Is poverty really a "temporary" situation?

Carnie C

uhmmm, just throw more moneya t the problem, that'll fix it, eh? generations of families on welfare; multiple children; no plan for bettering themselves. more $, more $, more $

"lost"? i love how people use that term (love how you quoted it) . . keys get lost, socks get lost but relinquished children are not lost, they are given up.

i think 15 months maximum -- heck, that's more than most tax paying, responsible people get from their jobs. they don't get to stay home for 15 months while someone else foots the bill. anyway, 15 months max for welfare recipients. and they should have to be on birth control for the duration of the time their hands are out.

BOTZ

"The state would have at least 700,000 fewer welfare recipients if it reflected the rest of the country, and I can think of no good reason why it shouldn't."

Seriously? So, you conclude (with apparently no support) that ALL of the 'extra' welfare cases are due to mothers who *selfishly* choose to parent their OWN children, rather than surrender to the worthy-wealthy?

You tell us -- with lots of numbers and such -- what probably ISN'T the problem (immigration: "The state's outsized welfare problem probably cannot be traced to immigration, as Florida, Arizona, and Texas do not have disproportionately large welfare populations.") But, you give absolutely NOTHING -- zip, zero, nada -- to support what YOU SPECULATE is the real problem.

What about widows? What about lost jobs? What about mothers who were ditched by husbands who 'got sick of it all' or 'found something better'? What about TWO-PARENT homes who need assistance because they have an employer (or employers) who do not provide group health coverage? YES, they CAN get state assistance -- even if "baby daddy" is in the house, too. Should they all lose (or relinquish) their children, too?

Yes, when it comes to one of the biggest "reasons" given to young mothers for why they SHOULD relinquish their children and the "justification" used by a lot of agencies, PAPs, and APs...THAT poverty is temporary. My mother's was. My mother was "poor" for exactly 6 months after I was born. My a-parents BECAME poor when I was 3 (ish), recovered (mostly) when I was 7, lost it all again when I was 13, and have only marginally recovered. Should I have been given back to my mother? I think so. And, according to your "question", I should have -- at AGE 3. But that FLIES IN THE FACE of the unjust "justification" for my adoption.

You make a lot of ASSumptions in your question. It appears you throw out a lot of numbers to try to hide them.

If you want to be taken seriously AT ALL, make one side of your argument match the other. Don't try to conceal your ASSumptions in a bunch of statistics.

julie j

Hi One Out Of Twelve Cyclone,

You ask "How much MORE money should California give to help young mother's so they do not have to place their children for adoption?"

I believe as much as it takes because helping people is the right thing to do. Punishing them by taking away their children is not. If the current system is not doing enough, then perhaps add more humanitarian style efforts to break the cycles that originally cause the cycles of poverty. (i.e. teaching marketable job skills, healthcare for all, including family planning and prevention, early childhood education, programs that strengthen families & communities, etc.)

Public assistance is for people who need it. God forbid any one of us should ever need it someday, but if we do, that's what it's there for. Worse yet, to be in a position where giving up your own children to adoption is the only option due to financial hardships, whether they be temporary or long term. That should never even have to be considered. Society should not be encouraging that either.

Adoption is for children whos parents are deceased, drug addicts, or child abusers. Children should not be taken away from their parents if their families happen to be poor, and then redistributed to wealthier strangers through adoption. That is not fair to anyone, most of all, to the children involved.

It shouldn't matter how long it lasts. Poverty alone should never be a reason to separate family members. Our country's poorest people are still richer than most of the rest of the world. Money does not equal love or superior parenting skills anyways. Are there any parents actually requesting more adoptive services as a solution to their own financial problems? If there are any requests for that, it's probably coming from those who would like to add to their families, not lose their family members. Besides, there are far too many children already in need of homes in the foster care system. No need to add to that.

Individual families usually DO fare better over time. However, they are replaced on the rolls by other new families who need help. California in particular has had a large influx of Hispanic immigrants recently that have contributed to the already large need for public assistance. Are you suggesting their families should be separated in order to lower California's statistics? Do you not realize the additional problems that would cause to both individual family members now, and the subsequent costs to society later on down the road?

