't mean you cannot fight for one.

jovialcommonsense wrote:
User66 you are obviously very concerned about this issue and are to be commended for it.
No system can be 100% foolproof and there will always be those that miss out in life. The important thing is that there is a system in place which has flexibility for individual circumstances, which appears to be in place here.
The system has also to try and reflect the views of all.
This never will be a perfect world, but that doesn't mean you cannot fight for one.

the system is flawed to start with - just look at baby p. i think the system needs to be available to anyone who feels they need it. we all pay tax, and non of us can say they will never need a service like this. the fact is there will be more child neglect cases, from parents who cant /dont want to pay the fine and from parents who know the only way to get their child taken into care is to neglect them in order for a court order to be obtained so they can go into care for free.

not only this but parents who feel they have to cope no matter what, will end up on anti-depressants and maybe even trying to take their own lives.

then you have the children who will be neglected, the years of therapy etc.

both of which will in the long run will cost the tax payer and the council more than fixing the existing service.

this may be a short term plan on saving a few pounds, but a long term one i dont think so.

the children do not deserve to be punished and put at risk just because the council wants to save a few pounds, but are happy wasting money in other areas.
priorities need to be looked at here.

lizzyloolah wrote:
If children become, or, are in danger of becoming neglected, then they will be put on the 'at risk' register and taken away from the parents by Social services anyway so there wouldnt be any need to ask for help.

it makes me smile at how nieve people can be. everyone would like to think all children at risk of becoming neglected are put onto an "at risk" register and taken into safety.
in fact we all know this does not happen. there have been so many cases in the media the past few years, all of which have been under the social services radar, and the children involved have suffered greatly, some to the point of death.
bringing in this fine, will only make the work load for social services greater, and more children will slip under the radar. resulting in more cases of child poverty, child neglect and child abuse.

If people who dumped their children were made to pay then Social Services would have all the funding they need to prevent sick twisted people who have done vile things to their children from slipping under the radar.

lizzyloolah wrote:
If people who dumped their children were made to pay then Social Services would have all the funding they need to prevent sick twisted people who have done vile things to their children from slipping under the radar.

just an idea, why dosent the council cut down the benefits of people who come to this country just to claim, they sent all the money back to their own country, and continue claiming.
or stop building useless buildings that cos millions upon millions.
or stop driving decent law abiding tax payers out of the city to make room for students.
or stop increasing business taxes so more people can afford to stay in the city and put more money back into the city.
or take pay cuts like everyone else.
or stop making disabled people who have lived in the city for years and years feel unwanted and pushed out.
or actually asked the people living in the city and paying the taxes how their money should be spent.
or stop giving money to people who are heroin addicts.

need i go on.

cutting vital lifelines and services in the city will not improve any long term situation.

and anyone who plucks up the courage to ask for help temporarily are not simply "dumping" their children, the majority of people will find this a very last resort.

Here is one for you, User66.
A single mum meets a new man. He's not interested in 'family' life. She is besotted. Her 11 year old child is feeling ignored. The child feels rejected and ignored and becomes difficult at home, misbehaves at school, rebels for attention, smoking, drinking, gets in with the 'wrong crowd'. The school are ringing her at work asking that she come in to discuss the problem child.The police have cause to knock the door due to antisocial behaviour. It causes friction between the mum and her new bloke. Mum decides she has had enough, the child is ruining her chances of a happy future with the man of her dreams. She doesnt want him to live with members of the extended family because she doesnt want it pushed in her face that she is a selfish cow and has chosen a man over her child, so,puts the child into care because she says she cannot 'cope'.
Now who should foot the bill?

user66 wrote:

lizzyloolah wrote:
If people who dumped their children were made to pay then Social Services would have all the funding they need to prevent sick twisted people who have done vile things to their children from slipping under the radar.

just an idea, why dosent the council cut down the benefits of people who come to this country just to claim, they sent all the money back to their own country, and continue claiming.
or stop building useless buildings that cos millions upon millions.
or stop driving decent law abiding tax payers out of the city to make room for students.
or stop increasing business taxes so more people can afford to stay in the city and put more money back into the city.
or take pay cuts like everyone else.
or stop making disabled people who have lived in the city for years and years feel unwanted and pushed out.
or actually asked the people living in the city and paying the taxes how their money should be spent.
or stop giving money to people who are heroin addicts.

need i go on.

cutting vital lifelines and services in the city will not improve any long term situation.

and anyone who plucks up the courage to ask for help temporarily are not simply "dumping" their children, the majority of people will find this a very last resort.

