Help me understand this

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Not following this. People with no mental issues find themselves homeless. Yes they do.
Interesting idea, but not true.

Uhm, no. I don’t know about the OP.

Well, the government does deficit spend. But, I doubt that we are all getting more than we put in. And, no, we are not all on some sort of “assistance”. I have not gotten anything from the government I have not earned. We don’t ever seem to qualify for anything. Which I guess is a blessing.

I love the Pope. I am awestruck by his humility. But, I don’t think we know his opinion on this specific case of this specific family.

Lets explore this further.
Your contention is that you do not take more from the government than you give? How much would one have to pay in taxes for this to be true? I assume you have read a library book, been to a national park, sent kids to school, used a road? have running water? Enjoyed subsidised farm food? Had a cop or fireman help you? Been defended from enemies? Saw an artistic performance? Filled out a FAFSA for education? Heck, ever even listened to NPR for 5 seconds? (blah makes me want to gag.)
Ever sat down and found out how much you paid to the government since you were born?

 

[mommamaree]

FordDad,

Let’s remove the emotionally-loaded terms and the rhetoric and hyperbole from the conversation for a moment.

1. How often are you helping with basics like rent, food, and utilities?
2. Are you helping out with a portion of such expenses, or are you paying the entire bills?
3. Are your daughter and SIL taking advantage of government food assistance (SNAP)?
4. What do you mean by government healthcare? Are you referring to Medicaid or Obamacare?
5. Are you insisting upon providing a higher standard of living for them than they can afford, because you object to their lower-class lifestyle, or are they unable to provide food, clothing and shelter for their children?

 

[Stilldreamn]

As I’ve said several times, we don’t know that she ‘can’t provide for them.’ We have ONLY the father’s side of the story, and he obviously values a very high standard of living, such that I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that ‘can’t provide for them’ really means she can’t afford music lessons and sports. That perhaps she and her husband are being pushed to live above their current means. That perhaps he ‘has to’ help with rent because they’re being pushed to live above their means.

I really seriously have my doubts that this woman and her husband are living in a one-bedroom dump in the ghetto with a leaky roof, cutting corners everywhere they can and he still has to help pay for even that.

Yes! The fact that they qualify for government paid healthcare for the kids isn’t particularly disturbing, since depending on the state they can make up to 300% of the federal poverty level, which for a family of 5 is $83,000 in 2014 and still qualify for Medicaid.

Our own large family could have qualified for Medicaid for many years EXCEPT that my employer offered very good and affordable healthcare coverage, even for part-timers.

 

[haedron]

I any reality where one receives any help from family or the society be it monetary or physical or emotional. I have never met a person who did not have a child and did not need assistance. Did you go to public school? Drive on roads? Enjoy community services? I guess your parents made a bad judgement on the night you were born then.

So, couple of things that need clarified:

1 - I think there’s a huge difference between the use of common infrastructure and taking advantage of an entitlement. I’m not saying that’s what the OP’s daughter is doing, but that’s an apples and oranges comparison.

2 - I don’t think there’s anything “wrong” with the OP helping his daughter’s family financially. I simply believe that by supplementing their income, he has every right to question her decision making when it comes to major financial decisions. Like it or not, having a child has a major impact on family finances. This should be a serious consideration for a family who already has more children than they can provide for. The OP’s daughter has clearly stated that they’re “leaving it up to God”. That’s not a Catholic teaching or requirement placed on Catholic families. Which is why I think the religious aspect of this is a red herring. The daughter’s clearly not making sound decisions and “blaming” Catholicism.

3 - As an adult, I have never taken money from my parents, nor will I ever unless it was an extreme circumstance. My parents regularly remind me of all the financial assistance that was provided in my young life for education, etc. I don’t want to be financially beholden to them in any way, because in my opinion doing so entitles them to question my financial decisions. I simply say this to illustrate that - in my opinion - there’s nothing at all wrong with the OP expressing his concerns because his daughter is taking his money.

All that being said, we’re gotten off the topic somewhat.

I think the OP realistically only has two choices:

1 - cut off financial support and mind his own business.
2 - continue to provide support and express his concerns if he wants to, but to be prepared to be ignored.

