Aged 12 And Looking After the Family

[AccyMad]

Originally Posted by West Ender

I only saw a little of last night's programme but the woman came across as completely stupid and selfish. She had no idea of trying to help herself or do anything for herself and she just looked on her children as insurance for her future. She had no interest in their welfare whatsoever and just left the little ones to rot until the older ones came home. She and her husband didn't talk to them or play with them, they didn't even change nappies, not that difficult even if you can't see provided you have everything in order. The couple didn't seem to have much difficulty finding their cigarettes and beer cans.

Social Services jumped in and took well cared for children from their homes when ridiculous allegations of Satanic rites were made, some years ago, but they leave little ones in a home like that. It defies common sense.

Completely agree WestEnder, I started watching the programme but had to switch off before it was half way through, the way those poor kids were having to cope with everything and the way they just accepted that thats what they had to do was very upsetting to watch.

[WillowTheWhisp]

A friend who saw this program was telling me about it and as she described the squalor and the lives of those children I felt so sorry for them. I didn't see it myself and all I know about it is what others have told me but the fact that an 8 year old tried to commit suicide because she couldn't cope is enough to indicate that something is very, very wrong.

I'm apalled Mancie that you seem to be defending the selfish attitude of these parents in having children to act as servants and carers. Leaving babies without having their nappies changed, leaving them uncleaned and unfed unless an older child feeds them (which cannot happen when the older child is at school), doing nothing when a child falls and is injured ........ it amounts to neglect.

Those children will not look after the parents when they get old. They'll be off like a shot as soon as they can and who could blame them?

I do not think parents, able-bodied or disabled, who cannot or will not look after their children should be allowed to keep them and keep producing more. It's not a case of the parents' human rights and equal opportunities, it's about the lives of the poor innocent kids.

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I'm apalled Mancie that you seem to be defending the selfish attitude of these parents in having children to act as servants and carers. Leaving babies without having their nappies changed, leaving them uncleaned and unfed unless an older child feeds them (which cannot happen when the older child is at school), doing nothing when a child falls and is injured ........ it amounts to neglect.



I do not think parents, able-bodied or disabled, who cannot or will not look after their children should be allowed to keep them and keep producing more. It's not a case of the parents' human rights and equal opportunities, it's about the lives of the poor innocent kids.

I am not defending the selfish attitude of these parents...I am defending the basic right of human beings to have children, Willow.. what do you mean when you say they should not be "allowed" to produce more children?.. along with gay people not being allowed to adopt, you seem to suggest some form of restriction on invalids not being "allowed" to have kids..how would you enforce these restrictions?

[WillowTheWhisp]

I have never in any of my posts stated that gay people should not be allowed to adopt. Neither has the Catholic church ever made such a sweeping statement. What they did, and what I see no reason for anyone objecting to, was to pass gay couples on to other agencies rather than deal with the adoption themselves. Much the same as when you go to a tradesman and ask for a specific type of work which he doesn't do and he says he knows a man who does.

However, that is an entirely different subject and there's already a thread so no need to drag it into this one.

The subject here is the parents in this particular documentary who seem to regard having children as producing someone to look after them in their old age as a form of duty. The children are being denied their childhood and having far more responsibility heaped upon them than they should have to deal with. A child of 8 attempting suicide because she can't cope should get the message across loud and clear that all is not well here.

If someone mistreats a dog they usually end up being banned from keeping dogs. If people mistreat a child and the child is taken into care because of the way they are treated by the parents then it often happens that if the mother has another baby, if nothing has changed in the home then the new baby is also taken into care to prevent him or her suffering as the previous child/children did.

For the sake of the children I do believe this is the best course of action. I believe these parents are selfish and don't seem to have any understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood. Or do we consider the welfare of dogs to be more important than the welfare of children?

I sincerely hope social services will keep an eye on this family and that the welfare of the children will be top priority. And I still think these parents should cease to reproduce.

[Gayle]

I think what Mancie is defending is the basic right for blind people to have childen.

Taking this case individually, blind or not, I don't think they were caring for their children adequately and as has been pointed out there are many able sighted people who are just as bad. But many, many other blind parents provide loving caring homes for their children.

[WillowTheWhisp]

It's this particular family I'm talking about who shouldn't have children not blind people in general - as you say Gayle there are many blind parents who love and care for their children and there's no earthly reason for them not to have children. There are deaf parents who have hearing children and those children may not be able to speak to their own parents or at least not be understood by them but they can still learn to speak from other people. No reason for deaf people not to have children. No need for people who cannot walk not to have children.