I fully agree with almost all of what you say here, but waiting for those things to happen could take for ever. At least with people, and it is only those without a genuine reason who will be asked to pay, contibuting to the support of their children in care it will ease the pressure on an already overstretched and overburdened Social Services. All too often people do ask for help, even if it is just for funding for a few hours day care, but have to be told by Social services that the resources are not available.

lizzyloolah wrote:
Here is one for you, User66.
A single mum meets a new man. He's not interested in 'family' life. She is besotted. Her 11 year old child is feeling ignored. The child feels rejected and ignored and becomes difficult at home, misbehaves at school, rebels for attention, smoking, drinking, gets in with the 'wrong crowd'. The school are ringing her at work asking that she come in to discuss the problem child.The police have cause to knock the door due to antisocial behaviour. It causes friction between the mum and her new bloke. Mum decides she has had enough, the child is ruining her chances of a happy future with the man of her dreams. She doesnt want him to live with members of the extended family because she doesnt want it pushed in her face that she is a selfish cow and has chosen a man over her child, so,puts the child into care because she says she cannot 'cope'.
Now who should foot the bill?

right first, no real mother puts a guy over their children. you stated "The child feels rejected and ignored" again a mother should talk to their child to re-ashore the then this is not the case.
if the police come do the door and the school call her up then she should be offered help to tackle the behavior of the child, whether it be parent classes or something else. and closely monitored.

instead of fining people who want to put their children in care, why not look at how a child is put into care. if a parent says "i cannot cope with behavior problems" help them.
if the child has extended family then im sure they wouldnt allow the child to go into care, so then if they were willing to have the child, the child would be made to stay with them, regaurdless of what the mother says.

if they refuse to care for the child too, then he should be taken into care because no child should have to live with a family who doesnt want them. this is neglect.
it wouldnt be the childs fault that his mother is a cow. or that the rest of the family are too.

user66 wrote:

lizzyloolah wrote:
Here is one for you, User66.
A single mum meets a new man. He's not interested in 'family' life. She is besotted. Her 11 year old child is feeling ignored. The child feels rejected and ignored and becomes difficult at home, misbehaves at school, rebels for attention, smoking, drinking, gets in with the 'wrong crowd'. The school are ringing her at work asking that she come in to discuss the problem child.The police have cause to knock the door due to antisocial behaviour. It causes friction between the mum and her new bloke. Mum decides she has had enough, the child is ruining her chances of a happy future with the man of her dreams. She doesnt want him to live with members of the extended family because she doesnt want it pushed in her face that she is a selfish cow and has chosen a man over her child, so,puts the child into care because she says she cannot 'cope'.
Now who should foot the bill?

right first, no real mother puts a guy over their children. you stated "The child feels rejected and ignored" again a mother should talk to their child to re-ashore the then this is not the case.
if the police come do the door and the school call her up then she should be offered help to tackle the behavior of the child, whether it be parent classes or something else. and closely monitored.

instead of fining people who want to put their children in care, why not look at how a child is put into care. if a parent says "i cannot cope with behavior problems" help them.
if the child has extended family then im sure they wouldnt allow the child to go into care, so then if they were willing to have the child, the child would be made to stay with them, regaurdless of what the mother says.

if they refuse to care for the child too, then he should be taken into care because no child should have to live with a family who doesnt want them. this is neglect.
it wouldnt be the childs fault that his mother is a cow. or that the rest of the family are too.

plus only a third of children in care are put into care by their parents voluntarily doing it. the majority of that third are by parents who have suffered extream violence and severe behaviour problems. and have done it as a last resort because they are at the end of their tether. so the odd case of a parent just "dumping" their child into care because they do not want to loose their latest squeeze, is very few and far between. and fining this one case is not really going to be saving the tax payer any money is it.

