Kids who hardly have a chance

[Bob_Crowley]

This is just a general beef. I do a bit of voluntary work with St. Vincent de Paul. Quite often the people we help are mixed up. But what I find disturbing is that I wonder what’s going to happen to the kids down the track.

You know the sort of thing - “I’ve just got the kids back” (from a state department): “I’ve go the kids for the weekend”; “Where’s the mother?” with an answer “I don’t know and I don’t care - she’s a drug addict” etc. etc.

In a sense, some of these parents are almost condemning their own kids. That’s the way I feel about it anyway.

Any solutions out there?

 

[Cat]

This is just a general beef. I do a bit of voluntary work with St. Vincent de Paul. Quite often the people we help are mixed up. But what I find disturbing is that I wonder what’s going to happen to the kids down the track.

You know the sort of thing - “I’ve just got the kids back” (from a state department): “I’ve go the kids for the weekend”; “Where’s the mother?” with an answer “I don’t know and I don’t care - she’s a drug addict” etc. etc.

In a sense, some of these parents are almost condemning their own kids. That’s the way I feel about it anyway.

Any solutions out there?

Orphanages–good ones, run by good people.

I think it’s a disgrace that children in the U.S. are allowed to remain with unfit parents.

Our definition of “unfit parents” needs an overhaul. In the U.S., we seem to think that only ax-murderers are “unfit parents.” It’s OK, though, to be a drug addict or dealer, or a street gang leader, or a thief, or mentally-ill and non-compliant with treatment, or a prostitute, or someone who sleeps all the time and never gets the kids to school…

This is ridiculous. No wonder so many kids grow up and fail utterly in life.

IMO, people who are not making the effort to feed and clothe their own children should be declared “unfit” and have their children taken away from them. Fuzzy wuzzy love isn’t sufficient to raise children. A good parent works hard to raise their children, and doesn’t have time for drugs, street gangs, stealing, prostitution, or lolling about in bed. And a good parent with a disability (like mental illness) will seek the best help they can afford so that they will be able to be a good parent for their children.

I realize that group homes have disadvantages, but surely a good orphanage gives a child a better chance than an unfit parent.

According to the statistics, the poorest people in the U.S. are the children of single mothers, and the second poorest group is the single mothers.

So…I think that young women who have children out of wedlock and have no supportive family to live with should be required to move into a “group home” with other young women and children, and this group home should be a place where these young women go to school, receive job/career counselling, and learn the life skills and values that apparently they didn’t learn while they were growing up. At the same time, their children would be cared for, and these young mothers would be taught the best in child care techniques. And it goes without saying–no dating allowed, other than group dates in group settings run by the “group home.” Yes, it’s kind of like a “prison,” but with a purpose–to help the young mothers break out of the cycle of failure and succeed in the U.S., and to help them raise up their children to succeed, too.

We simply have to break the cycle of failure that has, for many families, become their "family identity. We’re looking at the 3rd and 4th generations of able-bodied and able-minded families that have never held down a paying job. That’s not acceptable in the U.S. The rest of us simply don’t make enough money anymore to pay the way for these people to continue to fail. It’s time that we stopped the treadmill of stupid policies that aren’t working, and try something new, even if it’s something "old. I say orphanages and group homes.

 

[SamH]

This is just a general beef. I do a bit of voluntary work with St. Vincent de Paul. Quite often the people we help are mixed up. But what I find disturbing is that I wonder what’s going to happen to the kids down the track.

You know the sort of thing - “I’ve just got the kids back” (from a state department): “I’ve go the kids for the weekend”; “Where’s the mother?” with an answer “I don’t know and I don’t care - she’s a drug addict” etc. etc.

In a sense, some of these parents are almost condemning their own kids. That’s the way I feel about it anyway.

Any solutions out there?

I’ve been a foster parent for 4 years. The state should act much faster and in the interest of the children when removing them from abusive neglectful parents.

