COMMENTS: 62
Too Poor to Parent?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email.
When a recurrent plumbing problem in an upstairs unit caused raw sewage to seep into her New York City apartment, 22-year-old Lisa called social services for help. She had repeatedly asked her landlord to fix the problem, but he had been unresponsive. Now the smell was unbearable, and Lisa feared for the health and safety of her two young children.
When the caseworker arrived, she observed that the apartment had no lights and that food was spoiling in the refrigerator. Lisa explained that she did not have the money to pay her electric bill that month, but would have the money in a few weeks. She asked whether the caseworker could help get them into a family shelter. The caseworker promised she would help -- but left Lisa in the apartment and took the children, who were then placed in foster care.
Months later, the apartment is cleaned up. Lisa still does not have her children.
It is probably fair to say that most women with children worry about their ability as mothers. Are they spending enough time with them? Are they disciplining them correctly? Are they feeding them properly? When should they take them to the doctor, and when is something not that serious? But one thing most women in the United States do not worry about is the possibility of the state removing children from their care. For a sizable subset of women, though -- especially poor black mothers such as Lisa -- that possibility is very real.
Black children are the most overrepresented demographic in foster care nationwide. According to the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO), blacks make up 34 percent of the foster-care population, but only 15 percent of the general child population. In 2004, black children were twice as likely to enter foster care as white children. Even among other minority groups, black mothers are more likely to lose their children to the state than Hispanics or Asians -- groups that are slightly underrepresented in foster care.
The reason for this disparity? Study after study reviewed by Stanford University law professor Dorothy Roberts in her book Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare (Basic Books/Perseus, 2002) concludes that poverty is the leading cause of children landing in foster care. One study, for example, showed that poor families are up to 22 times more likely to be involved in the child-welfare system than wealthier families. And nationwide, blacks are four times more likely than other groups to live in poverty.
But when state child-welfare workers come to remove children from black mothers' homes, they rarely cite poverty as the factor putting a child at risk. Instead, these mothers are told that they neglected their children by failing to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, education or medical care. The failure is always personal, and these mothers and children are almost always made to suffer individually for the consequences of one of the United States' most pressing social problems.
The legal system often provides no haven for these parents. Based on even the flimsiest allegations, they are essentially presumed guilty and pressured to participate in various cookie-cutter services that often do not directly address the concerns that brought them to court. For example, after her children went into foster care, Lisa was asked to attend parenting classes, undergo a mental health evaluation, seek therapy and submit to random drug testing before her children could be returned. But child-welfare authorities did not assist her in repairing her home or finding a new apartment, nor have they gone after her landlord for allowing deplorable conditions.
Race and poverty should not be a barrier to raising one's children. But in order to prevent the entry of poor children into the foster care system, state and federal government must confront poverty-related issues. Until this country comes to terms with its culpability in allowing widespread poverty to exist, poor black mothers will continue to lose their children to the state. And we will continue to label these women "bad mothers" to assuage our own guilt.
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Magginkat on May 23, 2008 5:16 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Kinda like this article seems to be ignored!
Posted by: desidid
» RE:Obama pandering?
Posted by: Sushi
Comments are closed-
» RE: The culprit is sex.
Posted by: cosmicgirl
» I like being 27 and plus its New York
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: The culprit is sex.
Posted by: BCcovers
» that is true
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BCcovers on May 23, 2008 6:55 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who gawk at government funded, free abortions for the poverty stricken fail to look at the societal cost of having to raise these (often times) fatherless children. The break down of the family structure in these communities contribute to crime, poorly educated children, and social unrest. Now I know I'll get a whole bunch of anecdotes refuting this, but the facts are the facts. Many socialogical studies have come out linking a child's success (education, staying out of trouble, etc.) being directly correlated to having two parents. In other words, a child has more of a chance of success and to contribute to society if they grow up with two parents (whether it be traditional, or a same-sex couple raising the child.).
We have to all be realistic as a society and not only give these women the opportunity to make a choice, but also make having children a disencentive to the extremely poor of our nation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Abortion
Posted by: cosmicgirl
» RE: Abortion
Posted by: BCcovers
» RE: Abortion
Posted by: Triffel
» RE: Abortion
Posted by: BCcovers
» Were is the Father?
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: Abortion
Posted by: no1kstate
» Not an issue for Abortion
Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Not an issue for Abortion
Posted by: no1kstate
Comments are closed-
Posted by: janvdb on May 23, 2008 6:58 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chosing WHEN and WITH WHOM to have a child is THE SINGLEMOST IMPORTANT aspect of being a good mother.