Unfortunately there ARE women like that. Help and support, again, cost money. Parenting classes are more often than not only implemented in court by a magistrate as part of a supervision order after a minor has been convicted of a crime with the parents are legally bound to pay the court costs, fines and victim surcharge. Again, there is no pot of money earmarked for useless parents.
And yes, you are right, no child should have to live in misery, and in the same breath, if the only way to make a useless parent see the error of their ways is to kick them hard in the wallet then I am all for it!

lizzyloolah wrote:

user66 wrote:

lizzyloolah wrote:
If people who dumped their children were made to pay then Social Services would have all the funding they need to prevent sick twisted people who have done vile things to their children from slipping under the radar.

just an idea, why dosent the council cut down the benefits of people who come to this country just to claim, they sent all the money back to their own country, and continue claiming.
or stop building useless buildings that cos millions upon millions.
or stop driving decent law abiding tax payers out of the city to make room for students.
or stop increasing business taxes so more people can afford to stay in the city and put more money back into the city.
or take pay cuts like everyone else.
or stop making disabled people who have lived in the city for years and years feel unwanted and pushed out.
or actually asked the people living in the city and paying the taxes how their money should be spent.
or stop giving money to people who are heroin addicts.

need i go on.

cutting vital lifelines and services in the city will not improve any long term situation.

and anyone who plucks up the courage to ask for help temporarily are not simply "dumping" their children, the majority of people will find this a very last resort.

I fully agree with almost all of what you say here, but waiting for those things to happen could take for ever. At least with people, and it is only those without a genuine reason who will be asked to pay, contibuting to the support of their children in care it will ease the pressure on an already overstretched and overburdened Social Services. All too often people do ask for help, even if it is just for funding for a few hours day care, but have to be told by Social services that the resources are not available.

the extra funding will no doubt be coming out of benefits, which the tax payer is paying anyway. so do we really need to be going round in a circle?

i can see where you are coming from, but this is clearly not going to be a long term successful plan.

It isnt the parents with genuine difficulties that are being targeted here. Its the ones who cant even be bothered to try.

lizzyloolah wrote:
Unfortunately there ARE women like that. Help and support, again, cost money. Parenting classes are more often than not only implemented in court by a magistrate as part of a supervision order after a minor has been convicted of a crime with the parents are legally bound to pay the court costs, fines and victim surcharge. Again, there is no pot of money earmarked for useless parents.
And yes, you are right, no child should have to live in misery, and in the same breath, if the only way to make a useless parent see the error of their ways is to kick them hard in the wallet then I am all for it!

my childs school offers childcare classes paid for by government, and i know of parents who have been made to go to these classes or face prison, due to their childs behavior.

and again. "if the only way to make a useless parent see the error of their ways is to kick them hard in the wallet "
more than likely the money in that wallet will be from benefits or at least part of it, so the taxpayer will just be paying the fines too! lol

People on benefits will not have to pay anyway. An anonymous chart of annual income of the parents of children in care would be interesting.

Its a vicious circle. Maybe it would only be a small amount but every little helps :)

lizzyloolah wrote:
It isnt the parents with genuine difficulties that are being targeted here. Its the ones who cant even be bothered to try.

these fines are going to be substantial. if a parent is working and not claiming any benefits and still has time to look after their child - fairplay to them. but when slapped with a hefty fine, no doubt they will have to have some financial help to help cover these costs.

child benefit is a benefit and is claimed by everyone reguardless of income. so does that mean that no one will have to pay theses fines??

How sad the non-believers seem to read too many magazines, with what if examples.
We are looking at real kids in real problems and social workers tell me that if they took all kids into care that had small but important under the system problems there would be a huge glut of kids taken into care.
Almost everybody when we were young and somewhat selfish had threatened to leave home, because our mum or dad had said no to us, or smacked our legs (which we well deserved.) But when the real problems start then the kids come first, and real mums do put there kids first.
My sister had 5 kids and wound up on her own, she managed to work and keep those kids together, they all turned out well, and she being a good looking woman had her moments, but when / if she had to choose between a man and her kids they (kids) came first. She eventually met a lovely bloke who looked out for her and the kids.
I worry if kids have to remain under violent homes, but for kids to go into care must be a traumatic time for their little minds to handle.But whatever, they come first, and if its the state, and we have all been tax payers, that have to pick up the bill, so what.
They tried the CSA (Child Support Agency) which was a disaster, it only acted against those who would co-operate, and even destroyed second families, but the no-goods in society never joined up to the system, and it cost £millions to collect little amounts of money.

