Children

[Happy]

From ABC, 21 Jan. 09

ALMOST 30,000 CHILDREN IN FOSTER, RESIDENTIAL CARE

By Youth Affairs reporter Michael Turtle

The number of Australian children who have been taken from their families and put into care has doubled in the past decade.
New figures from the Federal Government's Institute of Health and Welfare show there are now almost 30,000 children in foster care, residential care, or living with relatives.
Most of them are taken away because of violence, low incomes, substance abuse and mental health.
New South Wales has the highest number of children in care.
The institute's John Sant says the rise in figures is partly because people have become more aware of abuse and report it more frequently.
"All it probably means really is greater awareness and broadening of the definition of abuse within Australia, and us as a community being more aware of these issues and reporting more," he said.
He also says the numbers have increased because children are spending longer in care.
"There could be alcoholism, drug abuse within the home, and obviously there are other people involved in that," he said.
"And it takes them [time] to get their lives sorted out, hence effectively [lengthening] the time that it takes to return the child to the family home."
Indigenous children continue to be over-represented in the system and are nine times as likely to be in out-of-home care

How long before we introduce some kind of Parental License.

Baby bonus will be responsible for increased dumping too.
Lets face it, many very young females all wanted was the baby bonus, so many children will be dumped or abused and taken away.

With crisis looming what we want is less people not more.
If we expect GDP to have negative growths, why not shrink the population too?

 

[prawn_86]

I wrote about this issue on my infrequent blog:
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/blog.php?b=68

 

[Spanning Tree]

If we expect GDP to have negative growths, why not shrink the population too?

I don't like the Baby Bonus myself but a higher population people can increase GDP. More labor, more talent, etc.

 

[aleckara]

I don't like the Baby Bonus because anyone that is sensible will not factor it into a decision to make a child, hence encouraging births of children from parents who are not so sensible.

It is kind of interfering with the natural selection process in a way. Parents that would not normally afford to have kids, normally living only on welfare, are the ones driven highly by this bonus.

To be politically incorrect most people in this category will pass on the same values to their children - most (not all) will have no work ethic and expect the government to save them just like their parents did.

Most will say you shouldn't discriminate who gets the bonus as you are eugenically selecting babies. I say the baby bonus does this anyway due to its nature.

These births arguably only serve to increase the amount of spenders, not producers in the economy. While it may drive inflation, it shouldn't drive real GDP if these people don't work or do anything.

 

[rub92me]

How long before we introduce some kind of Parental License.
Baby bonus will be responsible for increased dumping too.
Lets face it, many very young females all wanted was the baby bonus, so many children will be dumped or abused and taken away.

How about a licence for posting on this site. What factual support do you have for this? Let's face it, many people just spout right wing absurdities to get some attention.

 

[Julia]

I expect generations of human beings have been saying this for hundreds of years, maybe thousands. It's certainly something I frequently thought about when working in the welfare sector.

I remember one particular woman who had an IQ way, way below average, plus several physical disabilities. Unfortunately what was not below average was her libido and she was free with her, umm, affections.

The consequence was that she had five children. They were all taken away from her within weeks of their birth. But any of us suggesting she be sterilised were accused of discrimination.

We need to get a whole lot more realistic imo and take a bit less notice of individual 'rights' in some circumstances.

At least the baby bonus is now paid in installments rather than a lump sum.
And it's means tested, I think to an after tax income of $75,000.
As mentioned earlier (or maybe on your blog, Prawn) people who genuinely want children for other than financial reasons, will not be swayed by any baby bonus. But the BB does, on the other hand, definitely encourage young women who have no interest in getting a job to have more babies.

 

[johenmo]

There was a prominent/outspoken Australian who, many years ago, suggested that everyone should be "sterilised" (medical intervention to prevent conception) and when they had proven they were responsible members of society, have it reversed. This caused some debate!

Our friend works in a bank and was serving two young women (about 20) about 6 months ago. One was wondering whether to have another child for the bonus and to up her payments. The other supplied her with a name and number of an indigenous male who would be happy to father a child. This way the first could claim extra benefits. Our friend was shocked. An example of the mindset of a small number of people??

Julia makes a good point about rights. When do societal/group rights "overrule" individual rights and vice-versa? Probably a separate debate in itself.

 

[Happy]

There was a prominent/outspoken Australian who, many years ago, suggested that everyone should be "sterilised" (medical intervention to prevent conception) and when they had proven they were responsible members of society, have it reversed. This caused some debate!

In my opinion this is fantastic idea, but impossible to mention it and not be abused.

Our friend works in a bank and was serving two young women (about 20) about 6 months ago. One was wondering whether to have another child for the bonus and to up her payments. The other supplied her with a name and number of an indigenous male who would be happy to father a child. This way the first could claim extra benefits. Our friend was shocked. An example of the mindset of a small number of people??

Julia makes a good point about rights. When do societal/group rights "overrule" individual rights and vice-versa? Probably a separate debate in itself.

Taxpayers are just taken for a ride and have less than nothing to say about it.

How things get twisted if we allow for disappearance of responsibility.