Development fears over half of English five-year-olds

[Tokis-Phoenix]

"Nearly half of children in England are not reaching what teachers consider a good level of development by the age of five, public health experts say.

Achieving a good level of development by five is considered to be a guide to future health prospects.

The Marmot Review team examined local authority data and found inequalities in life expectancy, how long people lived disability-free and unemployment.

The government said it wanted to improve the health of the vulnerable";

Full Story;

Development fears over half of English five-year-olds

Child development experts say simple things like reading to children every day, regular bedtimes - even cuddling your children - will have a positive impact on their development.

Research shows that for various reasons, poorer families are less likely to engage in these kinds of activities.

""There are cohort studies that follow children from birth right through life to adulthood, and you can see that the circumstances in early childhood affect and health and health inequalities in adult life," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme."

""Now, a big part of that is parenting. If parents can't parent properly because they are poor, depressed, pressed in by circumstances ... then we need to be there to support those parents.

"I suspect that a simple intervention like reading to children every day is something that, if parents can't do it, others could step in and help. It can make a huge difference.""

""These figures provide vital information that can be used to address the deep-seated health inequalities that are present in so many communities nationwide"

"We are also providing a ring-fenced public health budget, weighted towards the most deprived areas, to make sure resources are spent on preventative work, with incentives to improve the health of the poorest, the fastest.

I know i'm making some big sweeping generalisations, but i don't see the "health inequalities" here? We all get access to the same education, the same healthcare, the same basic minimum wage, regardless of class or gender etc. I do believe that for a certain majority, the reason why a lot of people in the poorer parts of society are not better off is because they don't try so much (either for themselves or for their loved ones)- how is not giving enough cuddles or reading bedtime stories a fault of the government, that this is somehow the fault of the better off people in society? That because children of parents who work hard to provide a better life for their families have better developed children?

I'm not saying that everyone on benefits in sh***y council estates are there because its their fault, but i do believe that we live in a very fair society with great equality and much compassion and that for people who end up on the bottom of the heap that some part of that is their responsibility. A great deat of success comes from your own drive and planning (regardless of the circumstances you are born into).

The suggestion that in the midst of devastating government cuts, that we should employ people to read to little children everyday or put them to bed at regular time because their parents can't be bothered to, is IMO ridiculous. People start need to be taking responsibility for their own lives and their own children instead of having people come in and do basic parenting for them because the parents can't be bothered to (and i really think that is the case here). I can't see any decent excuse for any parent not to cuddle their child or read them stories just because they're poor??

 

[Elizabeth van Kampen]

Hello Tokis-Phoenix, You are so right!!
Children will always remember and love the parent who took some time to read stories to them. It brings them closer together and of course the parents don't need to be rich. Knowing that you have loving parents gives children a rich feeling.

 

[Nuala]

The suggestion that in the midst of devastating government cuts, that we should employ people to read to little children everyday or put them to bed at regular time because their parents can't be bothered to, is IMO ridiculous. People start need to be taking responsibility for their own lives and their own children instead of having people come in and do basic parenting for them because the parents can't be bothered to (and i really think that is the case here). I can't see any decent excuse for any parent not to cuddle their child or read them stories just because they're poor??

I can see many reasons for parents to not be able to nurture their children(That's basically what reading stories and cuddling are). I don't know how it is in the UK, but you'll often see both parents working very long hours every day here in the US to make enough money to support their family. People that are "better off" may very well have days off, vacation time, and would obviously make more money too. Those who do not have that kind of job/financial security are less likely to be home for their children than say a parent who is a business owner because they're out scraping whatever money they can get out of their "job", or as I like to call minimum wage, "slave labor".