"Bosses will “seek contributions towards the costs of certain services”
So I would imagine the parents income would be means tested and an acceptable 'contribution' towards the costs would be decided without causing severe hardship. Maybe the family allowance for the child would be signed over to social services for the time that the child is in care.

Jabbadad wrote:
How sad the non-believers seem to read too many magazines, with what if examples.
We are looking at real kids in real problems and social workers tell me that if they took all kids into care that had small but important under the system problems there would be a huge glut of kids taken into care.
Almost everybody when we were young and somewhat selfish had threatened to leave home, because our mum or dad had said no to us, or smacked our legs (which we well deserved.) But when the real problems start then the kids come first, and real mums do put there kids first.
My sister had 5 kids and wound up on her own, she managed to work and keep those kids together, they all turned out well, and she being a good looking woman had her moments, but when / if she had to choose between a man and her kids they (kids) came first. She eventually met a lovely bloke who looked out for her and the kids.
I worry if kids have to remain under violent homes, but for kids to go into care must be a traumatic time for their little minds to handle.But whatever, they come first, and if its the state, and we have all been tax payers, that have to pick up the bill, so what.
They tried the CSA (Child Support Agency) which was a disaster, it only acted against those who would co-operate, and even destroyed second families, but the no-goods in society never joined up to the system, and it cost £millions to collect little amounts of money.

my point exactly. this will never work.
and who will suffer when the government are trying to make it work? - the kids!
any real mother would not put a man before their kids. and those who do, should have their kids taken into a loving, safe home. if they are that cold hearted they will find a way out of paying. just like csa. they took people words when they were asked their incomes, they did not do checks to make sure this was the truth or that this was their only income. all it would have take was a few simple phone calls to inland revenue.
the same will happen with this.

lizzyloolah wrote:
"Bosses will “seek contributions towards the costs of certain services”
So I would imagine the parents income would be means tested and an acceptable 'contribution' towards the costs would be decided without causing severe hardship. Maybe the family allowance for the child would be signed over to social services for the time that the child is in care.

"Bosses will “seek contributions towards the costs of certain services” - this happened with CSA too. but alot of people are contracted less hours then they actually do. and many people have more than one job. if the parent only gives details of the job that they do least hours in or get least pay. they will probly not check.
CSA never did and still dont to this day, unless the parent claiming the csa provides proof stating otherwise.

I dont have time for magazines. I work, I was widowed several years ago and have brought my children up alone since then. I see all kinds in my line of work. You would be shocked at just how many 'disinterested' parents there really are. Quoting real cases instead of 'what if's' really is a no go area. The hyperthetical has its values.

The CSA was a shambles. The simple way would have been an attachment to earnings verified by the Inland Revenue. Unless of course they were self employed........

According to the report social workers and their management teams will be responsible for making the decisions as to whether cases are genuine or not and if charges should be made.
After my recent personal experience which included a health worker trying to do the job of a social worker, messing up and being backed to the hilt and had excuses made for them by their team manager I fear that these 'decisions' will be influenced by having to save/make money with managers being pressurised by the senior managers.
It appears that all social services departments are now being squeezed into saving money and cutting corners which have and will result in wrong and dangerous decisions being made.

user66 wrote:

lizzyloolah wrote:
Here is one for you, User66.
A single mum meets a new man. He's not interested in 'family' life. She is besotted. Her 11 year old child is feeling ignored. The child feels rejected and ignored and becomes difficult at home, misbehaves at school, rebels for attention, smoking, drinking, gets in with the 'wrong crowd'. The school are ringing her at work asking that she come in to discuss the problem child.The police have cause to knock the door due to antisocial behaviour. It causes friction between the mum and her new bloke. Mum decides she has had enough, the child is ruining her chances of a happy future with the man of her dreams. She doesnt want him to live with members of the extended family because she doesnt want it pushed in her face that she is a selfish cow and has chosen a man over her child, so,puts the child into care because she says she cannot 'cope'.
Now who should foot the bill?

right first, no real mother puts a guy over their children. you stated "The child feels rejected and ignored" again a mother should talk to their child to re-ashore the then this is not the case.
if the police come do the door and the school call her up then she should be offered help to tackle the behavior of the child, whether it be parent classes or something else. and closely monitored.

instead of fining people who want to put their children in care, why not look at how a child is put into care. if a parent says "i cannot cope with behavior problems" help them.
if the child has extended family then im sure they wouldnt allow the child to go into care, so then if they were willing to have the child, the child would be made to stay with them, regaurdless of what the mother says.

if they refuse to care for the child too, then he should be taken into care because no child should have to live with a family who doesnt want them. this is neglect.
it wouldnt be the childs fault that his mother is a cow. or that the rest of the family are too.