 

[PaulinVA]

Lets explore this further.
Your contention is that you do not take more from the government than you give? How much would one have to pay in taxes for this to be true? I assume you have read a library book, been to a national park, sent kids to school, used a road? have running water? Enjoyed subsidized farm food? Had a cop or fireman help you? Been defended from enemies? Saw an artistic performance? Filled out a FAFSA for education? Heck, ever even listened to NPR for 5 seconds? (blah makes me want to gag.)
Ever sat down and found out how much you paid to the government since you were born?

This is off topic, but, yes, I think I am cash positive with “the government” which includes state, local, and federal.

As an example, I’ve paid property taxes when I had kids in school and when I didn’t. I filled out the FAFSA, and the result was basically my EFC was more than the tuition, room, and board, so no help there. My first mortgage was a VA loan, but that is a cost of doing business for the military. They self insure and didn’t have to pay anything out, so that was a wash.The government got what it wanted out of me.

Everybody can’t get more from the government than they put in. That’s just common sense. Several of the things you mentioned are shared expenses. We fund a library system. Some people use it, some don’t. You can’t classify the people who use the library as takers who are getting more than they paid. They are using a shared resource that they paid their fair share into.

 

[The_Bucket]

2 - I don’t think there’s anything “wrong” with the OP helping his daughter’s family financially. I simply believe that by supplementing their income, he has every right to question her decision making when it comes to major financial decisions. Like it or not, having a child has a major impact on family finances. This should be a serious consideration for a family who already has more children than they can provide for. The OP’s daughter has clearly stated that they’re “leaving it up to God”. That’s not a Catholic teaching or requirement placed on Catholic families. Which is why I think the religious aspect of this is a red herring. The daughter’s clearly not making sound decisions and “blaming” Catholicism.

I’m not defending her decisions as prudent, but I am saying that since they aren’t morally wrong then no, he does not have that right to question their decision making over something like kids. Let me clarify that actually. He can question it all he likes in his head, but he gets no say about it. If he wants to question something, he can question their phone or cable bills or something.

As another poster said, if everyone who provides us with assistance gets a say over our financial decisions, why isn’t whether we can have another kid up to a government bureaucrat? Or a supervisor at your place of employment? Or would you prefer that say, someone on government assistance or foreign aid have to “apply” for the privilege to have a child because of the net drain they’ll be on society?

1 - cut off financial support and mind his own business.
2 - continue to provide support and express his concerns if he wants to, but to be prepared to be ignored.

Right. And frankly, he should be quiet about his concerns. Give freely or don’t give at all. Neither is an immoral choice. Trying to manipulate his daughter is the only immoral choice here actually!

 

[7armyrugrats]

My husband grew up in a one room dirt floored hut with palm branches for the roof. The frame was bamboo covered in mud. He ate beans and tortillas on good days, tortillas and salt on bad days. He was the oldest of two kids–my mother in law prayed for more but they never came. According to the logic of many posters here my husbands parents were irresponsible for allowing him to be conceived. I assure you that the grand kids do not live the way my husband grew up, but I am sure that they are just as happy as he was. Unlike most of the middle class people I know, my husband LOVED his childhood. They were the happiest days of his life, full of love and freedom. Most of the people I know grew up in middle class America and claim to have had a miserable childhood. Think of all the people who say their parents ruined their lives by things that occurred while they were growing up.

My husband and I have been homeless and not due to mental issues. We had one child at the time and were on the streets about 9 months. We had moved across country following a job that didn’t pan out and well, it took a while to get on our feet again. Compared to how my husband grew up, being homeless wasn’t so bad. Compared to being around my family and listening to the condemnation from them, being homeless was liberating. We never knew hunger even on the streets, and because we were homeless we had no address and therefore could not receive assistance. It’s one of those problems with waiting until you really need help before signing up. But it worked out and we got on our feet again. As soon as we got in a home, we had our 2nd child. 2 yrs later, #3. 13 months later, #4. When #5 was on the way, my husband joined the reserves. When #6 was coming, he went active duty. Now with 8 we are better off than either of us ever imagined we could be.

Unfortunately though it seems we have just been irresponsible breeders and none if our kids should exist. But then again my husband should not have been born either. However, my husband in all honesty saved me from a horrible path and a very depressing family situation. I cannot imagine where I would be if he had not been born. And still, I can’t help but believe the world is a much better place simply because my kids are here.