You do the first steps wrong, you have your children into an inadequate situation then, no matter what you do, you are an unfit mother.
Get an abortion and try again in ten years, when you are ready.
That's what a GOOD mother would do.
If you have no skills, are barely making enough money to stay alive, are involved with a man who isn't interested in contributing to his children or who cannot do so due to lack of education, lack of job skills and low income, you become pregnant by him and carry that child THEN YOU ARE A BAD MOTHER.
Get ready. THEN have children.
99% of people can get ready -- get themselves into a situation where they can be good parents -- if they delay childbearing and work at it.
Children CAUSE poverty.
Accepting this elemental social reality is what allowed the British and Japanese people to pull out of the poverty and filth of the Middle Ages a century ahead of the rest of the "developed world." The rest of the now-developed world finally caught on to the necessity of responsible procreation to development, health and, basically, survival. Some places haven't figured it out yet.
Please read the excellent historical demography of Oxford professor Alan MacFarlane.
I have absolutely NO sympathy for women who bear children into hopelessly impoverished situations and then whine when their children are taken from them. I think many of those children should be taken at birth, so they have a good chance at a adoption into a household where they can be adequately taken care of, educated and provided for.
Before you get pregnant and/or carry that child to term, you need BOTH an adequate income and an employed, involved father. If you lack one of those and you have kids anyway, well, you're a bad mother and you SHOULD lose your kids. The sooner the better.
The simple fact is, the children not only suffer from poverty, THEY CAUSE IT. 99% of these women, if they would responsibly delay the birthing of children for a decade, could work their way out of poverty and get themselves into a situation where they would be good mothers. And, if men realize that all their "spreading of their seed" is getting them nowhere due to responsible women, and that unless they settle down and become good fathers, they will never actually have any offspring, men would do their part.
Get together in a respectful relationship with a woman, get a job, bring home your paycheck and hand it to her. THEN she will allow you to replicate yourself.
Now, that would work on men.
continued below . .
Jan VanDenBerg
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Having children AFTER you can afford them is the NUMBER ONE aspect of being good mother
Posted by: andabottleof_rum
» RE: Having children AFTER you can afford them is the NUMBER ONE aspect of being good mother
Posted by: janvdb
Comments are closed-
Posted by: janvdb on May 23, 2008 6:59 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More power to Social Services. I just wish they would get in there and take these kids immediately after birth, sever parental rights and give these kids a chance at a decent life in an adoptive home.
Yes, for poverty. Because the mother is poor and has no contributing father. Just for that.
Because, never in the history of the developed nations, have poor, single women been allowed to have children -- for VERY GOOD REASONS.
If you are poor, DELAY YOUR CHILD BEARING.
That's what has been the absolute minimum of decent behavior for the last 1000 years in parts of the human race considered "developed" and without those minimums, poverty will only spread and spread and spread until it envelopes the entire society.
Is it just too much to expect that people maintain the modern equivalent of the old requirement that a couple have the bare minimums necessary to "set up house" before getting married and creating children? A small plot of land for a garden and a field for a cow, some chickens, some ducks, bedding, dishes, maybe a draft animal -- this is what has been demanded from the young before they could marry and bear children for the past 1000 years and if anyone thinks the logic behind that social convention has been repealed just because we no longer milk our own cows, well, you're probably BROKE YOURSELF because you refuse to face up to the realities of survival.
Jan VanDenBerg
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Having children AFTER you can afford them is the NUMBER ONE aspect of being good mother
Posted by: BCcovers
» RE: Having children AFTER you can afford them is the NUMBER ONE aspect of being good mother
Posted by: peacekeepertwo
» RE: Fathers
Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Sad
Posted by: shannasmusic
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cosmicgirl on May 23, 2008 7:44 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You say that other civilized nations don't have single parents? You know you are wrong. A lot of these "civilized" nations have cultures that don't even believe in marriage or GOD. The reason they are able to succeed where America has failed is because they actually take care of their own citizens before they try and save the rest of the world.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Jan VanDenBerg
Posted by: kuro_neko
» Free Birth Control?
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: Jan VanDenBerg
Posted by: BCcovers
Comments are closed-
Posted by: carbon-based on May 23, 2008 10:19 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She is poor because she has two children, no husband, probably little skills beyond high school and therefore cannot afford to live...
I have feelings for those children,..BUT.. this isnt a problem if ignoring the poor..it's a problem of people not thinking, not matter what the situation, she probably wouldn't be able to take care of herself!.. Not true in all cases but in many.. at some point we are responsible for ourselves.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The obvious problem...