Causes and solutions to public assistance are complex. Adoption is not a way to get to the root of the issues people are facing any more than China exporting their children for adoption is helping them solve their problems. If one is looking for numbers to reflect lower recipients as a measure of successful government, then priorities should be re-examined. Sounds like better public financial management of the given resources is in order as well. Thanks for asking our thoughts.

julie j
reunited adoptee

monkeykitty83

In cases of generational poverty-- i.e. poverty has become entrenched in lifestyle and decision making, rather than a temporary financial setback or before the person has fully entered the job market-- simply increasing welfare payments isn't an adequate way to address the problem. I suspect the problem you describe is one of generational poverty, not people needing temporary assistance to get on their feet. That being the case...

Rather than just more money, I think these welfare recipients need: access to training about short term budgeting and money management, long term financial planning advice, job training, counseling, and where necessary drug rehab and parenting classes. They need to be shown how to change their negative behaviours, not just expected to figure it out on their own when they never had guidance or role models for how to lead a healthy and stable life.

Just throwing more money at people who are in destructive lifestyle patterns will only make their problems worse. They need active intervention and help to break the cycle, not just additional cash.

Heather B

The average time a person is on Welfare is two years

Yes, it's temporary and mothers and their kids deserve the temporary help if needed.

magic pointe shoes

Poverty when used in this phrase of being a temporary condition is referring to young mothers with little work experience and possibly little extended education. A pregnant woman in this situation is quite likely in a temporary situation. It takes only a matter of a few years of working and living within those means even if at a low income to stabilize.

What it isn't referring to is generational poverty, or low income situations where it's expected to jump up into middle class lifestyles.

The truth of the matter is that it seems that youth and lack of stability income wise tend to firm up in a few years and its a shame that children are lost to adoption for that reason of not being stable when the child is born if there was support to help guide these mothers to their feet.

As for the rest of your question, I'm not real apt to compare welfare statistics between states.

edit to add: the phrase lost to adoption is worthy of a new question. ;o) I personally believe that most domestic infant adoption is accomplished by exploitation and not of free will fully informed choice.

sunny

Umm, you think single mothers keeping their kids is a bigger problem than illegal immigration? Wake up, hon.

Did you ever consider that the state of California makes LIVING as an illegal immigrant (or a disabled person, or a homeless person, etc.) more hospitable than the other states you mention? Also, Florida doesn't border Mexico, (which is where the majority of our illegals come from, more than ALL other ethnic groups combined).

Also, California may not secure their borders as well as TX and AZ, not that any state does a very good job.

I WISH single white mothers were our biggest social problem! To answer your original question, is poverty temporary? According the the second article I've cited second, NO. Illegal immigrants (from Mexico) have created a multi-generational problem of poverty. Meanwhile, we send the Indians and Chinese (who are educated in our universities) back to their home countries, and keep the Welfare recipients. Go figure.

doug g

Make them name the fathers and sue them for child support.

Kaycee

Poverty is temporary for most but for some its a life long thing. Even though not everyone takes advantage as seeing poverty as a temporary step in life, they should still have the opportunity to try.

koolaidsmile619

I had my son when i was 17 and i am 22 now still on welfare . I am currently applying for ssi and i have more going on than just being poor . I was very naive and did not expect to become pregnat and rember that alot of these girls are coming from broken homes we should help out people who are not as lucky as we are . I dont understand why its such an issue i have a problem with all the money that is being spent on the war , A mother has the right to be with her child and thank god i live in the united states when i can recive help . I do think that proverty is a long term problem in most cases . ALL THE MOMS ON WELFARE KEEP YOUR HEAD UP AND DONT LET NO ONE PUT YOU DOWN INLESS YOU HAVE BEEN THERE DO NOT JUDGE US OTHERWISE IMNA HAVE TO JUDGE YOU FOR HAVING AN ABORTION WICH IS MURDER

Independ"ant"

Im laughing at this question.

Try not to focus on social issues/causes and you'll see the big picture of why CA is in a deficit.

Its like the rethuglicans that participated in corporate greed and fraud blaming people defaulting on loans as the cause of our economic problem we're having when in reality its was the corporate criminals taking advantage of them and milking the situation.

A mother and child should be kept together at all costs. Starting with making the baby's daddy pay up.

anastasia beaverhausen-the real1

imo? yes. anything is worth keeping a baby with it's mother.

LisaHW

I can't help but believe - in a country that has food stamps and WIC - that poverty is the only thing going on when a mother places her child for adoption.

crazychickizback

They shouldn't get ANY! I live in VA, but I no matter where you live, you don't deserve taxpayer money for doing something stupid. If you can't afford a kid, DON'T have one. If you insist, give it to someone that CAN afford it

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: