2006-10-10 05:12:38 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Parenting
It would be the parent who enables them.
It's one thing to not want children. It's one thing to not have children. It's one thing to dislike children.
It's another thing to want children, have children, then ignore them, or put no time into raising them.
2006-10-10 05:18:55 · answer #1 · answered by .vato. 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, single mothers and dads are no longer undesirable for going after baby help. the two mothers and dads are in charge for the youngster. The non-custodial be certain would not get to in easy terms walk away and pass away the total burden on the different be certain. confident, the youngster has a proper to be supported by potential of the two mothers and dads. The custodial be certain shouldn't would desire to pass to courtroom to get baby help, yet while the non-custodial be certain refuses to do their section, that's what it often comes all the way down to. Going after baby help would not make the custodial be certain lazy, nor does it recommend they do no longer desire to assist the youngster themselves. baby help is in easy terms financial, and the custodial be certain, regardless of baby help, will pay so plenty extra into that youngster - besides as grant for all of their coaching, emotional, psychological, actual needs - than the non-custodial be certain, tremendously if the non-custodial be certain has little to no involvement with the youngster. do no longer desire to pay baby help - don't have a baby.
2016-10-02 03:59:01 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great question. Some just spit them out to show them off to the neighbours. I think the smartest people are the ones that don't choose to spread the problem of smog, traffic, sewage, and clogged schools and campgrounds and grocery stores and mini marts and bakeries and planes. If you aren't "made of money" it would be a very pathetic decision to hourque out a kid, let the father do a Houdini to South America, and then be stuck on welfare for 50 years +. Also, planes are being flown into buildings so there's another reason to wake up and smell the jetfuel - pardon the pun. These mothers are looking through glasses that are made out of pure ROSES - and they are severely lacking in the intelligence area. If their husband ever stops paying the mortgage, there's another victim to the welfare system... Cuz she'll just go find another one with a nicer and safer minivan for her kid...
2006-10-10 05:35:29 · answer #3 · answered by Mark Bingham 1 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The lazy parent. I don't have a problem with children in and of themselves, I have a problem with self-absorbed, self-centered spoiled brats that scream and cry to get their every whim, or run around my table while I'm in a resturant trying to enjoy a peaceful meal because their parents don't make them sit the hell down.
2006-10-10 06:42:37 · answer #4 · answered by sovereign_carrie 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Read Barbara Coloroso's book, "Kids are worth it!". She refers to two types of parents, the jelly fish parent (the enabler) and the brickwall parent (my way or the highway). Both are equally dangerous, though in different ways.
2006-10-10 06:27:30 · answer #5 · answered by ekielly07 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The person who causes it by letting young children do what they want whenever they want. This just causes them to expect to get everything they want and then everyone's going to hate them for it.
2006-10-10 06:43:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think they are the same type of person. They just accidentally had kids..
Bad parents should be hung!
2006-10-10 05:26:38 · answer #7 · answered by idontknow 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree, the enabler.
2006-10-10 06:24:01 · answer #8 · answered by melcar12345 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Finally a decent question! Both!
2006-10-10 07:32:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sadly it would be the enabler.
2006-10-10 05:15:32 · answer #10 · answered by kam_1261 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