Our nearly 4 year old foster daughter has been in the care of the state for 3 years. Her father and mother beat and molested her and her older bother and sister. The parents have fought the removal of the children using taxpayer funded lawyers the entire time. The lawyers don’t care -they get paid by the hour. Had the court put the parents in prison where the belong and terminated parental rights immediately like they should have the kids would be much better off. Instead this has dragged out for three years. Her 4 year old brother is now 7 years old and is showing the scars of multiple foster homes and previous sexual and physical abuse. The longer this drags out the less likely he will ever find an adoptive home. Her sister’s abuse has left her so traumatized that she appears autistic. Her chances at adoption are slipping away too.

At the most recent court hearing we learned the EARLIEST our foster daughter would be available for adoption is 10 months out – that’s if they don’t file another appeal. People looking to adopt can’t handle the uncertainty of these long drawn out legal battles. There are few babies to adopt from state care because they literally grow up while their lives are fought over in court.

 

[MaryT777]

Sam,
God bless you for being a foster parent. While we await better answers for our children who are neglcted and abused, people like you fill in the gap. I worked with behavior disordered children and most all of them had grown up in completely chatoic homes.

My friend waited to adopt her son until parental rights were terminated which took
horrific abuse to even accomplish. It’s horrifying kids are left in those abusive situations.

Mary.

 

[St_Francis]

In another thread there was a discussion about lack of aid to one group or another, and I realized that in a Catholic society with families having lots of children, there is less pressure for any one person to get married, and so we see that there were more people to enter the religous life and dedicate themselves to orphanages and homes for unwed expectant mothers (like we used to have), and helping children on the streets (of which I think all the is left are the BoysTown and GirlsTown (started by a Catholic priest in the 1930s), etc.

So to me, the changes that would need to be made as massive. 1. Have more children so we have more who are able to dedicate themselves to helping people. No wonder private charities cannot take care of 100% of those in need: we are asking too few to do too much!

1. Change the laws so that women can not “profit” from having babies–having aid being directed by private local charities would help here as they could make individual decisions rather than having to make blanket decisions like the federal government needs to.
2. Understand that what most poor people need comes from other, loving people rather than simply money from the government.

And, as always, the most important thing needed js prayer, for the children and for those who care for them.

 

[EasterJoy]

Any solutions out there?

The poor are very often made even poorer by two evils: a) Substance abuse and promiscuous sex as the main refuges from the cares of life and b) divorce. Divorce, jail time…the list of very expensive fall-out from these goes on and on.

I would be pleased if the general public would reject how much drug and alcohol abuse are glamourized and object to how little respect devotion to “everyday duty” gets. We have gone too far in rejecting the idea that some behaviors ought to be socially taboo–meaning past the opposite extreme where no amount of contrition and amendment could remove the stain of bad behavior and all the way to the extreme where your behavior is normal until you get around to suffering the behavior’s predictable dire consequences. We respect hard work and self-denial if it wins a championship, but not so much the kind that sees all the bills paid every month and all the children born in wedlock and marrying themselves from an intact family.

That is not a middle ground that many societies have managed to find, alas.

 

[Moore11]

The solution will not be presented by the state. The solution is living a holy life for all involved.
The solution is when the parents do fail the future saints step up. Within orphanages or adoption, or any other support. Honestly, I dont think the problem is the parents so much as the state that allows and encourages this type of situation.
We can pray and we can help when and where we can but there is no real solution. Not in this fallen world anyway.

 

[EasterJoy]

The solution will not be presented by the state. The solution is living a holy life for all involved.
The solution is when the parents do fail the future saints step up. Within orphanages or adoption, or any other support. Honestly, I dont think the problem is the parents so much as the state that allows and encourages this type of situation.
We can pray and we can help when and where we can but there is no real solution. Not in this fallen world anyway.

Evangelization, yes, but also advocacy for those who do the work and far less tolerance of conspicuous consumption. Financial woes are one of the main predictors of divorce and substance abuse, yet if you turn on the TV you’d get the impression that there is something shameful about having last year’s clothing or Formica countertops instead of granite.