 

[haedron]

I’m not defending her decisions as prudent, but I am saying that since they aren’t morally wrong then no, he does not have that right to question their decision making over something like kids. Let me clarify that actually. He can question it all he likes in his head, but he gets no say about it. If he wants to question something, he can question their phone or cable bills or something.

As another poster said, if everyone who provides us with assistance gets a say over our financial decisions, why isn’t whether we can have another kid up to a government bureaucrat? Or a supervisor at your place of employment? Or would you prefer that say, someone on government assistance or foreign aid have to “apply” for the privilege to have a child because of the net drain they’ll be on society?

Well, I respectfully disagree. We may just have to leave it at that.

Taking the OP at face value - that his daughter’s family needs financial help for basics like rent and utilities - I can understand his concerns and don’t see a problem with him expressing them. The daughter can (and obviously has) ignored her father’s concerns, so there’s not much more for him to do other than keep the status quo or withdraw his support. Continuing to question her decision making is probably pointless, but I don’t think it’s out of line.

As for the rest, I would argue that there’s plenty of incentive and disincentive provided by the government, employers, private business, etc that can impact a family’s decision about children. I pay more for my employer provided healthcare based on the number of children I have. On the other hand the government gives me tax relief for each child. Catholic school tuition is paid per child. Government entitlements are allocated based on the number of children - abuse of which is well documented.

 

[The_Bucket]

Unfortunately though it seems we have just been irresponsible breeders and none if our kids should exist. But then again my husband should not have been born either. However, my husband in all honesty saved me from a horrible path and a very depressing family situation. I cannot imagine where I would be if he had not been born. And still, I can’t help but believe the world is a much better place simply because my kids are here.

Yeah but none of that matters because you never took violin lessons.

By the way, my kids are in violin lessons and they love it. And it’s subsidized by my in-laws. They have the money and do not care about giving it to us, nor do they think these lessons are any kind of necessity. They’re a luxury that they can afford to freely give to us.

 

[mommamaree]

My husband grew up in a one room dirt floored hut with palm branches for the roof. The frame was bamboo covered in mud. He ate beans and tortillas on good days, tortillas and salt on bad days. He was the oldest of two kids–my mother in law prayed for more but they never came. According to the logic of many posters here my husbands parents were irresponsible for allowing him to be conceived. I assure you that the grand kids do not live the way my husband grew up, but I am sure that they are just as happy as he was. Unlike most of the middle class people I know, my husband LOVED his childhood. They were the happiest days of his life, full of love and freedom. Most of the people I know grew up in middle class America and claim to have had a miserable childhood. Think of all the people who say their parents ruined their lives by things that occurred while they were growing up.

My husband and I have been homeless and not due to mental issues. We had one child at the time and were on the streets about 9 months. We had moved across country following a job that didn’t pan out and well, it took a while to get on our feet again. Compared to how my husband grew up, being homeless wasn’t so bad. Compared to being around my family and listening to the condemnation from them, being homeless was liberating. We never knew hunger even on the streets, and because we were homeless we had no address and therefore could not receive assistance. It’s one of those problems with waiting until you really need help before signing up. But it worked out and we got on our feet again. As soon as we got in a home, we had our 2nd child. 2 yrs later, #3. 13 months later, #4. When #5 was on the way, my husband joined the reserves. When #6 was coming, he went active duty. Now with 8 we are better off than either of us ever imagined we could be.

Unfortunately though it seems we have just been irresponsible breeders and none if our kids should exist. But then again my husband should not have been born either. However, my husband in all honesty saved me from a horrible path and a very depressing family situation. I cannot imagine where I would be if he had not been born. And still, I can’t help but believe the world is a much better place simply because my kids are here.

Thank you so much for sharing your story! You have brought tears to my eyes, and touched my heart. My family did not ever experience homelessness, but we have gone through some times where our choices did not pan out and we had to just walk away, from city and home, and let the bank take the home we had built. We continued to grow our family, and God has provided abundantly, and we are in better financial shape than we were when we had fewer children. More children does not equal greater poverty.

 

[FordDad1958]

Look, I remember how hard it was to even have three kids, each 2-3 years apart. Exhaustion, maximum stress and worry, my wife was a zombie when they were little! We had almost no social life for many years. It was okay and worth it, but we eventually saw the light at the end of the tunnel with regard to having a bunch of little kids. I am afraid my daughter will be an old woman before she sees an end to the hard work of little kids. I want her to have a life, too.