I mean, let's take a gander at a comparison between my life at age 16 to that of a friend's. My parents were both working very long hours, one as a construction worker, another as a store clerk. Dad would be making an excellent amount of money and could work less were it not for the mortgage we took out on our house earlier in decade due to health problems, but as it is, with his job and my mom's, we were barely making enough to pay our bills & buy food. We had to supplement that once in awhile with food from our town's food pantry. In regards to schooling and support, there wasn't any for me. They didn't have time. But, when I was out of high school, and my younger siblings were going into junior high & so on , the situation had once again changed, and a parent was there to make sure they weren't being screwed around by our area's horrible school system. Got them into a different school than I was in, as their first year there had been remarkably full of horrible situations that I do not think children should be put through.

Another friend, his dad was a defense contractor. Don't know much more than that, but they made an excellent amount of money, the mom stayed home, and was able to get into our school district's politics to help her son, my friend, get by with the horrible school system we had. I never saw him not eat lunch, never saw him do without, always had what he wanted to a reasonable degree, seemed very confident too. His parents were making lots of money, and they had time to pound the pavement to get their son what he needed in terms of nurture and support.

So, Tokis-Phoenix, it's not really so simple as to say it's a matter of the parents not trying hard enough.

I do believe that for a certain majority, the reason why a lot of people in the poorer parts of society are not better off is because they don't try so much

This really made me sick to my stomach, Tokis-Phoenix. My parents worked their goddamn asses off, and they're both in poor health now because they weren't able to take care of themselves as well as someone who is "better off" would be able to. I'm 22, and my mom isn't going to be alive when I'm 30 years old. Where someone might have been able to take some time off to get better, she wasn't able to. It's absolutely fantastic what my parents were able to do for my family. Again, however, how do you choose between having enough money to feed your family/keeping a roof over their heads and spending more time with them? It's a fact that the former is going to take precedence over the latter.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

People that are "better off" may very well have days off, vacation time, and would obviously make more money too. Those who do not have that kind of job/financial security are less likely to be home for their children than say a parent who is a business owner because they're out scraping whatever money they can get out of their "job", or as I like to call minimum wage, "slave labor".

Here you are the one making the generalisations. Just because you earn more does not mean that you work less- in fact it can often work quite the opposite. I don't have any kids myself (never plan on having any either) but when it comes to the numerous friends of mine who have kids, from what i see visibly is that the better off couples work damn hard and have worked for every penny they have. And its not just working hard, there has been a good degree of future planning (and to a smaller degree luck). But either way they certainly find the time to do basic parenting like making meals and giving their children cuddles etc. So i would not say that finanically better off parents have statistically better developed children simply because they get more vacations & money etc.

I mean, out of a whole long 24hr day how long does it take to give a kid some cuddling time or read them a bed time quick story (or even just ensure they go to bed)?

I mean, let's take a gander at a comparison between my life at age 16 to that of a friend's. My parents were both working very long hours, one as a construction worker, another as a store clerk. Dad would be making an excellent amount of money and could work less were it not for the mortgage we took out on our house earlier in decade due to health problems, but as it is, with his job and my mom's, we were barely making enough to pay our bills & buy food. We had to supplement that once in awhile with food from our town's food pantry. In regards to schooling and support, there wasn't any for me. They didn't have time. But, when I was out of high school, and my younger siblings were going into junior high & so on , the situation had once again changed, and a parent was there to make sure they weren't being screwed around by our area's horrible school system. Got them into a different school than I was in, as their first year there had been remarkably full of horrible situations that I do not think children should be put through.

But during this whole time at the ages of 3-5 did you put yourself to bed every night, cold & alone? Your family certainly struggled but you don't make any mention of your parents not having the time to love you or ensure that you went to bed at regular times etc. There is nuturing in the providing of physical stuffs sense and then there is nuturing in the providing of free care or services sense, like cuddles & bed time stories.

Another friend, his dad was a defense contractor. Don't know much more than that, but they made an excellent amount of money, the mom stayed home, and was able to get into our school district's politics to help her son, my friend, get by with the horrible school system we had. I never saw him not eat lunch, never saw him do without, always had what he wanted to a reasonable degree, seemed very confident too. His parents were making lots of money, and they had time to pound the pavement to get their son what he needed in terms of nurture and support.