Posted by: westomoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: desidid on May 23, 2008 10:51 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Wonder How Many Finger Pointers
Posted by: desidid
» Wow, who'd'a thought?
Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Wow, who'd'a thought?
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: badkitty on May 23, 2008 11:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Children have the right to a quality life
Posted by: desidid
» RE: Children of struggling single moms...
Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Children have the right to a quality life
Posted by: Sushi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: westomoon on May 23, 2008 11:50 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How quick we are to defend the parental bond in the FLDS case -- where children are being actively abused --, to plead for the sanctity of the mother-child bond, and to decry the gestapo tactics of Texas in intervening.
But how quick we are to blame the victim in the case of poor black mothers whose children are endangered only by their poverty -- where's the respect for the sanctity of the mother-child bond here? Where's the mistrust of the gestapo state?
We deem it charming that the FLDS children have led zero-tech lives, but find it a valid reason to break up a family if a New York apartment doesn't have electricity.
It's bad enough that this disparity exists in the larger society and the MSM. I'm really disheartened to see it echoed here by AlterNet readers.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cognitive dissonance
Posted by: badkitty
» RE: Agreed
Posted by: shannasmusic
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kym525 on May 23, 2008 3:46 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are many issues at stake her, and not just the obvious ones of "blaming the mother". Firstly, we need to stop pandering to the anti-sex nutcases and DEMAND age-appropriate, comprehensive sex education. Second, we need to understand and deal with the issues of racism that are manifesting themselves in destructive ways in communities of color. We also need comprehensive health care and child care and decent jobs that lift all people out of poverty.
In the case of racism: Black men feel under siege and no wonder--between DWB (Driving While Black/Brown), 50 bullets pumped into Sean Bell for no other reason than he "looked" like he had a gun, to an education system that has totally FAILED black people all across the board (even here on alternet, the level of ignorance about black people's history is shameful), and a justice system that is EVERYTHING but.
Black women are doing the best they can under very dire circumstances. Yes, I do agree that they should delay having children, but then again, so should Lindsay Lohan's, Britney Spears', and Paris Hilton's parents before THEY had kids because look at how dysfunctional those young women are. Money is no guarantee of good breeding or intelligence.
Let's pause a bit and stop blaming the mothers and put the blame where it REALLY lies--with a society that just doesn't give a damn about the lives of people of color.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's True
Posted by: shannasmusic
» RE: Where are the progressives???
Posted by: westomoon
» RE: The Plight of Poor Black Mothers...Where Are the Hilary-Ista Feminists???
Posted by: evansess9
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Libsrule on May 23, 2008 9:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No father I.D.'s minimal help.
As well what is it with the poor sex ed these girls are getting?
Further there is also this bit a lot of minority males put on the females. NO CONDOM. They insist on it claiming it's not good sex with a condom or both just refuse to use one
OR take birth control.
The Social Worker was wrong in this case and should have contacted whomeve to put the squeeze on the slum lord.
What ever happened to making those bastiches pay up? How come they only get slaps on the wrist? Or a hundred fifty dollar fine? How about a mandatory year in prison?
Who is presenting a greater danger to society?
The guy smoking some weed?
Or the slum lord allowing filth and disease to exist in his buildings?
There is more to this than just not doing enough for impoverished single women.
BUT the priority should be making the girl I.D. the father and THEN learn how to say no and/or take birth control pills.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Libsrule...
Posted by: lefty010
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Beepath on May 24, 2008 5:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What the world needs now......
Posted by: kuro_neko
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nfamous on May 24, 2008 6:35 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many women think that if they have a child they will never be alone again because the child depends on them and will always love them. I'm against people having children for such selfish reasons. Let's be honest. Most parents have children just so they can try improve upon themselves or to replicate their genes. Those are terrible reasons to have children.
Another issue is the lack of a living wage. The value of the dollar is plummeting and inflation has been increasing for decades making the dollar even more worthless. Another issue is the fact that women make less money than men. Couple that with the fact that many women are shopping addicts and you can see that money is not going to be well spent. Women make 85% of consumer spending choices and they are targeted by corporations for this shallow, materialistic behavior. Feminism forced women into the workplace when many of them didn't want to be.
The list goes on. If it's bad for white women it's horrendous for blacks. White supremacy ensures that. While I do agree that poverty is a huge problem for the aforementioned reasons I do not agree that Americans dealing with the effects of hypercapitalism should keep having children when they obviously cannot afford to and end up depending on the state or federal government for assistance. We need a social safety net in this country. We need free daycare and universal healthcare. We need affordable housing and quality education but we are too busy killing people and stealing their oil.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Capitalism kills
Posted by: macdon1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lily H. on May 24, 2008 8:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off, Mom Lisa at least TRIED to
get her un-cooperative landlord to fix the sewage
problem, to no avail. What about the actual apartment
residents in the unit leaking the sewage? Weren't they
also complaining to the landlord as well?