Children can be and often are a great help to parents by being able to see something a parent can't see or hear something a parent can't hear or reach something that a parent in a wheelchair cannot reach but that is totally different to this family where the children are under such an awful strain and have total responsibility for their younger siblings. They must worry about what's happening to them when they aren't there.

It's been mentioned earlier that some children have been taken into care for the most illogical reasons like those wild accusations of Satanic cults, or indeed the couple whose IQ was below average but the father had a full time job and the children were always well cared for, loved, clean and well-fed and making the normal progress expected of any child. Yet these children who in my opinion are being abused are still with the parents who apparently plan to go on producing more. For the sake of the children I just can't believe that it's right for them to do so.

It must see heartbreaking to couples who try and fail to have children to see others mistreated.

There are many children who act as carers too but whose parents still love them and care about them too so it's responsibility but in a mutually caring environment. Even so those children get respite help.

[Gayle]

We also have to remember a couple of factors

Young girls can be a bit dramatic - moving a few clothes to them is tidying the whole house!

It was Channel 4, who let's face it, aren't renowned for their positive editing in this type of documentary.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by Mancie

along with gay people not being allowed to adopt, you seem to suggest some form of restriction on invalids not being "allowed" to have kids..how would you enforce these restrictions?

I suggest you read my original post again. What I actually said was:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I do not think parents, able-bodied or disabled, who cannot or will not look after their children should be allowed to keep them and keep producing more. It's not a case of the parents' human rights and equal opportunities, it's about the lives of the poor innocent kids.

Please note that I said "able-bodied OR disabled" i.e. the physical attributes of the parents is not the issue and never was. It's the way they treat their children and the children's rights that matters.

I see you misquoted another post by another member in order to criticise him. Not a very intelligent way to win an argument when the original posts are there for all to see.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by Gayle

We also have to remember a couple of factors

Young girls can be a bit dramatic - moving a few clothes to them is tidying the whole house!

It was Channel 4, who let's face it, aren't renowned for their positive editing in this type of documentary.

I didn't see it Gayle but the friend of mine who did was quite horrified by it and I think it was more than just moving a few clothes. Mine grumble about having to do that, or their turn for the washing up. Who cared for the babies in this family though and changed nappies? They were not changed all day when the older kids were at school I was told one child fell and hurt his (?) lip but the mother didn't respond to the crying until prompted to do so by the camera crew. What mother doesn't react when a child cried in pain?

Anyway I'm not the only one in this thread who felt that the parents reasons for having children were selfish and that they don't behave like people who deserve to have children. There are at least 3 others of the same opinion.

[Gayle]

I agree with you Willow and I did watch some of it but it was actually too sad to watch it all. I'm playing devils advocate to some degree!

All I'm saying is that Channel 4 can be a bit on the sensationalist side. I'm not saying that they fabricated everything, just that they don't necessarily provide balanced reporting.

[Tinkerbelle]

Originally Posted by Gayle

All I'm saying is that Channel 4 can be a bit on the sensationalist side.

I'm damn sure if Channel 4 had made edited footage to blatantly lie and make me look like a totally selfish, incapable parent they'd have had a law suit on their hands! I would move heaven and earth to clear my name.

[West Ender]

I agree with you, Gayle, about Channel 4 but from what I saw this programme was not manufactured or particularly manipulated. This was a couple who were full of self pity and totally irresponsible. They weren't reading from a script and the children's blank look and general air of neglect wasn't put on for the TV crew.

[Mancie]

Willow.. i'ts plain for all to see that you have the best interests of the children as the priority.. but I did not misquoute you or Grego... you say the parents of these children should "not be allowed "to have more children.. again I ask you how would you enforce this?.I can't think of to many options so what is yours?

[Tinkerbelle]

Originally Posted by Mancie

you say the parents of these children should "not be allowed "to have more children.. again I ask you how would you enforce this?.I can't think of to many options so what is yours?

They shouldn't be allowed, it's not fair on the kids! They are unable to take an active roll in providing BASIC needs for their children so why have more?

I really do think people at a higher level should be able to step in and say enough is enough.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by Mancie

but I did not misquoute you

Originally Posted by Mancie

you seem to suggest some form of restriction on invalids not being "allowed" to have kids

It doesn't matter how much you choose to deny it Mancie - you did misrepresent me. I did not at any point suggest a restriction on invalids having kids. My reference was to these particular parents as can be clearly seen in my post.

How should it be implemented? Social Services could do as they have done in the past and take any new babies they may have into care before any more problems arise - based on the treatment of the children they already have.