Let’s step back in time, and think what the attitudes were towards the poor immigrants…how high the rates of alcoholism were, how the children ran the streets, and so on. It wasn’t mere lack of evangelization that was the problem. It was the thirst for cheap manufactured goods at the expense of those whose hands made them. Most family ills are far more rampant among those with less education. The economic realities are part of that.

What would a healthy society look like? Well, not everybody is going to have granite countertops or a lot of smart clothes. There has to be dignity in doing work well and living within your means, even if your work is menial and your means are very modest. There has to be dignity in maintaining the kind of behavior that is inconsistent with overconsumption of alcohol. There has to be dignity in always showing up for work, being there on time, and doing good work while you’re there. There has to be dignity in a modest standard of living that is reasonably attainable by most people. Instead, we give glamour to the very habits and attitudes that ruin people’s lives. It’s just wrong.

I think that dignity comes when the main general concern of the population is how your choices appear before God, instead of whether or not you are impressing fools.

 

[Robertanthony]

This is just a general beef. I do a bit of voluntary work with St. Vincent de Paul. Quite often the people we help are mixed up. But what I find disturbing is that I wonder what’s going to happen to the kids down the track.

You know the sort of thing - “I’ve just got the kids back” (from a state department): “I’ve go the kids for the weekend”; “Where’s the mother?” with an answer “I don’t know and I don’t care - she’s a drug addict” etc. etc.

In a sense, some of these parents are almost condemning their own kids. That’s the way I feel about it anyway.

Any solutions out there?

None whatsoever. It all boils down to the kid’s own mental equipment, resiliency. Resiliency alone will account for the small percentage who will overcome the odds, the genes, the toxic environments etc. and will blossom into (relatively) well-adjusted, productive people. In people I’ve known personally, in more than one cases the foster family was nearly as bad as the biological family. The social workers under whose supervision they were were clueless or not interested. Not everyone does this for honorable and right reasons. That being said, hats off to those foster families who do it out of love and compassion. No doubt SamH is of the latter.

 

[Regina_Love]

I’ve been a foster parent for 4 years. The state should act much faster and in the interest of the children when removing them from abusive neglectful parents.

Our nearly 4 year old foster daughter has been in the care of the state for 3 years. Her father and mother beat and molested her and her older bother and sister. The parents have fought the removal of the children using taxpayer funded lawyers the entire time. The lawyers don’t care -they get paid by the hour. Had the court put the parents in prison where the belong and terminated parental rights immediately like they should have the kids would be much better off. Instead this has dragged out for three years. Her 4 year old brother is now 7 years old and is showing the scars of multiple foster homes and previous sexual and physical abuse. The longer this drags out the less likely he will ever find an adoptive home. Her sister’s abuse has left her so traumatized that she appears autistic. Her chances at adoption are slipping away too.

At the most recent court hearing we learned the EARLIEST our foster daughter would be available for adoption is 10 months out – that’s if they don’t file another appeal. People looking to adopt can’t handle the uncertainty of these long drawn out legal battles. There are few babies to adopt from state care because they literally grow up while their lives are fought over in court.

After 5 years as a foster parent, I agree the system is set up to send kids back to their biological parents as long as they are not in provable IMMENENT DANGER OF DEATH! It costs Nevada about $90K per year per child in foster care, and they give them 4 years! It’s crazy. I think the state should be required to offer adoption counseling to EVERY pregnant teen or woman who applys for assistance. Have her go through a program developing an complete parenting plan, and compare it an adoption plan which would include her looking at families and deciding which one she would choose. Adoption is a very loving option, and there are a couple million families in the US who can’t find a baby to love. Let’s get these people together!