Sounds like Lisa should have been calling someone from
Consumer Affairs or her local news outlet to get
a crew to air the problem this apt. was having and not
getting fixed.
I'm curious as to why this place wasn't
just marked
"condemned" and the whole family taken out of there
instead of just the kids? I know in some cities Soc.
Services provides some assistance with immediate
issues, and perhaps someone mistakenly told Lisa to
"call her caseworker" to get something done about
the sewage?
Makes you wonder if the leaking apt. also had children
living there and whether the caseworker might have
checked that place as well - as she should have sent
another city agency to check it out?
It is also interesting that a poor mother who, in
addition to having a structural problem with her
residence is castigated for something she didn't cause. Would her children have been taken away if
it was only the sewage leak and NOT the rotting food
or lack of utilities in the apt? Too many variables
not answered in this account.
Was Lisa employed, is that why she told the caseworker
she could come up with the utility payment "in a few
weeks?"
If I were Lisa, I'd be suing the landlord for causing
the disruption of my family and uninhabitable living
conditions. And of course, there's no background
information on Lisa, whether she just moved to the city, no one else in the picture (as someone described), no father to the kids, nor other family
or neighbors concerned with this problem.
I hope Lisa is able to rectify her problem, and gets
a new residence where she will not have to tolerate
third-world living conditions. There should be an
update to this story.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: macdon1 on May 25, 2008 3:59 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Blaming the Victim
Posted by: lefty010
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ulla on May 25, 2008 10:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a Danish reg.nurse specialized in preventive work with families, children of all ages and parenting, I was happy to read the last comments but very shocked of the judgemental tone of the overwhelming majorities of comments in the beginning: forced abortions, forced adoptions,and self-righteous definitions of what a good mother is:
one that will not have children until she has the proper husband, education, job, age etc.
Granted - this is the ideal way, no doubt about that, but the world does´nt always work like our perfect dreams. So drop all the useless shouldas, wouldas and couldas and ifs.
This ideal behavior and control of your life is not the priviledge of many poor people who have´nt accumulated such "social capital" to use the term of the French sociologist Bourdieu.
I find it very depressing that the richest country in the world can not solve the poverty problems of its own citizens.
I feel so sorry for Lisa, how does anyone dare to judge her? What do you know of her hopes, her struggles,her need for love,her let-downs and disappointments? And what do you know of her ressources, her love for her children and her ability for psychological care that all children need besides fulfillment of their physical needs? This can be offered by a young and single mother as well.
According to the article her only fault was her poverty, she asked for help,was concerned for the health of her children and suggested a shelter herself.
Instead her children were taken away, what a cruel thing to do aganist the children as well.
Why was´nt she offered loving care and protection? She must feel very helpless, desperate and/or angry. This is the way that makes people to get to hate their society.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: desidid on May 26, 2008 3:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm all for taking children from abusive parents, but there has got to be a better way to save children from poverty. I live in a small town and the public housing has just been converted to condos. Everything is about profit margins in this country. I'm Christian, I believe Jesus was a socialist anarchist, he defied the church to advocate for the poor. I don't care if people believe in the practice of faith, but wouldn't it be wonderful if we all had a little empathy. These children are in the system and may be forever doomed to remain in it in one form or another. Which means they are now modern slaves.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: yont on May 26, 2008 9:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When did it become okay to prejudicial to the poor? How can you assume;
The parents were poor when they first had children?
That there isn't 2 poor parents involved in the children's lives?
That the mother isn't working and just went from "making it" to not making it?
I also don't agree with the black vs. white as being the issue. This isn't a racial issue as much as it's a poverty issue. There are poor white people struggling with the same problems.
