Couple on £7000 a month benefits……….

Jennifereccles I find your post regarding people with learning disabilities being sterilised disgraceful. So much so that I can’t say on this forum, unfortunately what I think of you.

I don't believe anyone gets £7k/month.
Had a go on Benefits Calculator and it came up with ££430.73 per week!

Which authority does your daughter work for, Franbern?

The loss of Sure Start will have contributed to some families not understanding how to nurture their children. I taught one girl who, despite literacy difficulties herself, was by far the most intelligent in her family. Her parents were subnormal and had attended a special school. She had a number of brothers who all had mental disorders. Her life at home was miserable. She had to deal with bills etc as her parents were unable to. The school supported her as best they could, she had a key worker, she was in the young carers group etc but I felt sorry for her

That's a little beacon of light in all the darkness and gloom, Franbern

It's really cheering to hear that.

Lathyrus sadly the washing of clothes and feeding of children at school continues to this day. The secondary school at which on of my daughter works had to purchase a tumble dryer (they already had a washing machine), so that they could washing and dry uniform for their pupils. Many of those coming from loving homes, where there just was not enough money to have hot water. Staff also started off and largely paid for breakfast club.

I just really really hope that these poor little mites get help, cuddles, food and a safe home with someone they can talk to and help them over the trauma of living with their parents.

Yes this lefty would be very angry about it and rightly so

It would be one more step to someone deciding who got to give birth at all

It is so easy to have these knee jerk reactions isn't it, to cases like these where children are neglected or mistreated, because we all find it so distressing. The media will encourage outrage and a "lock 'em up and throw away the key" response,as they do.
But maybe these parents did love their children in their own way but just did not have the competence or intelligence to look after them, maybe the children's needs were so complex (hence the amount of benefits) that it was too hard for them to cope and they just gave up.
Advice and encouragement with regard to contraception would indeed have been useful. They seem to have slipped through the net, or under the radar.
It is hard for any parents to admit that they need outside help, it must be even worse as the situation deteriorates so badly.
I don't want to sound as if I am making excuses for them, but I am not sure that putting them in prison is of much help. The children may well feel that they are responsible, and they have suffered enough.

We have forced pregnancy in the US so...

There are already many right wing taking away women's rights over their bodies

I was being tongue in cheek it's never going to happen.

A couple where my niece rented a flat had their baby taken away straight after birth, they were both drug addicts.

Oh that suddenly went dark

How would you administer your eugenics, Maudi?

An intelligence test before sex? Follow up parenting exams during pregnancy with compulsory abortion for failures?

And who decides what makes a good parent? You're damn right there would be an outcry if such a thing were proposed. I assume you were being ironic?

16:57JenniferEccles

I agree JenniferEccles re sterilisation but can you imagine the outcry from the left leaning in society and the so called Human Rights Lawyers would have a field day.

Thankfully this dreadful family set up is relatively rare, but isn’t there a strong case in these dysfunctional families for compulsory sterilisation?

How could it have been right for this couple to keep producing child after child when they are clearly unfit to look after a goldfish, let alone seven children.

MOnica

But that does not mean we should ignore the other aspects of the case. This family had been living in this squalor for years. Did no one really not notice, did no one complain to some official, about the number of animals, even if they did not notice the state of the children. 9 adults and 35 dogs in a three bedroomed house.

IIRR teachers / others did complain to the relevant authorities, but it seems nothing was done about the situation.

But we already know that the (much maligned) social workers are overloaded with cases. And the 'culture' (if that is the right word to use) appears to be such that SWs are encouraged to 'work with' the parents in dysfunctional families, which in effect means the parents have the upper hand. Social workers can't just break the door down and remove the children, they have to play by the rules. IMO these rules, these policies, are totally inadequate, they don't work with individuals like these two. Of course, like 'care in the community' it's cheaper to 'manage' this way. It also results in children being neglected like these, continuing child abuse, and as we too often see, even the death of children.