 

[hannajomar]

I think so many children in foster care shows an even bigger breakdown of the family. If I couldn’t take care a my child, there’s probably a dozen households in my immediate and extended family who would take the him/her in. It would break my heart if one of my nephews went off to stay with some strangers if my brother couldn’t take care of him. I would take him in without thought. But families are becoming more and more broken now.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I think so many children in foster care shows an even bigger breakdown of the family. If I couldn’t take care a my child, there’s probably a dozen households in my immediate and extended family who would take the him/her in. It would break my heart if one of my nephews went off to stay with some strangers if my brother couldn’t take care of him. I would take him in without thought. But families are becoming more and more broken now.

Same. I have four nieces and if need be they will always have a home with me.

I actually did take them in a few years ago. I had all four for about a month and then just the youngest two for another 2 and half months. Their mom had cancer and it was just too much for my brother and SIL to handle, and they wanted to protect their girls, especially the youngest.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Thanks for your comments. I admire those of you who have been foster parents, and I am afraid our Australian system has similar nonsense going on. Once upon a time if you adopted a child, the child was yours. Not any more.

I think one of the problems is that there are too many lawyers in parliament. In the US for example it’s supposed to be around 46% (1991 figures). I couldn’t find an Australian percentage, but it’s probably similar, with economists coming in second apparently.

This means they’ll serve themselves when it comes to law - if you are injured in an accident for example, and sue for damages, the lawyers’ cut in Australia appears to be about 30%. When the Australian Government announced the recent Royal Commission into child abuse, a newspaper headline a few days later announced legal circles (vultures) were already circling. I wonder why - sympathy for the abused?

It must be helpful to the lawyers to have a system of foster care so costly to maintain, and with easy access to state funded litigation for the biological parents, and vice versa.

 

[leonie]

In my personal experience, I have a sister who is neglectful with her kids, doesn’t work, was married to a chronic liar and thief with at least 4 other kids with three different women.

Watching my sister has opened my eyes to how marginally functioning people view life. Both my sister and her ex view their children very selfishly. They love them as much as they can, but the big picture of the kids’ welfare isn’t on the radar. It’s all about how cute they are and having someone who belongs to them.

They depend on relatives to pick up the slack, and do not have much gratitude or shame about since, well, if the relative has the time and money, then of course they should share it.

And that is why my elderly parents have used up most of their hard earned savings and are getting up to make breakfast and change diapers while my sister sleeps in. And, the exhusband has his parents care for his other kids.

Kids with those kinds of parents who don’t have relatives able are willing to pick up the slack suffer.

 

[cmscms]

Well… IMO I think woman who give up their kids for adoption should be praised. So many woman screem it is their right to choose and have an abortion, yet there seems to be a stigma that giving a child up for adoption is wrong

It is a heart breaking situation that does not seem to have any ready made solutions. The best we can do is pray

CM

 

[vera_dicere]

I had this exact thought about a former neighbour’s child.

The mother and her boyfriend were in a horribly volatile relationship. He was very abusive, so much so she has now got a restraining order aginst him. After the baby was born they were still together, and he’d spend time getting stonned and blowing the smoke in the baby’s face. He’d also leave the baby at home while they’d go down to the pub. The whoel while that guy was cheating on the girl. Eventually its all come to a head and she’s got this court order against him, he blew his stack and got abusive to some other neighbours who’ve been nothing but helpful.

Now, their child is only 18 months, almost 2 years. She gets very scared around men, so much so the kindy she attends will make sure she can’t see the fathers who come for their children. She has stopped talking, and is often subdued, but I had heard from the other neighbours whov’e had lots to do with the parents [both only 20ish] that she used ot be very outgoing and clever.

The mother is a complete dolt, there’s no charitable way to say it. The child is never in clean clothes, they live in an trashy, damp, moudly shack in a terrible part of town. This is a case where adoption should have been more strongly promoted. I think of how wonderful that child would blossom if she’d been adopted by stable, loving parents.