Money does not equal nurturing. There is no financial cost for a cuddle, bed time story or just ensuring that the kids are going to bed at the right time etc. When it comes to this kid & his family, as an outsider you only saw what you saw, and you have no idea what this kids life was like at home behind closed doors.

A pair of parents can be the richest parents in the neighbourhood, but if they don't bond with & love their children then no amount of money will make up for this loss.

My childhood was very tough (father killed, mother rejecting me, bullied at school etc) though (generally speaking) it never lacked money. We weren't rich but we weren't that hard done by either. But my childhood environment was certainly always very poor in terms of love/nuturing. I actually envied some of my poorer friends families, envying the love & compassion their parents showed them, the good normal stability they gave them in their childhoods, the little things their parents did for them that really counted.

A chocolate treat or new toy doesn't make up for lost love (though TBH even in the treats/gifts department my childhood was extremely lacking- but it wasn't the treats/gifts i wanted, it was simply my mothers affection).

This really made me sick to my stomach, Tokis-Phoenix. My parents worked their goddamn asses off, and they're both in poor health now because they weren't able to take care of themselves as well as someone who is "better off" would be able to. I'm 22, and my mom isn't going to be alive when I'm 30 years old. Where someone might have been able to take some time off to get better, she wasn't able to. It's absolutely fantastic what my parents were able to do for my family. Again, however, how do you choose between having enough money to feed your family/keeping a roof over their heads and spending more time with them? It's a fact that the former is going to take precedence over the latter.

Take it personally if you want but i did state immediately in my OP that i was making big sweeping generalisations. I never said "Every person who is poor is poor because its their fault!" nor did i say "Every person who is poor is poor because they are a victim of society!" Etc. The system is also different in America as well in that some situations of financial hardship like those due to health bill costs simply don't really occur over here due to our NHS.

Though either way, although your upbringing certainly wasn't easy you seem to equate money= happier childhood. This really is not the case. Having more money can certainly make your life easier (though also certainly not always) but its not the be all and end all of things. IMO there is no cost for love so no decent excuse for parents not to nuture their children with basic things like cuddles & bed time stories.

To excuse poorer parents for not nurturing their children so much in (in a non-financial expenditure sense) would be to suggest that affection or love has some real financial cost and that richer parents are somehow more capable of this because they have more money etc.

But this article is not about the physical things like the well rounded meals, gifts of toys and an expensive education at a good school- its about affection, love, care and to me there is no financial price on these things. Plenty of hard working hard done by parents nurture their kids exceedingly well in these respects, while some of the richests parents can have the coldest family houses completely lacking in kindly & caring atmospheres that bring comfort & guideance childrens early years etc.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Hello Tokis-Phoenix, You are so right!!
Children will always remember and love the parent who took some time to read stories to them. It brings them closer together and of course the parents don't need to be rich. Knowing that you have loving parents gives children a rich feeling.

I totally agree ^_^v ! I think bed time stories are really important, not only as a way of helping the child unwind (and also helping them look forward to going to bed instead of trying to escape bed times), but i also think it really helps child & parent bond together too . My favorite childhood book was a beautifully illustrated edition of Aesop's Fables that my father gave me (which i would strongly recommend as a story book to any parent as not only is it packed with fables/storys which all have good moral messages, but the storys are also all short & entertaining, each one differing from the next ^_^v ).

So gutted my mother ended up giving it to a charity shop as i have never been able to find the same edition of Aesop's Fables (there are countless editions of Aesop's Fables but i remember this particular book as having particularly beautifully illustrated pictures on every page that were true art in their own right- it wasn't a particularly old edition, i think it was probably 1980's, but it had very vibrantly coloured & detailed illustrations on every page for every fable).

 

[Haruspex]

Reproduce when you are in a position to take care of your spawn. How about this complex principle of sense?

 

[Nuala]

I'm confident that you're not understanding what I'm saying, Tokis-Phoenix. Love equaling money was never hinted at in my initial post, which is why I'm having a hard time believing you understood what I said. So, I'm going to make it much less convoluted than my initial post may have been.