And my financial aid comes at no cost. It is freely given with love. I don’t expect anything back. I want to help my kids and I would do it for any of them. I will help all my grandkids, that’s why I work! Even if there are 20 kids, I will do everything I can to give them an advantage in life.

I guess it is just hard for me to comprehend the attitude of there being a finite amount of recourses, energy, time and space in their sphere of existence - but they are open to creating an unlimited number of takers of those resources, that energy, time and space, even when it becomes detrimental to their chances in life.

 

[FordDad1958]

FordDad,

Let’s remove the emotionally-loaded terms and the rhetoric and hyperbole from the conversation for a moment.

1. How often are you helping with basics like rent, food, and utilities?
2. Are you helping out with a portion of such expenses, or are you paying the entire bills?
3. Are your daughter and SIL taking advantage of government food assistance (SNAP)?
4. What do you mean by government healthcare? Are you referring to Medicaid or Obamacare?
5. Are you insisting upon providing a higher standard of living for them than they can afford, because you object to their lower-class lifestyle, or are they unable to provide food, clothing and shelter for their children?

Okay.

1. Every month we give them money for rent, utilities, medicine, things like clothing for the kids. On top of this, my wife often does their grocery shopping or “picks up something at Target” for the children. Sometimes they ask for the funds, and sometimes we offer. We always give them the money. No, they are not frittering away funds on movies, trips, restaurants, etc. They are really that broke.
2. We sometimes pay entire bills, and in fact their electricity bill comes right to our house because my wife was making herself sick thinking about their electricity being turned off. I think their rent is about 1400 a month (very cheap in this area) and we will often pay half.
3. They are on mediCal. Not on food stamps, I won’t allow it. I am not going to have my child begging for free food from the government when I can provide it for her.
4. MediCal
5. Honestly both. I want to see the grandkids have opportunities and I don’t want them to constantly hear “We can’t afford that.” And look, I am not saying they need to live in a mansion, attend the most prestigious schools, go to Hawaii twice a year and drive a Rolls. Come on. What I would like to see is that if one shows an aptitude for, say, piano and wants to play - that that child can have the opportunity for quality lessons. Or if one is great at tennis, that that child can be involved in competitive tennis. What I would like to see is that they can once in a while take a modest vacation as a family, and not STRESS about finances all the time. I would like to see my daughter be able to get a manicure once a month, or to see them be able to hire a sitter and go out to eat for their anniversary. I want things that normal people have. They don’t need to join the country club or fly first-class. We never did those things either. What I would like is if EVERYTHING were not out of their reach. What I would like to know is that if one of the children became very ill, that they could PICK their doctor instead of going where the government says they can. What I would like is for the family to have options, choices, and some flexibility. I would like them to sleep easy at night, which I know they are not right now. I feel that the continual state of flux that the family is in due to the successive pregnancies is not healthy. I think they need a break, to regroup, to figure out a plan for the future. That is hard to do when my daughter is ALWAYS hung over a toilet, exhausted, nursing a newborn, etc.

 

[The_Bucket]

Look again, I don’t doubt the sincerity of heart here. But priorities man, priorities. Placing a high priority on making sure your daughter has a social life or a manicure or that your grandkids are playing club sports is nonsense. I mean flat out, it’s nonsense.

And not allowing your grandchildren to be on assistance is pride. Again, flat out, it’s pride.

The other stuff, the paying for rent and utilities and groceries… I mean yeah. You probably should not do that because you’re teaching your adult kids that your resources are their resources. And they aren’t. You’re not helping them be self sufficient.

Pitching in with a few bucks when times are tight is one thing. Being half of their income is quite another. It’s very unhealthy.

But again, that has nothing to do with the Catholic faith. I can see why you’d think it might, but it doesn’t. That’s about making decision that, while not morally wrong, are (in my opinion) imprudent. I think the best course of action is to stop or dramatically reduce your assistance but still be there for them emotionally, spiritually and physically.

By that I mean, stop cutting checks but still be there to help babysit or clean up the house. Be there for them but stop enabling them to live well beyond their means.

