Comments on: Government influence in our family lives

By: kellys

kellys — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 01:59:42 +0000

Mom of 14. I was waiting for you to find us here. I was dieing to hear what you had to say. Very good thoughts. Thanks for chiming in.

By: mom_of_14

mom_of_14 — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:05:18 +0000

one more thought…i agree with all who are tired of the government interfering in family life. as parents, we need to be able to raise our children without fear of reprisal from the government. i think you’d see a lot less crime from young offenders; respect for authority in schools and else where and more responsible young adults if children weren’t being raised in such a permissive “me me me” society. again, just my opinion.

By: mom_of_14

mom_of_14 — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:57:51 +0000

i’m really split on this whole debate. realistically…can one single woman possibly care for 14 children? of course. can one single woman possibly care for 10 children under the age of 2…eight being fragile preemies? yes, it can be done…but not alone. if she can garner up enough of a support system…family, friends possibly church members.. to help her with the bathing; feeding; holding; changing…at least until their first year….possibly it can be done. trying to do it totally on her own…i don’t know. she has to sleep at some point…we all know how sleep deprived we can become with one or two newborns plus the others who despaerately need our attention.
should the government step in and take them just because of her family size? no, absolutely not. john and kate had 6…they got their own reality show and are profitting big time by exploiting their kids and family (my opinion of course.) one does have to wonder if that might have been this mom’s plan…make it big on tv…therefore providing the money and life neccessities for her family…not too smart of a move if that was the plan.
i do think she’ll be closely monitored as the babies will be high needs at least foir awhile. if, and this is a BIG if…the children are not being cared for then yes…place them somewhere where they can be or offer her the help she needs ( as a foster mom i’ve seen ALL kinds of services being offered and rejected by many many families). that will also mean splitting the babies up into smaller groups because no foster parent will be allowed to have all 8…rules are (even though from personal experience, the rules can be bent if necessary) no more than 4 children under the age of 6 and no more than 8 children under the age of 16.)
in the mean time…if she’s on the up and up and just wants to raise her family, then she has my prayers for strength; patience; and wisdom.
another thought for her though….if she had JUST wanted more children…to increase her family size…has she never heard of the thousands of children in need of a foster/adoptive home? yep, right here in our own country…she could have had what she wanted and helped to lighten the load of waiting children all at once. let’s just hope her’s won’t be added to that list.

By: Alyssa

Alyssa — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:30:36 +0000

I think many people’s issue is that the government is paying for her to raise her children-I heard on the radio today that the state of california provides her with $80,000.00 per year in aid JUST for the 6 children she already has. And that with the additional children, she will be taking home over 2 MILLION dollars in aid. That money comes from the tax payers. We have SOOOO many issues with the money we have as a country, let alone states (from what I hear, california is going bankrupt), that we will probably buckle under this strain. I agree with you, that we can’t just take away her children or tell her how many she can have–I do believe it was a horrible decision on her part, but it’s not my life. There are many families in this country who have that many children-they just had them one at a time, over many many years. We don’t say anything to them about it. I do agree w/ the one woman that the children to teacher ratio is less than the 14 children this woman has, but hopefully she’ll be able to make do. Maybe, if need be, the state/government can put a cap on her aid, or possibly provide her with career training & daycare assistance. That would probably make everyone happy.
This makes me wonder…how many families are out there that currently have 14 children? Married or not. We wouldn’t be paying so much attention to this woman if she didn’t have her 14 children as multiples so close in age.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 04:53:27 +0000

K’s I dont think the 14 children is any problem in and of itself….the problem is 14 children under 7 years old. More power to people who have 14 or 18 kids. That have the support system, emotionally, monetarily and spirituality. Not to mention the age difference a 10 year old is way more capable of taking care of himself or others than a 7 year old. She obviously can’t provide all that. If taxpayers money is going to be spent on them, they should at least have the opprotunity to have these things. Maybe she will prove otherwise that she can support these children. I would love for her to prove me wrong.

By: kellys

kellys — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:10:12 +0000

Well said, Bette!

By: Bette

Bette — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:04:49 +0000

Bri made a good point about the history of Hitler attempting to limit family size. A similar government clamp down went on with China causing many babies to be killed, especially baby girls. Not all of them end up adopted into well-intentioned American families.

It’s not up to government to make these decisions, but clearly, this woman with 8 babies, plus many young children already at home, made an unwise decision. While I don’t think the government should necessarily “take” them, I also don’t feel it is right that the government have to support them through welfare!! If she cannot support them financially, as well as emotionally, spiritually, etc., then she has no business going to these extremes.

By: Bri

Bri — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:34:47 +0000

My husband and I were discussing this the other night and he reminded me that there was another political leader that once wanted to limit the number of children people could have and who could have children. Yes, that would be Hitler.

We may not agree with what this woman has done, but taking her children (especially with the current way that the foster system is being run) would, in my opinion, be much worse for those children.

By: kellys

kellys — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:04:09 +0000

Sarah, 50 years ago, a family of 6 was a small family. That is what I am talking about. We have a different perspective today. I absolutely know I couldn’t handle 6 kids by myself but when you look at bigger families, some of those families look very happy and well adjusted. Granted I know a family of 9 kids and I don’t htink they are taken care of very well but that is my opinion. They aren’t malnourished and not abused so I can just pray for them and hope they turn out well.

But I don’t want the government making that decision for me. The last generation survived and so will we.

So I think it should be

By: kellys

kellys — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:05:25 +0000

Exactly! Which is why i might not be able to do much but when I see someone who needs help, then I help. That is the way I firmly believe it should be. Government help should be the exception, not the given or an entitlement! I’m so frustrated and it seems to be only getting worse!!!!!!!!!!