Parents of children taken into care are notorious for having lots of spare cash.
NowThatHappened on
Why not all the costs? They are their kids, why should we pay for them if they can? Only when they are unable to pay should we have to put our hands in our pockets. Imo
DoubleXFemale on
This seems to be for voluntary care, rather than court ordered. Â
This will include situations such as a single parent with no support system going into hospital for a while, situations where a parent is worried about their rebellious, violent teenager’s effects on their younger kids, etc.
[deleted] on
[deleted]
Bec21-21 on
Surely they should pay some kind of child maintenance as they are their children. Absent parents are expected to pay.
We ask fathers to support mothers in cases of family breakdown regardless of financial status, why not ask parents to support the state in similar circumstances.
AtherianKing1 on
I can see it working for those who are terrible parents and still have cash, but definitely not for all cases.
(Just wanna point out here there’s 1 article of government struggling to pay child support services and another article of one government official shamefully complaining about 200k per year salary…)
Hollywood-is-DOA on
This won’t fly with skint, addiction riddled parents, or even normal parents. Are they going to not take kids off parents that are in danger, as the local council did a cost assessment on the parents benefits and it proved they could afford it
The government won’t allow this as it would break loads of laws on how much someone actually needs to eat snd survive on benefits.
I am sure they just run these stories to see what the public mood is on stupid ideas.
mittfh on
> The charges would apply to children entering care under voluntary agreements with parents, and not to those taken into care under court orders. Under the 1989 Children’s Act, councils have the power to charge parents but this is rarely used. […] The council estimates the families of about 28 children a year would come within the scope of the policy.
> Council documents estimate the measure would bring in about £165,000 a year – a tiny sum in the context of a projected £13m overspend in its children’s services and child protection budget, and an estimated £20m gap in its overall budget.
So the entire policy seems to be a virtually pointless token gesture, perhaps intended to generate column inches and therefore increase pressure on demands for local authorities to receive a better funding settlement from central government (in reality: fat chance in the next few years).
BoofmasterZero on
Seems like a good way to get people to dump random babies
VelvetDreamers on
Councils in the midlands revealed they spent over £11 million extra on child support. Each child needs accommodation, three full time carers on rotation, taxis to and from school, food, medical expenses, etc.
Parents should unequivocally contribute if it isn’t court mandated.
12 Comments
Parents of children taken into care are notorious for having lots of spare cash.
Why not all the costs? They are their kids, why should we pay for them if they can? Only when they are unable to pay should we have to put our hands in our pockets. Imo
This seems to be for voluntary care, rather than court ordered. Â
This will include situations such as a single parent with no support system going into hospital for a while, situations where a parent is worried about their rebellious, violent teenager’s effects on their younger kids, etc.
[deleted]
Surely they should pay some kind of child maintenance as they are their children. Absent parents are expected to pay.
BBC News – Unlawful care homes ‘profiteering’ from at-risk children – BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crlrl0rkjr6o this is the real issue.
Interesting idea and I see the logic of it.
We ask fathers to support mothers in cases of family breakdown regardless of financial status, why not ask parents to support the state in similar circumstances.
I can see it working for those who are terrible parents and still have cash, but definitely not for all cases.
(Just wanna point out here there’s 1 article of government struggling to pay child support services and another article of one government official shamefully complaining about 200k per year salary…)
This won’t fly with skint, addiction riddled parents, or even normal parents. Are they going to not take kids off parents that are in danger, as the local council did a cost assessment on the parents benefits and it proved they could afford it
The government won’t allow this as it would break loads of laws on how much someone actually needs to eat snd survive on benefits.
I am sure they just run these stories to see what the public mood is on stupid ideas.
> The charges would apply to children entering care under voluntary agreements with parents, and not to those taken into care under court orders. Under the 1989 Children’s Act, councils have the power to charge parents but this is rarely used. […] The council estimates the families of about 28 children a year would come within the scope of the policy.
> Council documents estimate the measure would bring in about £165,000 a year – a tiny sum in the context of a projected £13m overspend in its children’s services and child protection budget, and an estimated £20m gap in its overall budget.
So the entire policy seems to be a virtually pointless token gesture, perhaps intended to generate column inches and therefore increase pressure on demands for local authorities to receive a better funding settlement from central government (in reality: fat chance in the next few years).
Seems like a good way to get people to dump random babies
Councils in the midlands revealed they spent over £11 million extra on child support. Each child needs accommodation, three full time carers on rotation, taxis to and from school, food, medical expenses, etc.
Parents should unequivocally contribute if it isn’t court mandated.