woman has 13 children

[dinger]

It is in the newspaper today about a woman who has had 13 children and is now expecting another . All these children have been adopted and some of them have been born with health problems one being blind. She insists she is not going to stop having babies until social services let her keep one. her and her husband live on benefits and neighbours have said there is no way they could be fit parents due to neglect shown in the past. Her last baby was born last year and was taken into care as soon as it was born.I agree in a case like this these children must be protected and should be taken. It appears no one is able to prevent them producing more as she cannot be steralized against her will he can't be forced to have a vasectomy and they can't be forced to use birth control. There are laws for everything else it does'nt seem right they can be allowed to carry on in this way . What do you think?

[Crocus]

Goodness Dinger, this almost sounds unbelievable how a woman can have 13 babies, another on it's way and all adopted. What was the reason for their first baby to be taken away I wonder. There must've been good reason why the first baby was taken away, which probably is the reason why the other 12 babies were taken away. Surely by now she and her husband or partner must know that this is what happening when they have a baby, so why carry on?

That said, what would the English court for example require as enough proof from social services to prevent them from having more?

[jazzactivist]

It is now illegal in the UK for any woman or man to be forcibly sterilised, crocus, as the law was being used by parents and doctors to sterilise young women in their teens who had learning and physical disabilities or mental health problems without taking into consideration whether they might choose for themselves to have their own children later in life, and choose for themselves what type of support they would want. The law was only changed in the early 1990s in recognition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) which states that "all people have the right to marry and found a family". Before 1990 a parent or guardian, doctor or social services could make a case to the court for forced sterlisation. OH and I have both worked with women who were forcibly sterilised before that time - he with women with learning disabilities, and me with women who had children taken into care.

I think that this couple must be very uneducated to have that many children anyway, with no proper means of supporting them. It seems strange nowadays for a couple to have so many, so there must be something amiss since contraception is so readily available. However, with so many pregnancies affecting her hormones this woman has probably hardly ever not been pregnant, breastfeeding, or looking after toddlers so that will be her body and mind's normal state over many years, so it will be screaming 'baby' when the others were taken away from her. This type of replacement behaviour by the woman is a recognised psychiatric illness, but it is only seen as a problem if the woman is living on benefits or unable to care for her children. How many women do we know who want to have another baby soon after one child dies or becomes very ill? And doctors, relatives and friends even recommended it in some cases.

There was a famous case that was made into a film in 1994 by Ken Loach called "Ladybird, Ladybird", which was the story of a woman whose 4 children were all taken into care in the 1980s, as she lived with a violent man and lived on benefits. It was unclear whether they both had a mild learning disability, mental ill-health or were just very uneducated. The story traces how this couple couldn't look after their children and they were eventually taken into care, after social services had tried everything else. The women kept having another baby as one was taken into care, and after all 3 were adopted she had another baby which was immediately taken into care and adopted, and while she was under anaesthetic she was sterilised by court order. The woman became grief-stricken and very ill, and social services had to admit that they had acted judgmentally. It was very unclear as to whether this couple were genuinely unable to care for their children, or if the constant intervention by social services made their situation worse. This was the case that changed the law.

My own personal view is that children should be put first and families who seem to be 'at risk' should be carefully monitored and supported. If the children are not being looked after well then they should be taken into care, and the family supported on a progressive schedule to do things better. This should include the parents preparing for work and finding a job to support their family independently. If various conditions aren't met then arrangements should be made for fostering and ultimately adoption. This is already done to some extent, and usually done well by social services despite the press coverage, but there are so many grey areas in making decisions about a couple's ability to care for their own children. Does being poor or living on state benefits mean that couples shouldn't have children? How dirty is too dirty? Is a natural childhood scrape or bump worse if it is in a household where children are only marginally cared for in other ways? Did we all have perfect parents and upbringings? Should State benefits stop after the second child in any family? In this couple's case I think that social services were right to take their children into care and the couple must have agreed to the adoptions, but the woman needs specialist help to ovecome her dependence on having children to make herself feel good, and possibly the man too.

[Crocus]

I agree that children should be put first, but wow to have 13 children, well almost 14, and all of them adopted seems as if there's a gap, an escape route of some kind somewhere in decision making both from her and her husband and the law in this particular case. Of course it's her right to have children, but if she knows they are taken away because she can't look after them, surely by now she must've gotten the message? I wonder if therapy might help this woman? For how long does she want to carry on having children, and have her child adopted again.

Are these children in foster care or legally adopted? In the case of legal adoption, she must give consent isn't?

It seems like a conundrum and there's quite a lot of angles to these things it seems. As you've said, children should be put first, but what about the psychological effect it has on her, even if she can't look after them? Every baby taken away from her, makes her more determined it seems and I wonder if she still want's babies or whether it's a case of her now being used to this routine, and also whether she want's to win by social services allowing her to keep her child. xx

[dinger]

She is now saying she will go abroad so this new child can't be taken but even her own sister says she is an unfit mother . You can hear an interview with this woman on
the sun.co.uk/suntalk with Jon Gaunt.[ Baby machine ]

[Crocus]

I would've thought she'd done this a long time ago. That's what so strange to me about this whole case. Have 13 babies, give them all up for adoption and now want's to go abroad to have the 14th.

[jazzactivist]

They are clearly a very uneducated couple, dinger. She will find that she won't be able to leave the country if her future child is deemed to be at risk, or if a care order has already been taken out, and it sounds like it has. I think that crocus is probably right and this woman has become determined to fight social services and 'win' her child, but the only way this is possible is if she actually changes the way that she lives and raises her children. It seems such a straightforward thing to do, with correct support. Some people create more and more problems for themselves.

I can't understand why some people want such a lot of children. We have friends who had six, and when I asked her why she had chosen to have so many she said that as soon as one was up and walking she just had a desire for another baby. She would have carried on if it had been biologically possible. I think that it is quite selfish, really, and people should only have the number that they can properly afford and physically look after.

[Crocus]

I wonder whether her intention ever was to have so many children Jazz. But because her child gets taken away each time, she want's another one, not realising what she's actually doing to the children, her body or her mental state. I think she's not in to win or have a child as such as to win against social services. In fact, I think the baby comes second, probably doesn't count at all, otherwise she would've stopped very early on when she realised that each baby are taken away. She want's to make a point.

[dinger]

I may be wrong but can't help thinking by telling this to the world it is a way of making money from the media for their story.Neither of them work or have any intention of doing so and this having another baby and another is to make a point she does'nt care.

[Crocus]

Exactly what I thought, she wants to make a point. It will be interesting to hear what she has to say on the radio program.

[dragonfly]

It sounds rather disgusting to me but perhaps being pregnant stops her grieving for the lost children. Some people are adicted to being pregnant and arn't bothered about the children. No-one in their right mind would go through 14 pregnancies knowing they can't keep the babies. It is even more sad when you think of the people who can't have children and would make excellent parents.

[Crocus]

Have any of you perhaps listened to the radio interview with her which Dinger mentioned? I'm quite intrigued as to what she had to say. xx

[souter girl]

To me the ultimate irony is the ease with which she conceives each child - so easy to start a life, but what about the rest of each child's existence? I know she has human rights but so do her babies. I personally think she should be sterilised, but I know it is open to abuse.
It is also sad for any couple desperate to start a family but not having much luck and contemplating IVF

[Crocus]

I feel after 14 babies surely something has got to be done by someone? Especially just having them, not fit to look after them and the babies are put up for adoption, or foster care. I agree with couples who will go to the ends of the earth to have a baby, which does makes this case so ironic.

I also feel that she should be sterilized but of course it's a story all on it's own, apart from being illegal.

[jazzactivist]

I also think that in cases like this sterilisation would be best, but think that this woman and her partner need professional help so that they make the choice to be sterilised themselves. I also have concerns about how and to whom this woman has conceived so many babies. It seems odd that so many of her children are disabled, and disabled in very different ways too. Perhaps there is too much of the genetic connection between her and the babies' father/s? Or perhaps they both carry hereditary genes for certain disabilities and, if so, then they need some medical advice.

I also think that her partner going along with her views shows that he is quite an abusive man, as no man should put his partner through so much physical and mental turmoil. It is like a lifestyle from the Victorian era, before contraception and women's rights. Unfortunately, the Sun covers these types of 'human interest' stories to stir up public anger about people living on benefits, rather than uncovering the real story behind what is going on.

[dinger]

This story was in all the newspapers Jazz and I did listen to her interview in which she bragged she will keep on having babies so the tax payer has to pay just out of pure spite . her love of children did'nt come through at all in fact she was called some pretty awful names such as a slob and a leech. She just kept replying she did'nt care what anyone thought. No one could stop her and her intention is to carry on in this way every time a baby is taken she will get pregnant again. I think she is a disgrace to womanhood .

[dragonfly]

She should definately be stopped one way or another. I didn't realise she is having disabled children, that makes it more disgusting. I can understand anyone having issues with authority or the government but what has she got against ordinary working tax payers. If it wasn't for tax payers she would have to work for her keep. What a dispicable man he must be.

[Crocus]

As I thought, this women has absolutely no feeling for the babies. How can this woman be allowed to carry on in this way? The irony of it all is that she is very fertile which helps her a lot to "achieve her goal". I wonder what she would've said and done if she had a struggle to fall pregnant?

Can't what she said on the radio be used in some way in order to stop her and her partner? I feel someone somewhere must step in here. I know it's illegal to force a couple not to have children, but goodness me what she said on the radio is hair raising.

[jazzactivist]

That is a horrible attitude for someone to have. You wonder how she got that way that she cares so little for her children, herself or for others who are helping to keep her in the manner to which she has become acustomed. If someone is as angry as that against society then I think that there must be something hidden in her background. Continuosly having babies in this way must be the opposite of what she says and a type of self-harm, and her partner must be encouraging her and reaping the 'benefits' of keeping her constantly pregnant. What a pair. Eventually she will be too old to have any more children and what will happen then? I do think that they both need help to see life beyond babies. Nowadays, even parents who have had their children forcibly adopted can agree an arrangement where they can keep in contact with them through social services, and many adoptive parents agree to this for the sake of their children knowing something of their birth mother. My half-sister has this type of arrangement with both of her children's birth mothers and one of her children was forcibly adopted through the courts as his mother was unfit to care for him. She would still be an unsuitable mum, but she does send him letters from time to time and my half-sister sas it helps him to understand what happened.

[Crocus]

I get a feeling here of her perhaps want to "punish" someone, perhaps herself, or the babies? Goodness, it's quite an outrageous thing to say, but she is totally irrational in her approach and thinking. Her partner as well. Something deep down is not as it should be. If only someone can get to the bottom of this. She and her partner shows quite 'abnormal' behaviour.

[jazzactivist]

I must admit that for a liberal leftie I have swung over time from thinking that all people who need it are entitled to welfare benefits and should be able to self assess, to thinking that all benefits should only be time limited to a year, and only people who can prove that they are very seriously ill or totally incapacitated should receive long-term benefits. The rest should have to work for their income. I have also changed my mind about people receiving any benefits for having children. I think that this is causing people to have children without thinking about the real costs and how they will fit into their lives. I suspect that if this couple had to work for a living the wouldn't be keen to have as many children. Most people on benefits are sensible about it and want to find work, but many also get stuck in the trap of thinking that they can't come off benefits as a job wouldn't pay them as much. Welfare benefits were orginally intended as a short stop gap / safety net for when people become too ill to work for a while or are between jobs in times of employment downturns. They weren't meant as an alternative income. I do think that the Labour government in the UK has gone a bit too liberal with this, but also wouldn't want to return to the previous Conservative government's brutal attitude towards ill or disabled people.

[Crocus]

Of course we also have these benefits in our country, and what I do know about it, is that it costs the taxpayer lots and lots of money. If, as you've said Jazz, it's to fill a gap until such a person's circumstances change, it's fine and I'm for it, but on a permanent basis where they don't want to work but live from benefits I feel is wrong, it's extreme pressure on taxpayers, and it doesn't teach these people anything else except sitting at home, doing nothing, not contributing in any way, and at the end of the month just receive the benefit money.

[dragonfly]

I agree with you both that anyone who can work should work. But is there enough jobs for them to do? If there is, is it fair to employers to have to put up with idle people who don't really want to work.

[Crocus]

No there's not enough jobs, that's the problem DF. What annoys me is the children not going to school, having baby upon baby upon baby, and for each baby they have, they get paid by the government, which in effect is the taxpayer, you and me. I can tell you about a whole lot of people where parents, children and grandchildren are all living under one roof, the girls having babies, and not a stitch of work being done, or even trying to find some kind of job somewhere. The only something many, many of them contribute to the community and the country are babies who burdens the government even further, which burdens the taxpayer a whole lot more. Should HIV occur, the taxpayer must stand in for that too. It's actually a vicious circle.

[dragonfly]

I agree Crocus. I don't mind working and paying tax to keep people who can't work but hate keeping people who choose not to work and are happy to let others keep them.

I think it is really sad that single girls who choose to have a baby get a home and money provided and even the babies dad doesn't contribute, but because my son owns his own house and his girlfriend works they can't afford to have a baby.

[Crocus]

The irony of these things eh? It's like school fees. Some apply not to pay the fees because they "can't afford it", but boy, the vehicles they drive to school to collect their children....... Which means other parents must pay their schoolfees, or in effect, actually the car.....