We're going to use a convenience store clerk as an example. You work at least seven hours a day. Not much, but unless you have some sort of suplemental income, such as an inheritance, it's not going to be enough to live off. So, you'll get another part-time job, as most stores these days handle hours by shift, not by day. 7-Eleven has 3 shifts. Shift 1(Morning-Afternoon), Shift 2(Afternoon-Night), and Shift 3(Night-Morning). You could be working for one shift, or for half a shift. You hope you're in your manager's good graces and get a full shift. But still, you will still have to get another job, because there is no way you can live off $7.00-$12.00 an hour with a family to feed, clothe, and shelter.

We live in a world full of inequality. Not everyone gets days off, vacation time, and bonuses. Not everyone makes a fair amount of money for a fair amount of time, to be able to come home at 5 PM and spend time with the kids. They'll do their best, but there simply isn't enough time in the day. It's a regret they carry until the child is older. Maybe the child will understand your inability to spend time with them, to nurture them. More often than not, that child sees the world through rose-tinted glasses. That there was nothing stopping you from spending time with them, that you just didn't want to. That child obviously grew up angry. They have not yet experienced the joys of paying rent/mortgage, buying groceries, paying the electric/gas bill, buying clothes, and realizing how much living can really cost a person.

It's sad, but it goes beyond a parent being lazy in quite a few cases. Not every parent who can't nurture their children doesn't do it because they're lazy/uninterested. Sure, there are those people too. Wouldn't you rather ensure that a child has every possibility to succeed in life than waste their innate talent to be a productive member of society than not do so? It seems like it's sometimes the fault of the government, or the parents, for making such a situation where a third party comes in and nurtures your children for you(A classic example is day care), because you truly can't. But is it? Don't you think it's a whole lot more complicated and goes by a person to person basis? There are so, so many factors to add together.

You made a few blatantly rude remarks in your initial post, Tokis-Phoenix. I was and am still offended by them, editing them out now won't fix it, but read what you posted a couple times. The basic message at hand, that being, "Children need their parents to nurture them to ensure mental/social development" is correct. They do, but it's not like everyone can cut a few hours off their work to do that. My parents took great care of me, but they weren't always there when I needed them. Even when they weren't there for me, it was pretty obvious they were working hard to provide for my siblings and I. And, I think it's the dream of every parent to ensure their child has a better life than they did.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

We live in a world full of inequality. Not everyone gets days off, vacation time, and bonuses. Not everyone makes a fair amount of money for a fair amount of time, to be able to come home at 5 PM and spend time with the kids. They'll do their best, but there simply isn't enough time in the day. It's a regret they carry until the child is older. Maybe the child will understand your inability to spend time with them, to nurture them. More often than not, that child sees the world through rose-tinted glasses. That there was nothing stopping you from spending time with them, that you just didn't want to. That child obviously grew up angry. They have not yet experienced the joys of paying rent/mortgage, buying groceries, paying the electric/gas bill, buying clothes, and realizing how much living can really cost a person.

Yes yes i know all this. I do live in this world too and i'm sorry if don't victimize everybody. There is a lot of sh*t in this world, too much sh*t etc etc.

It's sad, but it goes beyond a parent being lazy in quite a few cases. Not every parent who can't nurture their children doesn't do it because they're lazy/uninterested.

"SIGH" HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF THAT I NEVER SAID "EVERY PARENT WHO DOESN'T "NURTURE" THEIR CHILD IS LAZY???? Please quote the exact sentence where i aparently said this because i certainly can't find it anywhere! (and the most massive appologies if i did say such a thing!)

You made a few blatantly rude remarks in your initial post, Tokis-Phoenix. I was and am still offended by them, editing them out now won't fix it, but read what you posted a couple times.

Well you'll be glad to know that i won't be editing what i've said because despite clarifying that i was making "sweeping generalisations" (you do understand what this means right?) and that i certainly don't view the world so black and white as you keep repeating etc, you keep on debating with me like this is not the case. I don't know what more i can say???