The whole system needs to be completely re-organised and property funded. But that is not going to happen, and certainly not under a government that is dedicated to shrinking the state. And even if the service was 're-designed', there would be those who would complain about the nanny-state.

These cases are rare I'm pretty sure. Most families seem to function albeit chaotically to the degree where the children are looked after, fed and cared for. But there is definitely an 'underbelly' of people who, quite clearly, should not be in charge of their offspring. What a damned shame they can't be identified before things reach such an appalling state.

I won't comment on the financial angle except to say that the family were probably entitled to quite a few benefits of one sort or another that simply added up - they weren't just handed that amount of money in an envelope.

Just another aspect of 'broken Britain'. I don't believe anyone in government particularly cares, especially when the RW media can make the most of the 'benefit scrounger' mantra to vilify those in receipt of benefits. I know nothing about these two adults but it's pretty obvious they were not functioning normally, or anywhere near normal.

No doubt it includes absolutely everything.

The best way to look at this situation is to be grateful that the whole household is now safe.

MissAdventure

I think the benefits included the £1600 a month rent. (Think it was that amount)

I can't fathom the idea of an amount to keep that many people, so who knows?

The amount will most likely include all the benefits that they are entitled to - like the rent - and will also include the child benefit, council tax reductions, etc, I would imagine.

It is clear that from what I've read what this couple got away with was abuse.

In regard to benefits payments as far as I am aware the following would likely apply:
Under the Cameron/Osbourne government a benefit cap on means tested benefits one family could claim per annum was introduced. The cap was set at £26,000 per annum subsequently, as I understand, reduced to £24,000 per annum. Means tested benefits have not always increased with inflation since 2012, some years increases have been capped to 1% at least twice the rates were frozen.
Benefit recipients can also receive relief for mortgage interest (RMI) on a mortgage of up to £200,000. As far as I am aware on a mortgage larger than that amount no relief is provided.

The following may or may not have applied to the couple.
In addition to means tested benefits there are disability benefits payments like PIP that, if eligible criteria is met, which tends to require with a high threshold of proof, a claimant may be awarded. The maximum award of approximately (I don't have this year's figure directly in front of me) £670 per month for each eligible claimant.

MOnica, I read the father was of limited intelligence. One report I read said the children ‘were discouraged from going to school’. One child needed a GA so 13 teeth could be removed. The children all had tooth decay, matted hair, poor social skills, one was unable to sit at a table.
The reports suggest a volatile parental relationship, with police called previously.
The dogs were all underweight, with matted hair. The dogs had been interbreeding.
How has this situation been allowed to continue without previous intervention ?

Wre the family really of low IQ? The mother used to run a dancing school and the way the man was dressed and coiffed, did not suggest someone of limited intellectual ability. In fact he seemed to be turned out and presented himself that suggested a sophosticated and subtle understanding of style.

I am still curious how all that money was spent.

Yes, Lathyrus - I remember the school nurse and regular check ups with her, don't think parents were ever asked for permission as the whole class used to line up waiting their turn

Many moons ago, when I first started working in schools, the loco parentis ethos meant that there were children we would wash and feed and clothe from the “basket” when they came to school, even wash and dry their soiled clothes to go home in. We had a person whose job it was along with other care throughout the day. A school nurse that came in twice a week and was able to examine children without having to gain parental consent.

Education was more holistic focusing on children’s total needs.

Of course schools wouldn’t be allowed to do that now

Luckygirl3

Never mind the benefits situation (and how typical of the media to headline this) what about those children? Were there no health visitors going in? Did school not notice they were not there? The system of child protection seems to have broken down here, and that is what really matters.

Schools and teachers have no powers other than to report suspected abuse or neglect.
When a report is made and followed up on, often the parental response is to remove the child from the school, which they are perfectly legally entitled to do.

At that point the reporting school has no more contact with the family.

Moving area to avoid social services involvement is quite common too. Though not in this case.

I just can't get over how people can treat their children like this.