Both parents have come from horribly abusive homes. I can’t help but wonder, on their day of judgement, what will they say to God about how theyv’e raised that poor child? Yet, God, I’m sure will show them great mercy because of the mess their childhoods have wrought on their lives. Sure, there comes a time when people have to “man up” and accept their troubles and try to get better for it.

Yet, that poor little girl, there’s not too much hope for her, not with the parents she has.

And yes, child services are involved, for better or worse, those idiots are involved. [They’re about as effective as teets on a bull down here].

So what to do? Well, firstly pray, I suppose. Then offer as much help as we can - of course, its the parents who have to accept it, and if they don’t, its the kid that gets shafted.

 

[Crescentinus]

Orphanages–good ones, run by good people.

I think it’s a disgrace that children in the U.S. are allowed to remain with unfit parents.

Our definition of “unfit parents” needs an overhaul. In the U.S., we seem to think that only ax-murderers are “unfit parents.” It’s OK, though, to be a drug addict or dealer, or a street gang leader, or a thief, or mentally-ill and non-compliant with treatment, or a prostitute, or someone who sleeps all the time and never gets the kids to school…

This is ridiculous. No wonder so many kids grow up and fail utterly in life.

IMO, people who are not making the effort to feed and clothe their own children should be declared “unfit” and have their children taken away from them. Fuzzy wuzzy love isn’t sufficient to raise children. A good parent works hard to raise their children, and doesn’t have time for drugs, street gangs, stealing, prostitution, or lolling about in bed. And a good parent with a disability (like mental illness) will seek the best help they can afford so that they will be able to be a good parent for their children.

I realize that group homes have disadvantages, but surely a good orphanage gives a child a better chance than an unfit parent.

According to the statistics, the poorest people in the U.S. are the children of single mothers, and the second poorest group is the single mothers.

So…I think that young women who have children out of wedlock and have no supportive family to live with should be required to move into a “group home” with other young women and children, and this group home should be a place where these young women go to school, receive job/career counselling, and learn the life skills and values that apparently they didn’t learn while they were growing up. At the same time, their children would be cared for, and these young mothers would be taught the best in child care techniques. And it goes without saying–no dating allowed, other than group dates in group settings run by the “group home.” Yes, it’s kind of like a “prison,” but with a purpose–to help the young mothers break out of the cycle of failure and succeed in the U.S., and to help them raise up their children to succeed, too.

We simply have to break the cycle of failure that has, for many families, become their "family identity. We’re looking at the 3rd and 4th generations of able-bodied and able-minded families that have never held down a paying job. That’s not acceptable in the U.S. The rest of us simply don’t make enough money anymore to pay the way for these people to continue to fail. It’s time that we stopped the treadmill of stupid policies that aren’t working, and try something new, even if it’s something "old. I say orphanages and group homes.

:clapping:

 

[SamH]

Evangelization, yes, but also advocacy for those who do the work and far less tolerance of conspicuous consumption. Financial woes are one of the main predictors of divorce and substance abuse, yet if you turn on the TV you’d get the impression that there is something shameful about having last year’s clothing or Formica countertops instead of granite.

Formica counter tops will help children lead better lives. Who would have thought?

Let’s step back in time, and think what the attitudes were towards the poor immigrants…how high the rates of alcoholism were, how the children ran the streets, and so on. It wasn’t mere lack of evangelization that was the problem. It was the thirst for cheap manufactured goods at the expense of those whose hands made them. Most family ills are far more rampant among those with less education. The economic realities are part of that.

What would a healthy society look like? Well, not everybody is going to have granite countertops or a lot of smart clothes. There has to be dignity in doing work well and living within your means, even if your work is menial and your means are very modest. There has to be dignity in maintaining the kind of behavior that is inconsistent with overconsumption of alcohol. There has to be dignity in always showing up for work, being there on time, and doing good work while you’re there. There has to be dignity in a modest standard of living that is reasonably attainable by most people. Instead, we give glamour to the very habits and attitudes that ruin people’s lives. It’s just wrong.

So would higher pay result in better parents or drunker parents?