The basic message at hand, that being, "Children need their parents to nurture them to ensure mental/social development" is correct. They do, but it's not like everyone can cut a few hours off their work to do that.

You keep on repeating "Nurture, nurture, nurture". But all the article talks about is basic things like cuddling your children under the age of 5 and making sure they're in bed at stable times etc because this all improves their basic development etc. If you are leaving an under age 5 year old child with a carer all day long or something because you don't have any time to spend with them and don't even have a hour or two etc to spend any quality time with them after finishing work when you are home, then i agree with what Derfel said about people should only have children when they're capable of looking after them properly (and i personally don't consider leaving an under age 5 child alone with a carer for a full working day + overtime alone with no parents around etc, good parenting).

I know you're parents were poor, worked their socks off to provide for you all, didn't spend much time with you, you felt burdoned growing up etc- but you're talking about your whole life story here and completely ignoring/neglecting the situation & circumstances of the study my OP comments were based on (for example the study was based on under 5 year old kids and their developmental stage at 5 etc).

To many people are selfish when it comes to having children, and the children they are bring into the world are suffering for it. There are a lot of valid reasons for not always doing the best for kids etc, but i think having a child under 5 and not finding the time in the day or whatever to give the child a cuddle or make sure they go to bed at a proper time etc, i would question parents reasons on this.

 

[Nuala]

Yes yes i know all this. I do live in this world too and i'm sorry if don't victimize everybody. There is a lot of sh*t in this world, too much sh*t etc etc.

"SIGH" HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF THAT I NEVER SAID "EVERY PARENT WHO DOESN'T "NURTURE" THEIR CHILD IS LAZY????

I don't believe I claimed you said every parent who doesn't nurture their child is lazy. But you said "I do believe that for a certain majority, the reason why a lot of people in the poorer parts of society are not better off is because they don't try so much.

I do believe that for a certain majority, the reason why a lot of people in the poorer parts of society are not better off is because they don't try so much (either for themselves or for their loved ones)- how is not giving enough cuddles or reading bedtime stories a fault of the government, that this is somehow the fault of the better off people in society

You come off as obnoxious, condescending, and oblivious to possible reasons why the "poorer parts of society" may not be home as often as someone who is better off. I would really like to see what you base your belief that the "poorer parts of society don't try so hard" on. No, actually, I wouldn't. It wouldn't matter. You said what you said because you actually believe that, an explanation will change nothing.

You keep on repeating "Nurture, nurture, nurture". But all the article talks about is basic things like cuddling your children under the age of 5 and making sure they're in bed at stable times etc because this all improves their basic development etc.

That's what nurturing is. ._.

To many people are selfish when it comes to having children, and the children they are bring into the world are suffering for it. There are a lot of valid reasons for not always doing the best for kids etc, but i think having a child under 5 and not finding the time in the day or whatever to give the child a cuddle or make sure they go to bed at a proper time etc, i would question parents reasons on this.

Would you rather a young adult not give birth to her child because it would affect your taxes? All early pregnancies must be terminated until someone starts to steadily earn a predetermined income? What do you want to happen?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I don't believe I claimed you said every parent who doesn't nurture their child is lazy. But you said "I do believe that for a certain majority, the reason why a lot of people in the poorer parts of society are not better off is because they don't try so much.

You said "Not every parent who can't nurture their children doesn't do it because they're lazy/uninterested."
Now, unless you're making points at an imaginary member here who apparently said that "Every parent who can't nurture their children does it because they're lazy/uninterested", then you are essentially claiming i said such things by replying back to me in a manner that suggests i did say such things. You are twisting my words fundamentally of context by debating against me in this way and this is my issue with you because your angst directed at me is based on things that i apparently said a particular way (which i did not) which you have taken it upon yourself to re-educate me on.

You come off as obnoxious, condescending, and oblivious to possible reasons why the "poorer parts of society" may not be home as often as someone who is better off.