We should be trying to help all the poor regardless of race. It's not right to assume the poor are drunks, drug addicts, promiscuous, gang members or anything else that somehow makes it seem okay not to try to help them. It's just a way to deflect attention away from the true problems like stagnant wages, rising inflation and the lack of a national health plan or TRUE state assistance as a safety net.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: msjenlouise on May 27, 2008 5:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
take a look at some of these foster-to-adopt websites, many states have the kids pics online. children that are victims of severe abuse, born with drug addictions, and they have horrific stories. it's just awful. i agree, to an extent, with the person that said they should terminate parental rights sooner (but not for being a poor single mother - come on!) in abuse cases particularly. the older the child the longer they will be in foster care and the less likely they will find a permanent home.
economically,it is more beneficial not to claim a father on the birth certificate. if the birthfather is also poor and makes low wages then there isn't much in terms of child support. however, if there is no father listed THE STATE kicks in extra bucks in the assistance check. that's a sad trade secret.
birds of a feather tend to flock together, i would dare say that dad isn't a lawyer on wall street and he's probably just as poor or worse.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lefty010 on May 28, 2008 1:06 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
STOP BLAMING THE VICTIM. Yes it is true that more African American children end up in the system. That is not ENTRIRELY about poverty (although poverty is the number one risk factor for kids) but also concerns the deeply ingrained, systemic (although the author used the word systematic) racism that is so rampant in our society. Black children are removed more often than POOR WHITE CHILDREN based simply on RACE. I am in the social services field and I have the sources to back up this claim.
Racism is the main reason that so many Blacks must endure poverty. It is harder for Blacks to get jobs, get housing, get an education and the list goes on.
To those of you who do not believe in institutionalized racism I want you to show me ONE SOURCE that backs up your claim. I, on the other hand, have myriad sources to back up my claim that institutionalized racism is alive and well in the US. Racism perpetuates poverty and I dare you to prove me wrong. SOURCE IT!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Andrew_S on Jun 1, 2008 9:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Magginkat on May 23, 2008 5:16 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Kinda like this article seems to be ignored!
Posted by: desidid
» RE:Obama pandering?
Posted by: Sushi
Comments are closed-
» RE: The culprit is sex.
Posted by: cosmicgirl
» I like being 27 and plus its New York
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: The culprit is sex.
Posted by: BCcovers
» that is true
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BCcovers on May 23, 2008 6:55 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who gawk at government funded, free abortions for the poverty stricken fail to look at the societal cost of having to raise these (often times) fatherless children. The break down of the family structure in these communities contribute to crime, poorly educated children, and social unrest. Now I know I'll get a whole bunch of anecdotes refuting this, but the facts are the facts. Many socialogical studies have come out linking a child's success (education, staying out of trouble, etc.) being directly correlated to having two parents. In other words, a child has more of a chance of success and to contribute to society if they grow up with two parents (whether it be traditional, or a same-sex couple raising the child.).
We have to all be realistic as a society and not only give these women the opportunity to make a choice, but also make having children a disencentive to the extremely poor of our nation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Abortion
Posted by: cosmicgirl
» RE: Abortion
Posted by: BCcovers
» RE: Abortion
Posted by: Triffel
» RE: Abortion
Posted by: BCcovers
» Were is the Father?
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: Abortion
Posted by: no1kstate
» Not an issue for Abortion
Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Not an issue for Abortion
Posted by: no1kstate
Comments are closed-
Posted by: janvdb on May 23, 2008 6:58 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chosing WHEN and WITH WHOM to have a child is THE SINGLEMOST IMPORTANT aspect of being a good mother.
You do the first steps wrong, you have your children into an inadequate situation then, no matter what you do, you are an unfit mother.
Get an abortion and try again in ten years, when you are ready.
That's what a GOOD mother would do.
If you have no skills, are barely making enough money to stay alive, are involved with a man who isn't interested in contributing to his children or who cannot do so due to lack of education, lack of job skills and low income, you become pregnant by him and carry that child THEN YOU ARE A BAD MOTHER.
Get ready. THEN have children.
99% of people can get ready -- get themselves into a situation where they can be good parents -- if they delay childbearing and work at it.
Children CAUSE poverty.
Accepting this elemental social reality is what allowed the British and Japanese people to pull out of the poverty and filth of the Middle Ages a century ahead of the rest of the "developed world." The rest of the now-developed world finally caught on to the necessity of responsible procreation to development, health and, basically, survival. Some places haven't figured it out yet.
Please read the excellent historical demography of Oxford professor Alan MacFarlane.
I have absolutely NO sympathy for women who bear children into hopelessly impoverished situations and then whine when their children are taken from them. I think many of those children should be taken at birth, so they have a good chance at a adoption into a household where they can be adequately taken care of, educated and provided for.
Before you get pregnant and/or carry that child to term, you need BOTH an adequate income and an employed, involved father. If you lack one of those and you have kids anyway, well, you're a bad mother and you SHOULD lose your kids. The sooner the better.
The simple fact is, the children not only suffer from poverty, THEY CAUSE IT. 99% of these women, if they would responsibly delay the birthing of children for a decade, could work their way out of poverty and get themselves into a situation where they would be good mothers. And, if men realize that all their "spreading of their seed" is getting them nowhere due to responsible women, and that unless they settle down and become good fathers, they will never actually have any offspring, men would do their part.