 

[Stilldreamn]

1. Honestly both. I want to see the grandkids have opportunities and I don’t want them to constantly hear “We can’t afford that.” And look, I am not saying they need to live in a mansion, attend the most prestigious schools, go to Hawaii twice a year and drive a Rolls. Come on. What I would like to see is that if one shows an aptitude for, say, piano and wants to play - that that child can have the opportunity for quality lessons. Or if one is great at tennis, that that child can be involved in competitive tennis. What I would like to see is that they can once in a while take a modest vacation as a family, and not STRESS about finances all the time. I would like to see my daughter be able to get a manicure once a month, or to see them be able to hire a sitter and go out to eat for their anniversary. I want things that normal people have. They don’t need to join the country club or fly first-class. We never did those things either. What I would like is if EVERYTHING were not out of their reach. What I would like to know is that if one of the children became very ill, that they could PICK their doctor instead of going where the government says they can. What I would like is for the family to have options, choices, and some flexibility. I would like them to sleep easy at night, which I know they are not right now. I feel that the continual state of flux that the family is in due to the successive pregnancies is not healthy. I think they need a break, to regroup, to figure out a plan for the future. That is hard to do when my daughter is ALWAYS hung over a toilet, exhausted, nursing a newborn, etc.

It is hard to watch your children struggle. But struggling is relative. And CIGNA doesn’t give me free rein to pick my doctor and hospital, either.

Living in fly-over country is a** lot **cheaper than the west coast. One of our married daughters has 3 kids, a 4 br 2 bath home w/2 car garage- and they do this with one BA degree and 2 part-time jobs between them. They lived with us for the first couple years of marriage so they could save up for a downpayment and MY dad thought that was an outrageous imposition on me since they shouldn’t have gotten married and had kids if they couldn’t support them. She doesn’t get a monthly manicure but then again neither do I. We are normal, really we are.

 

[7armyrugrats]

Yeah but none of that matters because you never took violin lessons.

By the way, my kids are in violin lessons and they love it. And it’s subsidized by my in-laws. They have the money and do not care about giving it to us, nor do they think these lessons are any kind of necessity. They’re a luxury that they can afford to freely give to us.

Well, I have two in violin, six in piano, two play flute, 4 play guitar, one plays piccolo, and one taught himself to play accordion. Of course most of the instruments are played by more than one child and not all the kids play instruments. Some sing or dance. Some are athletic. My oldest daughter is all about horses, all animals really, but especially horses. The difference is, we make them pay for these things themselves. We help out some, but they pay the largest chunk. My daughter started out by working in the stable to pay for her lessons. She quickly started saving up from odd jobs for others and in two years time bought her own horse. My kids work hard, and we reward them by giving them opportunities to use their talents and interests. We also help financially as we are able. For instance, we just moved across the country and there was no way my daughter could pay to move her horse. Instead of selling the horse, we paid to move her. Actually, all the kids pitched in to help with the cost. That’s how it works in our family.

One son started violin, he is still in lessons but teachers the younger son. Our oldest was in band at school before I started honeschooling. He taught the other son flute. The younger flutist takes piano and teaches the others, and he also takes guitar and teachers the others. The boys still at home earn money by doing yard work, babysitting, picking up trash, whatever people let them do. It’s never much money, but enough to cover their lessons or sport events or going to the movies. Our youngest boy and two younger girls are too little for earning money yet (7,6 and 14 months) but the older ones are more than happy to give them free lessons, which is great because it causes them to practice more themselves.

I don’t expect anyone to agree with the way we raise our kids. I find nothing at all wrong with accepting help when needed or even before need arises. God knows I don’t think people better off are horrible for enjoying a “better” life, I just get tired of hearing that our life isn’t good enough. We are happy. Our kids are happy. Our oldest is on the autism spectrum but still is able to live independently and holds a good job (thanks to job corps!). He is possibly getting married, or possibly going to the monastery in the future. He still isn’t sure. He’s a Knight of Columbus and actively involved with the Church. Our next one down will be heading to military academy (West Point) and has plans to head to seminary and become a Catholic chaplain, unless of course he meets someone first. #3 wants to be a pilot and might join the Civil Air Patrol shortly to see if he really wants that or not. My oldest girl is wanting to be a librarian or a vet. She says she wants to stay single and adopt or marry, either way she wants to be a mom. #5, another boy, wants to follow his dad into the Army, #6 is preparing for First Communion and wants to be a nun. #7 is my sweet youngest son. He says when he grows up he wants to be a lover because he just loves everybody…yes, my husband and older kids all got a good laugh from that one. And only time will tell what our baby will do and who she will be, but no matter what happens I am not worried because she is the light in our family. Everyone will make sure she is well cared for and on a good path. If God decides we are to have more kids, we will be thrilled. Kids are very hard work, but they don’t need to be as hard as we make them. I don’t feel like I need a life outside of the home, my life is so fulfilling right here with my kids. I don’t need to get through this hard time with little kids because I know how quickly these days are over. I want to be able to enjoy every moment if them and I want them to know that no matter how bad life can get they can ALWAYS COME HOME. Money won’t make it to heaven with me but if I raise my kids right, they will.