Yadda yadda yadda. I don't really care about how offended you may or may not be because this is not what this debate is (or should be) about, i know my views are not PC or whatever but at least i'm being honest with my views. Too many things are not said in society because so many people are afraid of offending other people. If you're too emotional to handle my views then maybe you should exit this thread.

That's what nurturing is. ._.

Its about the wording. You can argue a great deal of things using the extremely generalised/non-specific word "Nurturing", but there has not been a single point in this thread where you have specifically given reason as to why a poorer parent is justified for particular things like not ensuring their goes to bed at regular times, given cuddles, is read to etc and why the government should employ people to do these things for such parents who neglect these things (and this is what i want to know, because try as you might to vent against my opinions you haven't given any decent reason why the majority of this group of poor parents are failing in these completely free aspects of parenting and so why being poor should be an excuse for such failings). If anything over half of the poor parent children were at a properly developed level, so this also backs up the idea that income is not a barrier to parental love or caring.

Would you rather a young adult not give birth to her child because it would affect your taxes? All early pregnancies must be terminated until someone starts to steadily earn a predetermined income? What do you want to happen?

What??? My concerns are not about taxes but about neglected children. Where have i mentioned abortion in this quote? Where i have mentioned people not having children because they're a burden on taxes in this quote? Where in this quote have i mentioned people earning a certain predetermined income before they can raise a child? Etc.

Stop (repeatedly) trying to put words or opinions into my mouth- i don't know if you're doing this to try and make me look like the big bad wolf in this thread so you can justify your angst against me (prime example just here) or something else. Maybe in your angst your making assumptions about my state of thinking. But while my opinions may not be favourable to you, on the other hand you're not coming up with any solid reasoning against them- you only seem to be able to do this right now by twisting my words or opinions out of context etc.

Now, to make things really simple. The studies results basically say that on average, nearly half of children raised by poor parents are undeveloped by the age of 5 because of the lack of cuddling, regular bedtimes etc (i'm getting tired of repeating this words now -_- ).
Based on the studies results, would you come to the conclusion that;
a. The majority (not all!) of such poor parents (the half with undeveloped children that is) aren't doing these basic nuturing things because they're working 24/7. Or;
b. The majority of such poor parents (again not all poor parents, just the half with undeveloped children) are neglecting to do these basic things because they're aren't bothering to or some such similar thing etc.
c. Or something else (equally mixed/miriad of reasons and why this is probably the case etc).

Now;
a. Cuddling your kid= free.
b. Making sure your child goes to bed at regular times = free.
c. Reading to your kid = free.

Thus i cannot see a financial excuse for not doing these things. Based on numerous studies there are a lot of problems and failings with the poorer people's of society (high obesity levels, poorer child diets, more crime, more offspring, lower life expectancies etc)- and i do believe that pretty much all of these things are down to the fact that such people are poor or raised poor, and not because its a personal failing in their part that has nothing to do with their state of finances etc.

But reading to your child, cuddling them etc, doesn't cost a penny. While you could excuse things like higher obesity levels in poorer parts of society by arguing that a lot of the cheapest food is very unhealthy etc and so people are getting fatter because its harder for them to provide healthy meals in a realistically financially viable way etc, i don't see how being poor is an equally reasonable excuse for not doing the basic parenting aforementioned etc. So the conclusion i came to is that this percentage of particular failing parents must simply not be trying as hard with their kids. Thus i don't believe the solution to the problem is to take their parental responsibilities off their hands by employing government people to do these basic things for them (and these really are super basic aspects of parenting), but to underline to the parents the importance of doing these things for their children and encourage them to start doing these things more themselves (because i am sure they are capable of cuddling or reading to their kids).

Yes i am aware that this will not be the case of every poor parent, there are many things that can affect people regardless of income that can make them a less good parent etc (postnatel depression, financial stress, poor health etc) and you don't need to educate me about the miriad of other reasons as because when it comes to my majority opinion it is an openly generalised one that doesn't attempt to view things in a black & white manner (and to view any of this in a black & white manner would be to make a mistake, but on the other hand when you form an opinion about anything you will inevitably make some generalisations etc).