Get together in a respectful relationship with a woman, get a job, bring home your paycheck and hand it to her. THEN she will allow you to replicate yourself.
Now, that would work on men.
continued below . .
Jan VanDenBerg
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Having children AFTER you can afford them is the NUMBER ONE aspect of being good mother
Posted by: andabottleof_rum
» RE: Having children AFTER you can afford them is the NUMBER ONE aspect of being good mother
Posted by: janvdb
Comments are closed-
Posted by: janvdb on May 23, 2008 6:59 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More power to Social Services. I just wish they would get in there and take these kids immediately after birth, sever parental rights and give these kids a chance at a decent life in an adoptive home.
Yes, for poverty. Because the mother is poor and has no contributing father. Just for that.
Because, never in the history of the developed nations, have poor, single women been allowed to have children -- for VERY GOOD REASONS.
If you are poor, DELAY YOUR CHILD BEARING.
That's what has been the absolute minimum of decent behavior for the last 1000 years in parts of the human race considered "developed" and without those minimums, poverty will only spread and spread and spread until it envelopes the entire society.
Is it just too much to expect that people maintain the modern equivalent of the old requirement that a couple have the bare minimums necessary to "set up house" before getting married and creating children? A small plot of land for a garden and a field for a cow, some chickens, some ducks, bedding, dishes, maybe a draft animal -- this is what has been demanded from the young before they could marry and bear children for the past 1000 years and if anyone thinks the logic behind that social convention has been repealed just because we no longer milk our own cows, well, you're probably BROKE YOURSELF because you refuse to face up to the realities of survival.
Jan VanDenBerg
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Having children AFTER you can afford them is the NUMBER ONE aspect of being good mother
Posted by: BCcovers
» RE: Having children AFTER you can afford them is the NUMBER ONE aspect of being good mother
Posted by: peacekeepertwo
» RE: Fathers
Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Sad
Posted by: shannasmusic
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cosmicgirl on May 23, 2008 7:44 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You say that other civilized nations don't have single parents? You know you are wrong. A lot of these "civilized" nations have cultures that don't even believe in marriage or GOD. The reason they are able to succeed where America has failed is because they actually take care of their own citizens before they try and save the rest of the world.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Jan VanDenBerg
Posted by: kuro_neko
» Free Birth Control?
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: Jan VanDenBerg
Posted by: BCcovers
Comments are closed-
Posted by: carbon-based on May 23, 2008 10:19 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She is poor because she has two children, no husband, probably little skills beyond high school and therefore cannot afford to live...
I have feelings for those children,..BUT.. this isnt a problem if ignoring the poor..it's a problem of people not thinking, not matter what the situation, she probably wouldn't be able to take care of herself!.. Not true in all cases but in many.. at some point we are responsible for ourselves.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The obvious problem...
Posted by: westomoon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: desidid on May 23, 2008 10:51 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Wonder How Many Finger Pointers
Posted by: desidid
» Wow, who'd'a thought?
Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Wow, who'd'a thought?
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: badkitty on May 23, 2008 11:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Children have the right to a quality life
Posted by: desidid
» RE: Children of struggling single moms...
Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Children have the right to a quality life
Posted by: Sushi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: westomoon on May 23, 2008 11:50 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How quick we are to defend the parental bond in the FLDS case -- where children are being actively abused --, to plead for the sanctity of the mother-child bond, and to decry the gestapo tactics of Texas in intervening.
But how quick we are to blame the victim in the case of poor black mothers whose children are endangered only by their poverty -- where's the respect for the sanctity of the mother-child bond here? Where's the mistrust of the gestapo state?
We deem it charming that the FLDS children have led zero-tech lives, but find it a valid reason to break up a family if a New York apartment doesn't have electricity.
It's bad enough that this disparity exists in the larger society and the MSM. I'm really disheartened to see it echoed here by AlterNet readers.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cognitive dissonance
Posted by: badkitty
» RE: Agreed
Posted by: shannasmusic
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kym525 on May 23, 2008 3:46 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are many issues at stake her, and not just the obvious ones of "blaming the mother". Firstly, we need to stop pandering to the anti-sex nutcases and DEMAND age-appropriate, comprehensive sex education. Second, we need to understand and deal with the issues of racism that are manifesting themselves in destructive ways in communities of color. We also need comprehensive health care and child care and decent jobs that lift all people out of poverty.