Lizzyloolah makes all the points I thought of whilst reading through the comments and article, so I completely agree with everything said by Lizzy. Unfortunately user66 mums choosing new loves over children isn't as rare as one would hope and I have sadly worked with numerous cases like this where the child has found more supportive accommodation and the parents fight the every second to hold on to their child benefit!! And that's just from my experience in worcestershire. It's also common for parents to think their children have expiry dates and by the age of 15/16 they want to hand them over to childrens services - these are the families that need fining!! But these are also the families usually receiving benefits. So a good initiative but it won't work!

Should you one day properly read and analyse the proposals user66 you will find that you have wasted a considerable amount of your valuable time!

People should stop making cheap comments about children in care. When a child is taken into care, it is in the case of an emergency or when other plans have failed. For the child in care, there is often emotional stress and confusion (at least) and sometimes trauma.

When I some of the comments such as those of TDH123. We ALL pay for other people's children and in a civilised society, we should be proud to do so. It doesn't need an endless pot of money, just some basic compassion for those vulnerable children

Europeanist65 wrote:
People should stop making cheap comments about children in care. When a child is taken into care, it is in the case of an emergency or when other plans have failed. For the child in care, there is often emotional stress and confusion (at least) and sometimes trauma.

When I some of the comments such as those of TDH123. We ALL pay for other people's children and in a civilised society, we should be proud to do so. It doesn't need an endless pot of money, just some basic compassion for those vulnerable children

Sorry, how do others pay for my children? Secondly, why cannot people not take responsibility for the children that they bring into this world? Thirdly, and finally, it seems that there are some individuals who seem quite happy to assert their "right to have a child" yet equally content to have the tax-payer bail them out when things, somewhat inevitably, go wrong.

TDH123, others contribute to the cost of my children and yours by paying taxes for their: education, training, university healthcare and child benefit. No use condemning "those on benefits" we ALL get things from benefit system, rich and poor alike. We should not judge children on the actions of their parents. None of us can afford our children.

user66 wrote:

Jabbadad wrote:
You all are forgetting the children.
IT IS NO FAULT OF THE CHILDREN AND THEY ARE OUR NEXT GENERATION.

well said jabbadad!

Where has the humanity gone from our society? It used to be accepted that the children always come first, but now its all about money!

Have the council any moral compass at all? I am so disgusted with this Conservative administration, and I have voted for that party for 40 years!

Never again will I vote for a party that could put the children last, over money.

Europeanist65 wrote:
TDH123, others contribute to the cost of my children and yours by paying taxes for their: education, training, university healthcare and child benefit. No use condemning "those on benefits" we ALL get things from benefit system, rich and poor alike. We should not judge children on the actions of their parents. None of us can afford our children.

That is so not true! I pay out far more tax than anything the state pay towards my children. I pay for my childrens school fees and do not receive child benefit. When the time comes for university we have to pay the tuition fees and subsistence! The reason no doubt is because there is insufficient money in the pot, the tax payer having to fund the long-term idle and pick up the pieces for those who bang on about their right to a child, yet ignoring the responsibilities that follow.
If we really are a caring society then should we not be discouraging certain individuals from bringing a child into this world knowing that it will inevitably have a troubled future?

knick-knack wrote:

user66 wrote:

Jabbadad wrote:
You all are forgetting the children.
IT IS NO FAULT OF THE CHILDREN AND THEY ARE OUR NEXT GENERATION.

well said jabbadad!

Where has the humanity gone from our society? It used to be accepted that the children always come first, but now its all about money!

Have the council any moral compass at all? I am so disgusted with this Conservative administration, and I have voted for that party for 40 years!

Never again will I vote for a party that could put the children last, over money.

There not putting the children last at all - just fixing a very very broken system that pays idiots for having too many children and those that 'can't be bothered' to look after the life they bring into this world. Unfortunately the PC crowd, liberals, labour and general 'do gooders' spout rubbish and expect praise!

What a Tory handout for explaining that their not really the NASTY PARTY, when we know they are.