Is taking children away from welfare recipient parents the solution to a problem?

Question

I was prompted to ask this, because another poster asked if low-income parents should have their children taken away from them. I'm assuming here that he was referring to parents who are welfare recipients. Don't get me wrong. I think it's a pity that there are some people who have children they can't afford and who use welfare as a lifestyle instead of as temporary assistance. However, what are we supposed to do here? Even if all of these children were taken away from their parents, the burden would still fall on the taxpayers, because the children would end up going to the state.

Answer 1

If you want my personal and Conservative opinion, that poster just got divorce papers served to him.

He just found out that in addition to the alimony she is entitled to, based on his millions, because he screwed around with the "office worker" who had a dog instead of a child, and because he is also losing custody of his 4 children, he will pay $5,000 a month in child support.

That's my personal and professional opinion of that poster.

ADDED: Caldude, were those children HATCHED?! No, they have FATHERS! Sterilize males and females after 2 children born on the dole.

Answer 2

Hey might as well...just one more step toward Bush's Hitleresque, can there be such a word, fascism...I have a better idea, let's call the welfare recipients "gypsies" and euthenize the parent or parents and use the children for stem cell research....absurd, of course, but taking any children away from the natural parents is just as absurd...you know, given the right resources, the children can become productive members of society...without, hey you either give it now or when they become the majority, they will come and take it...and with American greed, it will happen sooner than later...a Canadian observer.

Answer 3

It is difficult enough to raise children these days, we don't need to add the threat of taking them away from parents who love them, if those parents should lose their jobs, or become disabled.
Welfare, nationwide, has a 5 year cap, so the old ideas about it being a lifestyle choice, are no longer valid. There will always be the unfortunate among us, and I believe that we as a society are mandated to treat these people with compassion, because in the blink of an eye, we could be them.

Answer 4

No. The answer is to take welfare away from those parents unless they have some physical handicap that limits or prohibits their ability to work. Perhaps if the free hand-outs were taken away, the needs of their children would motivate the lazy to look for, and excel at, their jobs.

Answer 5

What should matter is the interests of the child, and whether those interests could be better fostered in state care or by their parents.

The interests of the child does NOT mean a plasma tv and swimming pool, it means good care, good food and a proper education.

State care of course would mean foster parents or adoption, and yes, I think it would have to be paid for by the state.

But if the kids turned out well, got jobs and did not become burdens on the society, they would soon repay the exependiture through their taxes.

Cheers :-)

Answer 6

Yeah, that's a really bad idea. Like punching someone in the face to help relieve a toothache. Er uh... cutting off the nose to spite the face. You know what I mean.

Another point is that the trauma of children to be taken from their parents will lead to so many more problems later in the children's lives that, ultimately, this measure would create infinitely more problems, social and financial, than it would ever help to fix.

Even more obvious, where would all those millions upon millions of children go? There is nothing in place, nor could there conceivably be something created, to house and care for all of those children.

This might possibly be the worst idea in the history of the world.

Answer 7

We should help these families out. Educate them so they can raise their children to be self-sufficient. You know we aren't all born with the same gifts and understanding. Sometimes people need to be shown through to a better life. Take their children? Has this turned into a regime situation where choices are made for us. I hope not.

Answer 8

What about people who are down on their luck for a while and have a health issue. Do we really want them to lose the only thing that really matterrs to them too?
What we need to do is to make the welfare system less of an incentive program for the scum of society and more about helping legitimately down citizens.
Instead of taking people's kids away we should help them prevent pregnancies if they can't afford kids and if they still choose to have kids, then they can get off welfare and earn for the kids they want so badly.

Answer 9

No. There are no more orphanages and foster care is already overburdened.

However, as a stipulation to receiving welfare, I believe that we should force welfare mothers to use birth control or be sterilized at the state's expense.

Answer 10

It's not. We would still be paying for these children.

But perhaps the folks who complain about women on welfare should stop demonizing women who put their kids in day care. As one other poster pointed out, a number of women get dumped by hubby (or divorce their abusive husband/kick out a drug-using husband, etc.), have no skills, and get no support from the father of their children. So she can sit at home and care for her children, with some assistance, or she can put her kids in day care and go out and try to earn a living. Getting (re)married is not always a solution, as she's not exactly going to be marrying a rich man so she can sit at home and care for the kids, now, is she?

I hate the idea of forced sterilization. It just screams eugenics to me. And aren't many the very folks who are against welfare also against birth control? I fully believe that if you can't feed them you shouldn't breed them, but I believe it is also wrong to try to control a woman's childbearing.