In the case of racism: Black men feel under siege and no wonder--between DWB (Driving While Black/Brown), 50 bullets pumped into Sean Bell for no other reason than he "looked" like he had a gun, to an education system that has totally FAILED black people all across the board (even here on alternet, the level of ignorance about black people's history is shameful), and a justice system that is EVERYTHING but.
Black women are doing the best they can under very dire circumstances. Yes, I do agree that they should delay having children, but then again, so should Lindsay Lohan's, Britney Spears', and Paris Hilton's parents before THEY had kids because look at how dysfunctional those young women are. Money is no guarantee of good breeding or intelligence.
Let's pause a bit and stop blaming the mothers and put the blame where it REALLY lies--with a society that just doesn't give a damn about the lives of people of color.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's True
Posted by: shannasmusic
» RE: Where are the progressives???
Posted by: westomoon
» RE: The Plight of Poor Black Mothers...Where Are the Hilary-Ista Feminists???
Posted by: evansess9
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Libsrule on May 23, 2008 9:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No father I.D.'s minimal help.
As well what is it with the poor sex ed these girls are getting?
Further there is also this bit a lot of minority males put on the females. NO CONDOM. They insist on it claiming it's not good sex with a condom or both just refuse to use one
OR take birth control.
The Social Worker was wrong in this case and should have contacted whomeve to put the squeeze on the slum lord.
What ever happened to making those bastiches pay up? How come they only get slaps on the wrist? Or a hundred fifty dollar fine? How about a mandatory year in prison?
Who is presenting a greater danger to society?
The guy smoking some weed?
Or the slum lord allowing filth and disease to exist in his buildings?
There is more to this than just not doing enough for impoverished single women.
BUT the priority should be making the girl I.D. the father and THEN learn how to say no and/or take birth control pills.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Libsrule...
Posted by: lefty010
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Beepath on May 24, 2008 5:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What the world needs now......
Posted by: kuro_neko
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nfamous on May 24, 2008 6:35 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many women think that if they have a child they will never be alone again because the child depends on them and will always love them. I'm against people having children for such selfish reasons. Let's be honest. Most parents have children just so they can try improve upon themselves or to replicate their genes. Those are terrible reasons to have children.
Another issue is the lack of a living wage. The value of the dollar is plummeting and inflation has been increasing for decades making the dollar even more worthless. Another issue is the fact that women make less money than men. Couple that with the fact that many women are shopping addicts and you can see that money is not going to be well spent. Women make 85% of consumer spending choices and they are targeted by corporations for this shallow, materialistic behavior. Feminism forced women into the workplace when many of them didn't want to be.
The list goes on. If it's bad for white women it's horrendous for blacks. White supremacy ensures that. While I do agree that poverty is a huge problem for the aforementioned reasons I do not agree that Americans dealing with the effects of hypercapitalism should keep having children when they obviously cannot afford to and end up depending on the state or federal government for assistance. We need a social safety net in this country. We need free daycare and universal healthcare. We need affordable housing and quality education but we are too busy killing people and stealing their oil.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Capitalism kills
Posted by: macdon1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lily H. on May 24, 2008 8:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off, Mom Lisa at least TRIED to
get her un-cooperative landlord to fix the sewage
problem, to no avail. What about the actual apartment
residents in the unit leaking the sewage? Weren't they
also complaining to the landlord as well?
Sounds like Lisa should have been calling someone from
Consumer Affairs or her local news outlet to get
a crew to air the problem this apt. was having and not
getting fixed.
I'm curious as to why this place wasn't
just marked
"condemned" and the whole family taken out of there
instead of just the kids? I know in some cities Soc.
Services provides some assistance with immediate
issues, and perhaps someone mistakenly told Lisa to
"call her caseworker" to get something done about
the sewage?
Makes you wonder if the leaking apt. also had children
living there and whether the caseworker might have
checked that place as well - as she should have sent
another city agency to check it out?
It is also interesting that a poor mother who, in
addition to having a structural problem with her
residence is castigated for something she didn't cause. Would her children have been taken away if
it was only the sewage leak and NOT the rotting food
or lack of utilities in the apt? Too many variables
not answered in this account.
Was Lisa employed, is that why she told the caseworker
she could come up with the utility payment "in a few
weeks?"
If I were Lisa, I'd be suing the landlord for causing
the disruption of my family and uninhabitable living
conditions. And of course, there's no background
information on Lisa, whether she just moved to the city, no one else in the picture (as someone described), no father to the kids, nor other family
or neighbors concerned with this problem.