 

[Tsuyoiko]

My guess would be that one reason poor people are less likely to engage in the nurturing activities mentioned in the study, is simply the effect of being poor on their mental and physical well-being. It seems obvious to me that being poor is pretty demotivating and that this lack of motivation affects many aspects of a person's life. When one feels unmotivated, it's hard to plan for the future and to consider the consequences of one's actions and I suspect many people just don't feel like being affectionate. We should commend those who have the strength of character to overcome this negativity, but we certainly shouldn't condemn those who don't.

Educating poor people about the importance of these activities is, and I apologise for the cliche, putting the cart before the horse. I also don't think that employing outsiders to take over these parental responsibilities is the best use of government resources. Our first instinct should be to use these resources to try to raise these families out of poverty. In the UK, our last government introduced measures such as the minimum wage, tax credits and the child trust fund, which lifted thousands of children out of poverty. Despite this, the UK is emphatically not a fair or equal society - we live in the fourth most unequal country in the developed world. Unfortunately, our current government is in the process of undoing much of the good work done by the last government, so this situation is destined to get worse.

 

[Nuala]

:?

It's cool, Tokis-Phoenix. I get where you're coming from now. Good luck with that.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

My guess would be that one reason poor people are less likely to engage in the nurturing activities mentioned in the study, is simply the effect of being poor on their mental and physical well-being. It seems obvious to me that being poor is pretty demotivating and that this lack of motivation affects many aspects of a person's life. When one feels unmotivated, it's hard to plan for the future and to consider the consequences of one's actions and I suspect many people just don't feel like being affectionate. We should commend those who have the strength of character to overcome this negativity, but we certainly shouldn't condemn those who don't.

You could be right. Its a very difficult subject to debate, as it will also be always debatable (and to a certain extent unprovable) the question of "Are these people poor because they are unnmotivated, or are they unnmotivated because they are poor?". Its a question no one likes to ask...
All in all both options are appliable to many poor people and i think for a lot of people it is probably like a vicious cycle/circle.

I also don't think that employing outsiders to take over these parental responsibilities is the best use of government resources.

That is one of my main concerns too- the government is really hacking up our government spending right now, with thousands of government employed people facing loosing their jobs. On the one hand while this move would create more jobs, i don't think this is one of the best ways the government could create jobs- there are many other area's of raising children where people are facing loosing their jobs like carers for the mentally disabled which i think are more important to keep. Raising a child is never an easy job, but i am sure those raising mentally disabled children need a lot more help than the average parent (especially if they are poor).

Our first instinct should be to use these resources to try to raise these families out of poverty. In the UK, our last government introduced measures such as the minimum wage, tax credits and the child trust fund, which lifted thousands of children out of poverty. Despite this, the UK is emphatically not a fair or equal society - we live in the fourth most unequal country in the developed world. Unfortunately, our current government is in the process of undoing much of the good work done by the last government, so this situation is destined to get worse.

Yes we unfortunately we just don't have the money to help everyone now. Previous policions have fullfilled whatever promises they have fullfilled by just borrowing more money- our state of funding & spending is in a real mess as we are also one of the most taxed countries in the whole of Europe despite our state of finances. Doing something like a cheap educational leaflet campaign directed at these parents might be the most affordable option to do something about this issue, as otherwise as you said the only other option is to let such people fall into further problems.

It's cool, Tokis-Phoenix. I get where you're coming from now. Good luck with that.

Lol i'm sorry you're not able to debate in this thread against me, but its become pretty obvious you're not here to have a serious debate about the topic at hand anyway. You're a very emotionally driven character, my advice would be to chill out a bit about people's opinions which do not agree with you (you've been very vocal in particular about how offended you've been etc)- 'spose we'll just have to agree to disagree about this one or something, que sera sera ^_^v .