Mom w/ 15 kids says "somebody needs to pay"!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0QBD6CXgdo

Good God almighty!

Those are really cute kids to bad their mom is an idiot.

"Somebody has to pay"........should we get out our checkbooks?

This is what happens when people are taught that they are entitled to be taken care of.

Well, she is right....."somebody" will have to pay.  Because you can't let those innocent kids starve because their mother is an idiot.  But how many of them will follow in their mother's footsteps, because this is they way they've been brought up?

Termination of parental rights is a difficult process. We consider the bond between children and parents as an area which government has no jurisdiction. It is considered a fundamental right to parent a child without government interference.

I think any person after a third child who cannot provide for those children should have diminished governmental aid. We should begin to establish disincentives for lack of responsibility. In this case if her boyfriend was truly supporting his 10 children by work then of course there should be emergency shelters which can provide a place where a family can go. After the third child, a parent must risk lost benefits and a clear communication that benefits will no longer be paid directly to a parent, rather they will need to move to a shelter where the rules will be followed, and if a parent fails to care for their children, the parental rights will be terminated.

The welfare reforms of the 90s which Newt promoted were not done to punish families, but to give disincentive to the status quo. It is time to provide disincentives. The children must be protected, and certainly a parent who is thinking pennies from heaven are going to feed her children would be more responsible simply abandoning those children than to pretend she is a parent.

I had a client who had 16 kids and those kids suffered. The welfare never intervened and those kids slept outside at times in the snow.

2seaoat wrote:Termination of parental rights is a difficult process.  We consider the bond between children and parents as an area which government has no jurisdiction.   It is considered a fundamental right to parent a child without government interference.

I think any person after a third child who cannot provide for those children should have diminished governmental aid.   We should begin to establish disincentives for lack of responsibility.  In this case if her boyfriend was truly supporting his 10 children by work then of course there should be emergency shelters which can provide a place where a family can go.  After the third child, a parent must risk lost benefits and a clear communication that benefits will no longer be paid directly to a parent, rather they will need to move to a shelter where the rules will be followed, and if a parent fails to care for their children, the parental rights will be terminated.

The welfare reforms of the 90s which Newt promoted were not done to punish families, but to give disincentive to the status quo.   It is time to provide disincentives.  The children must be protected, and certainly a parent who is thinking pennies from heaven are going to feed her children would be more responsible simply abandoning those children than to pretend she is a parent.

It's not difficult in Santa Rosa County. The welfare reform laws already provide for no more benefits if you get pregnant while on aid but many agencies do not adhere to it especially in Calif. a shelter is only a temporary place.This is a chronic problem.

2seaoat wrote:Termination of parental rights is a difficult process.  We consider the bond between children and parents as an area which government has no jurisdiction.   It is considered a fundamental right to parent a child without government interference.

I think any person after a third child who cannot provide for those children should have diminished governmental aid.   We should begin to establish disincentives for lack of responsibility.  In this case if her boyfriend was truly supporting his 10 children by work then of course there should be emergency shelters which can provide a place where a family can go.  After the third child, a parent must risk lost benefits and a clear communication that benefits will no longer be paid directly to a parent, rather they will need to move to a shelter where the rules will be followed, and if a parent fails to care for their children, the parental rights will be terminated.

The welfare reforms of the 90s which Newt promoted were not done to punish families, but to give disincentive to the status quo.   It is time to provide disincentives.  The children must be protected, and certainly a parent who is thinking pennies from heaven are going to feed her children would be more responsible simply abandoning those children than to pretend she is a parent.

I think any person after a third child who cannot provide for those children should have diminished governmental aid.




Agreed, and we both know for some, baby-making is their only source of income......but is it fair for the kids born into this mess to suffer.

2seaoat wrote:Termination of parental rights is a difficult process.  We consider the bond between children and parents as an area which government has no jurisdiction.   It is considered a fundamental right to parent a child without government interference.

I think any person after a third child who cannot provide for those children should have diminished governmental aid.   We should begin to establish disincentives for lack of responsibility.  In this case if her boyfriend was truly supporting his 10 children by work then of course there should be emergency shelters which can provide a place where a family can go.  After the third child, a parent must risk lost benefits and a clear communication that benefits will no longer be paid directly to a parent, rather they will need to move to a shelter where the rules will be followed, and if a parent fails to care for their children, the parental rights will be terminated.

The welfare reforms of the 90s which Newt promoted were not done to punish families, but to give disincentive to the status quo.   It is time to provide disincentives.  The children must be protected, and certainly a parent who is thinking pennies from heaven are going to feed her children would be more responsible simply abandoning those children than to pretend she is a parent.

Bullshit!

The first ones a mistake after that the parents should take up the mantel of responsibility or give up their right to be a parent because they lack the ability to be responsible citizens.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9PCXVZto18

 

She is a brood sow and her children will be worse than she is.She probably gets a lot of money from the government but the men in her life know when the checks come and come and take them.  Is this our fault?

The people we freed to save the union are likely the same people who ultimately destroy the union proving that irony never stops.

The people we freed to save the union are likely the same people who ultimately destroy the union proving that irony never stops.


I disagree. One of those precious children could be the one who cures cancer. The probability of that happening becomes incredibly less likely as systemic damage to children is allowed by bad parenting and forced poverty and neglect. This really is a simple subject to address. It does not have racial overtones. I have seen families which are irresponsible of every race and ethnicity. When I lived in Mexico, I lived with a family of seven who scrapped and worked to survive. When we create a system of rewards, and those rewards harm children.......well it does not take a rocket scientist to adapt our system. It is time to correct obvious problems, but to generalize that all black people who were freed are going to destroy this nation, is simply putting the problem in a racial context which is not necessary. Stupid policy is color blind. Correcting stupid policy should also be color blind.

2seaoat wrote:

I disagree.  One of those precious children could be the one who cures cancer. The probability of that happening becomes incredibly less likely as systemic damage to children is allowed by bad parenting and forced poverty and neglect.   This really is a simple subject to address.   It does not have racial overtones.  I have seen families which are irresponsible of every race and ethnicity.   When I lived in Mexico, I lived with a family of seven who scrapped and worked to survive.   When we create a system of rewards, and those rewards harm children.......well it does not take a rocket scientist to adapt our system.   It is time to correct obvious problems, but to generalize that all black people who were freed are going to destroy this nation, is simply putting the problem in a racial context which is not necessary.  Stupid policy is color blind.  Correcting stupid policy should also be color blind.

*****ROFLMAO*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

Does she live in a shoe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_was_an_Old_Woman_Who_Lived_in_a_Shoe