I hope Lisa is able to rectify her problem, and gets
a new residence where she will not have to tolerate
third-world living conditions. There should be an
update to this story.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: macdon1 on May 25, 2008 3:59 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Blaming the Victim
Posted by: lefty010
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ulla on May 25, 2008 10:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a Danish reg.nurse specialized in preventive work with families, children of all ages and parenting, I was happy to read the last comments but very shocked of the judgemental tone of the overwhelming majorities of comments in the beginning: forced abortions, forced adoptions,and self-righteous definitions of what a good mother is:
one that will not have children until she has the proper husband, education, job, age etc.
Granted - this is the ideal way, no doubt about that, but the world does´nt always work like our perfect dreams. So drop all the useless shouldas, wouldas and couldas and ifs.
This ideal behavior and control of your life is not the priviledge of many poor people who have´nt accumulated such "social capital" to use the term of the French sociologist Bourdieu.
I find it very depressing that the richest country in the world can not solve the poverty problems of its own citizens.
I feel so sorry for Lisa, how does anyone dare to judge her? What do you know of her hopes, her struggles,her need for love,her let-downs and disappointments? And what do you know of her ressources, her love for her children and her ability for psychological care that all children need besides fulfillment of their physical needs? This can be offered by a young and single mother as well.
According to the article her only fault was her poverty, she asked for help,was concerned for the health of her children and suggested a shelter herself.
Instead her children were taken away, what a cruel thing to do aganist the children as well.
Why was´nt she offered loving care and protection? She must feel very helpless, desperate and/or angry. This is the way that makes people to get to hate their society.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: desidid on May 26, 2008 3:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm all for taking children from abusive parents, but there has got to be a better way to save children from poverty. I live in a small town and the public housing has just been converted to condos. Everything is about profit margins in this country. I'm Christian, I believe Jesus was a socialist anarchist, he defied the church to advocate for the poor. I don't care if people believe in the practice of faith, but wouldn't it be wonderful if we all had a little empathy. These children are in the system and may be forever doomed to remain in it in one form or another. Which means they are now modern slaves.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: yont on May 26, 2008 9:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When did it become okay to prejudicial to the poor? How can you assume;
The parents were poor when they first had children?
That there isn't 2 poor parents involved in the children's lives?
That the mother isn't working and just went from "making it" to not making it?
I also don't agree with the black vs. white as being the issue. This isn't a racial issue as much as it's a poverty issue. There are poor white people struggling with the same problems.
We should be trying to help all the poor regardless of race. It's not right to assume the poor are drunks, drug addicts, promiscuous, gang members or anything else that somehow makes it seem okay not to try to help them. It's just a way to deflect attention away from the true problems like stagnant wages, rising inflation and the lack of a national health plan or TRUE state assistance as a safety net.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: msjenlouise on May 27, 2008 5:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
take a look at some of these foster-to-adopt websites, many states have the kids pics online. children that are victims of severe abuse, born with drug addictions, and they have horrific stories. it's just awful. i agree, to an extent, with the person that said they should terminate parental rights sooner (but not for being a poor single mother - come on!) in abuse cases particularly. the older the child the longer they will be in foster care and the less likely they will find a permanent home.
economically,it is more beneficial not to claim a father on the birth certificate. if the birthfather is also poor and makes low wages then there isn't much in terms of child support. however, if there is no father listed THE STATE kicks in extra bucks in the assistance check. that's a sad trade secret.
birds of a feather tend to flock together, i would dare say that dad isn't a lawyer on wall street and he's probably just as poor or worse.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lefty010 on May 28, 2008 1:06 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
STOP BLAMING THE VICTIM. Yes it is true that more African American children end up in the system. That is not ENTRIRELY about poverty (although poverty is the number one risk factor for kids) but also concerns the deeply ingrained, systemic (although the author used the word systematic) racism that is so rampant in our society. Black children are removed more often than POOR WHITE CHILDREN based simply on RACE. I am in the social services field and I have the sources to back up this claim.
Racism is the main reason that so many Blacks must endure poverty. It is harder for Blacks to get jobs, get housing, get an education and the list goes on.
To those of you who do not believe in institutionalized racism I want you to show me ONE SOURCE that backs up your claim. I, on the other hand, have myriad sources to back up my claim that institutionalized racism is alive and well in the US. Racism perpetuates poverty and I dare you to prove me wrong. SOURCE IT!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Andrew_S on Jun 1, 2008 9:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Updated: Catholic Bishops Embrace Anti-Abortion Terrorizers Missy Smith and Randall Terry
10 Defining Feminist Moments of 2009
Going Undercover in the Crazy, Tragic World of Christian Gay-Conversion Therapy