 

[mommamaree]

Okay.

1. Every month we give them money for rent, utilities, medicine, things like clothing for the kids. On top of this, my wife often does their grocery shopping or “picks up something at Target” for the children. Sometimes they ask for the funds, and sometimes we offer. We always give them the money. No, they are not frittering away funds on movies, trips, restaurants, etc. They are really that broke.
2. We sometimes pay entire bills, and in fact their electricity bill comes right to our house because my wife was making herself sick thinking about their electricity being turned off. I think their rent is about 1400 a month (very cheap in this area) and we will often pay half.
3. They are on mediCal. Not on food stamps, I won’t allow it. I am not going to have my child begging for free food from the government when I can provide it for her.
4. MediCal
5. Honestly both.
   [SNIP]
   I think they need a break, to regroup, to figure out a plan for the future. That is hard to do when my daughter is ALWAYS hung over a toilet, exhausted, nursing a newborn, etc.

This response is great. Going with non-emotional language and sticking to the facts will help us all to understand you and get a better picture of the situation you are describing.

Based on what you have shared here, I daresay that your daughter and her family are in trouble. It sounds as if they would not be able to support themselves for basic food, clothing, and shelter, and it sounds as if your daughter’s health is suffering. I know that your concerns are related somewhat to their family planning mindset, but the reality that you describe is more focused upon their real, practical needs, relating to survival and health.
I would not recommend discussing their family planning mindset with them, but I would recommend having a sit-down with them to talk about how you can best help them to strategize for gaining financial stability. Talking about things like term life-insurance for SIL, taking a financial freedom course (Dave Ramsey is often talked about here as an excellent spokesperson and he has that Financial Peace University), budgeting: these topics will not require them to defend their beliefs from a position of disadvantage, but will instead be focused upon helping them to pull themselves out of a difficult situation and being able to be proud of themselves.
Share with them websites such as
Budget101: Digging yourself out of debt when all you have is a spoon!
budget101.com/
Living on a Dime
livingonadime.com/

Maybe you could even offer to pay for them to take the financial freedom classes and babysit so they are free to attend the classes together?

I think you are going to have to leave the topic of preventing pregnancy alone, though. Natural Family Planning is a moral way to prevent pregnancies, but the Church does not teach that any couple (no matter how poor) MUST use it. She merely allows each couple to decide. On top of that, despite the worries and the difficulties, preventing pregnancies while impoverished is a question of prudence, and not a moral issue. It doesn’t become a moral issue unless contraception, sterilization, or abortion are used to prevent pregnancy.

Regarding the rent, that is exhorbitant. I take it your family is in California? Perhaps a sensible course of action for your SIL is to seek employment in another state. This would present a whole other kind of hardship though, one of which I am well-acquainted, so it is no small matter. Regarding their pregnancies and their responsibility and how it relates to their faith: I know a great many people of the millenial generation who have been forced to accept frequent help from their parents, even after marriage and children. The economy is not what it once was, and things are much harder now. My sister-in-law, who is a nominal Christian, and is married to an agnostic, has had to move back in with her parents TWICE since they married, and they have had 2 babies during this time of coming and going. My inlaws help them financially all the time, and babysit several days each week, but they get to live in the same town. My husband and I, on the other hand, have chosen to move away to be able to make it on our own. We are Catholic and they are not. So religion is probably not really as much of a factor here as it might initially appear.

But, my main point is that you are in a position to advise them on financial issues, since you are seeing that they are in desperate need, and you are helping them financially. And a father is generally a good person to listen to for financial advice and most grown children understand this. But you are not in a position to attempt to correct them about their family planning mindset. And for all you know, they might have been attempting to use NFP, but have found it to not work for them. (And I just want to point out that many many children are conceived when contraception is found not to work, too. I know of children who are conceived after their mother went off the Pill because it made her ill, and I know of children who were conceived when a condom broke. Any form of pregnancy prevention carries with it the risk of “failure”, i.e. conception, except complete abstinence.) They may not want to tell you that because they have decided to welcome the child and put a smile on and not be regretful about it.

