What is the answer?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-120312 4/Pregnant-mother-13-babies-taken-care.html

13 children taken into care and she is now pregnant again and says she will continue to have more until social services are prepared to let her keep one.

Are they in the wrong to refuse her or should she be forcefully sterilised, what is the answer?

Miss Winters, who left school with no qualifications and worked as a factory packer until giving birth to her first child, receives �271 a month disability allowance. An accident left it difficult for her to walk.

Mr Housden, 36, is her registered carer and they receive �511.33 a month in income support, plus �300 a month for housing benefit and council tax on their one-bedroom flat. Mr Housden used to work as a pizza delivery man but gave up 17 years ago.

[craft1948]

er "forcefully" or "forcibly"..........

[Sqad]

craft.....BOTH.

[albaqwerty]

"an accident left it difficult for her to walk"

I'd have said if she could spread her legs, she could walk.

sorry for the crudity but methinks a braincell escaped her early development.
Once again, the tax payers pick up that tab. I wonder if she got paid for this story, if she did surely that would affect any benefits?

[daffy654]

I don't believe any woman should be forcibly surgically sterilised,she should however have a court ordered chemical sterilisation.

[Sqad]

daffy how would you supervise the "chemical sterilisation". by that I guess you mean the "pill?"

[daffy654]

The pill or something similar,she would have to attend a chemist/doctor's surgery daily and be supervised in the taking of it...........that is how Methadone is handed out round here in some cases.

[blackietwo]

sterilisation! for the safety of the yet unborn children. I am not usually this radical in my thoughts!

[blackietwo]

What is the reason, why they take the children? There must be a very good reason for them to take them I think

[sara3]

I think they might gain some respect if they worked on getting one or some of their existing children back.

[sp1814]

Okay...you cannot compell this woman to have a sterilisation. I know that seems like a solution, but it's simply not viable.

It's not like she's committed a crime. She's just a burden...and you really cannot advocate sterilisation (dangerously close to eugenics) for those we may feel socially irresponsible.

By the way, has anyone noticed it's always the women who get blames whenever we see stories like this? Why not castrate all men who have sex with her? Would that be as acceptable to those who advocate her sterilization?

[craft1948]

She's not doing too badly......I think the kids only have 2 different fathers.....

[R1Geezer]

OK I'm going to sound like a bit of a pinko here!

This is one of those cases where we are floundering because any "solution" has huge consequences by implication. Yes I'd like to sterilise her etc etc but if I think about it that sets a precident where the state has power over the individual. In the future the power would be misused, short of having an enabling act of Parliamnent for this woman only, the damage would be immense.

I just don't trust the politicians and assorted public sector busy bodies with that kind of power.

As much as it abhors me this is a case where there's very little we can do about it.

[Sqad]

sp1814...that is daft. Too late for those who have had sex with her and how would you know who was to have sex with her in the future?

[marval]

Personally I think she should be told, any more children and your benefits stop. How could she be so irresponsible, if she has had 13 kids taken away, she should not even consider having any more. Who is going to explain the situation to those kids.

[anotheoldgit]

She admitted that social services had probably made the right decision in removing her first 13 children because of neglect, but said she had 'calmed down' now.

I think the answer may lie here.

She is already pregnant, alright give her, her wish, let her keep this one, but then keep a very close check on how she brings this baby up.

At the least sign of danger to the baby, social services should move in, she should then be arrested for neglect, tried and if convicted, she should serve a long prison sentence, taking her past record into consideration.

In hindsight this should have happened after baby 2.

[chinadog]

Stop the benefits then see what happens!!

[anotheoldgit]

chinadog

Stop the benefits then see what happens!!

Yes an understandable knee-jerk reaction, but................

Disability allowance?????? She is unable to work.

He doesn't work because he is her registered carer??????

No money going into the house therefore.......

Income support????

Housing benefit & Council tax relief????

On what grounds could they stop these benefits?

Unless they can be found to be fraudulently claiming any of
these.

They can't stop any child benefits, because they don't get any, because the children are in care.

[pinktwink]

havent social services let her down too?? She herself was taken into care yet it did not equip he r with the necessary skills for parenting. She does not appear to be getting support like parenting programmes or individual support to allow her parent safely

[trt]

It said on the late TV news that she couldn't talk as shes in for a payment from a National Newspaper.

Hope that's deducted from her benefit's!!!

[Twenty20]

13 kids and another on the way? The father deserves an award for bravery. Does he wear a life jacket or have a rope attached to one foot and tied securely to a piece of heavy furniture?