[jazzactivist]

I think that there are enough jobs to go round, just not necessarily in the line of work that the person did before. There always seem to be plenty available in job centre windows and in the press, even now. Yes, a few are probably dodgy and exploitative, but most will be straightforward. I think that the maximum of a year of benefit provision would be enough time for someone to be able to find another job to suit them. Perhaps it should be the case that no-one can claim any kind of benefit unless they have worked for a certain period of time beforehand and accrued enough? This is the case in the UK for unemployment benefit, but not for income support which anyone can claim. Or maybe people should have to pay their benefit money back once they find a job, as students have to do for their tuition fees and loans?

Also, I don't think that there should be any kind of child benefit unless the parents have worked to accrue it - maybe so many months within the year preceding each child, with the option to save more through a salary scheme if parents want future childcare / nursery places etc. It seems harsh, but it may be the only way to break the benefits culture. This shouldn't affect people who are genuinely too ill or disabled to do any kind of work, but there aren't many people in that category. This type of tighter system would create more money for state pensions and proper payments for carers of seriously ill partners, parents or children.

[dinger]

I don't know how anyone could ever dream they would be better off living on benefits.My husband is disabled and we live totally on our old age pension and his disabled benefit which is such a small ammount we are only able to live from week to week. we don't indulge in any luxuries don't take holidays and this allowance does'nt increase with the cost of living going up. being able to work for your living is by far the better option if you are fit and able.you can't beat independance and knowing the money you have has been earned by your own labours.

[dragonfly]

I don't understand how people are better off on benefits either dinger as my disabled son only gets a pitance and would not be able to stay in his own house if his girlfriend didn't live with him and she works. If he was in rented accomodation he would get the rent paid but he desperately wants to stay in the home he has worked years for. My OH and me have worked hard for everything we have and I agree it is a nice feeling to know you have earned it.

[Crocus]

Hi DF, I agree, we also worked hard for what we've got and our parents didn't help out at any stage except when we had to borrow part of a deposit for our first house we bought 32 years ago. We paid back every single penny. If we couldn't afford it or buy it cash, we just went without. It helped us to work sensible with our money, etc. etc. I must say that we are very grateful for not having to be dependent on benefits - it could've been different.

[jazzactivist]

We have also worked hard all of our lives, and now I am reaping a bit of reward through having saved up enough to take a year off work to develop my own craft skills. We have also never had debts, other than an affordable mortgage, and have never claimed any benefits. I hope that it doesn't come to it, but if either of us became seriously ill or disabled we would just do the right thing in claiming what we need and not 'fiddle the system'.

I have worked with a few people over the years who knew the welfare benefit system inside out, like the London Knowledge that taxi drivers have to have. They even worked how how much they would get in extra benefits and in-kind relief for fostering a child, eg eligibility for funded family holidays, or for sub-letting a room in their house to someone with a disability ie payment for providing 3 meals a day rather than 1. These people knew every new development in welfare policy and would be the first to claim any new benefit on offer, preparing their argument well in advance. Any little bit extra was pounced upon. I used to tell them that they should apply for a job with the DSS, but the answer was always the same - that jobs didn't pay enough. Luckily, most people don't do that and are just grateful to get any benefits if they need them. The system is so complex that I think that you need to have the mind of a mathematician to really make it work for you, but that doesn't put some serial benefit claimants off...

[dinger]

It is reported in the paper today this woman's baby is to be taken away from her as soon as it is born which is expected very soon now . Her and her partner are to be allowed to see it under supervision and must have training for 3yrs before they will be allowed to ever keep a child . however she is still saying more will be born she will not give up.

[dragonfly]

I think it is good she is having it taken from her. It's a pity she can't be sterilised.

[jazzactivist]

I think that it is the best thing for the baby in this case too. The three year training also sounds fine to me, as some people need to be taken through every little thing to learn how to be responsible. Eventually, this woman will reach the menopause and not be able to have any more children, but she needs to learn before that that just having a child doesn't instantly improve your life it just makes it more complex and any existing problems more serious when you have a vulnerable baby to look after as well as yourself. I think that the man should be persuaded to go for a reversible vasectomy and the woman should be persuaded to have an IUD fitted, at least until they have completed the training programme. Then see if they still have the same attitude and take it from there.

[dinger]

Just an update on this case in this weeks paper The couple concerned had their 14th baby recently and it has been taken straight from her at birth into care. She still insists she will have more .

[Crocus]

Either she must be allowed to keep her children, or she will have to realise why they are taken away, but this loop will have to be broken. It can't carry on!

[sunflower]

The parents could attend a family centre where they learn to care for the baby. This whole case needs to be reviewed by an independent assessor to see if there really is a case for having removed the children. It's all a bit suss to me.