 

[Sunbreak]

It seems like a number of people have attacked the original poster who has some legitimate concerns. However, the daughter may not care about further education at this point and it is her decision. It also sounds like the daughter’s family is very dependent on him for financial support and this situation is not improving. The daughter is plenty old enough to be able to take care of herself, so her husband should be providing for her and the children, not her father. As long as the father keeps paying the bills, there is no real incentive for the couple to try to do better on their own. I can totally understand the original poster’s concern about his daughter having more children when the family has serious problems making ends meet already.

 

[holyrood]

Thank you, FordDad, for clear, concise answers.

If you don’t mind my asking a few more:

1. Is your son in law the main breadwinner, or the sole breadwinner?
2. Does he have a college degree, and if so, in what?
3. What field is he in?
4. Is he working full time?

I ask, in part, because, as I said, I was in exactly your daughter’s position–except I had five children at the age of 29. My husband did not have a college degree. He didn’t have a great paying job. But we were absolutely fine financially. So it sounds to me like maybe they need to change some of what they’re doing, because the truth is, many, many 29 year olds are just fine with 3 or 4 kids.

If they are indeed totally unable to take care of themselves, I think the focus on their faith decisions is misplaced.

 

[Lorelei12]

Look again, I don’t doubt the sincerity of heart here. But priorities man, priorities. Placing a high priority on making sure your daughter has a social life or a manicure or that your grandkids are playing club sports is nonsense. I mean flat out, it’s nonsense.

And not allowing your grandchildren to be on assistance is pride. Again, flat out, it’s pride.

The other stuff, the paying for rent and utilities and groceries… I mean yeah. You probably should not do that because you’re teaching your adult kids that your resources are their resources. And they aren’t. You’re not helping them be self sufficient.

Pitching in with a few bucks when times are tight is one thing. Being half of their income is quite another. It’s very unhealthy.

But again, that has nothing to do with the Catholic faith. I can see why you’d think it might, but it doesn’t. That’s about making decision that, while not morally wrong, are (in my opinion) imprudent. I think the best course of action is to stop or dramatically reduce your assistance but still be there for them emotionally, spiritually and physically.

By that I mean, stop cutting checks but still be there to help babysit or clean up the house. Be there for them but stop enabling them to live well beyond their means.

Agree with all of this. OP, I guarantee that your daughter would rather have all of her children than be able to get a manicure once a month or provide them with tennis lessons. She and her husband have decided what is most important to them, and you need to get on board with that.

I think you are doing them a huge disservice by paying half of their rent, utilities, groceries, etc. Helping them out is one thing, but you’ve made them dependent on you. You’re a generous and loving dad who wants to see his daughter comfortable and happy; I get that. But you cannot in one breath complain that neither one will go back to school and that they’re having too many kids, while in the next saying you refuse to stop supporting them. Why would they bother to try to improve their situation on their own? If you want them to understand that there are “finite resources” and to take responsibility, why keep enabling them to live a lifestyle they cannot afford? If they cannot afford $1400 a month, they move into housing that fits better within their budget or apply for housing assistance. Or move to a lower cost-of-living area. That’s what self-sufficient people with a sense of what they can afford do.

I think that if you are going to continue paying for their livelihood, you are going to need to keep your opinions about their family size to yourself. If it bothers you too much that they cannot afford a roof over their heads and food, the best thing you can do is not to push either one of them into school if that’s not where they want to be. You can help them become self-sufficient by helping them to help themselves. They don’t need manicures or vacations- they need a sense of responsibility over their finances.

 

[Xantippe]

I’m afraid the answer to the young people’s situation may be leaving California, or at least leaving expensive California. Young families in their situation can’t afford $1400 rent. Heck, my family is considerably more prosperous, and we were really choking on $1450 rent a year ago.

Being very firm about reducing housing costs is one of the keys to staying afloat. Ideally, housing should consume no more than 25% of income. 50% of income is the danger zone for housing costs–once you are laying out 50% of income in housing costs, it’s almost impossible to get traction.