Strollerderby : welfare

What Octo-Mom Is Spending The Money On

JeanneSager — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 01:24:00 GMT

Want to know what Nadya Suleman is doing with the donations she may or may not be getting since giving birth to octuplets?

At least $250-some was apparently spent on a Nintendo Wii this week; Suleman was spotted buying a video game system for her kids, eyeing an additional controller worth $40.

The question is - do you really care?

If you were drawn in by Suleman's Website requesting donations this week and sent her a chunk of change, do you think you have the right to weigh in on how she spends your money? After all, they're donations. Once the check is written, it's out of your hands. You knew she could buy a game system for her kids just as easily as she could buy a few boxes of diapers.

On the other hand, the chief reason Nadya Suleman has drawn significant criticism since the story of her eight babies and an additional six children living at home is because she's been accepting public assistance - including food stamps and disability payments for at least three of her kids. She's not just someone spending private donations from a multitude of good-hearted suckers.

Food stamps have some limitations, as does WIC, but just like donations, there's no limit put on what someone can buy once they get their disability checks. Which is precisely why there are so many problems with the system - because for every person who makes use of the system because of a real need, there are the Nadya Sulemans of the world who go out to buy a Wii when when they have fourteen mouths to feed and no job to pay for them.

My colleague Shannon says the vitriol toward this woman has to stop, and I agree there's no point in getting yourself worked up over someone you don't know - nor can we put all the blame for this situation on her. But I can't help getting angry on behalf of the taxpayers who have to pay for her fourteen children's medical care, their food, their diapers, while their own kids sit home without a Wii because Mom and Dad just can't afford it - and they made the hard choice of putting food on the table instead.

And charging my anger is the response - just before the Suleman story details began leaking - to the Georgia family who put the bulk of their belongings up on eBay rather than advertise for donations. The same family who tried again and again to deny the offer of a flat $20,000 donation from a kind-hearted Samaritan. Out of thirty-seven comments left on the post, more than half claimed the family had some ulterior motive. Even more criticized the family's actions leading up to their decision to sell off their belongings - denying that attempts to be financially responsible in the here and now could negate any financial irresponsibility in the past.

Why do people leap to such conclusions? Why do the families who are truly in need, honestly reaching out, get treated with such utter cruelty and suspicion? Because of the Nadya Sulemans of the world. Because of those who take and take and take some more, the honorable system of providing for our poor and our disabled is tainted by the dishonorable.

Only Child Syndrome Doesn't Explain Octo-Mom

Report Finds Individualistic Culture Harms Kids—Because It Leads to Working Moms

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:00:00 GMT

A three-year study by a British charity called the Children’s Group has uncovered some unsurprising problems with individualistic culture. The report, called A Good Childhood, found that children are suffering from “a belief among adults that the prime duty of the individual is to make the most of their [sic] own life, rather than contribute to the good of others."

Thanks to a me-first culture, the study contends, people are more accepting of excessive materialism and widespread economic inequality that leaves millions of children in poverty; are unfazed by harmful advertising aimed at children; and see school as a place to compete rather than make friends and have fun.

This all makes sense to me. What boggles my mind is the solution proposed by the study’s authors: keep women in the home. According to the report, “excessive individualism” has lead women to get all uppity, believing they should take on paid jobs other than child-rearing and housecleaning. This is bad for children because clearly all working moms neglect their kids. Plus, women now have the freedom to break up families with their selfish desire to end unhappy marriages.

The study’s authors write: “Women's new economic independence…has made women much less dependent on their male partners, as has the advent of the welfare state.” Hold on a second here. I thought this report signaled the need to have compassion for others, which would mean supporting welfare for needy families and other government programs that help the less fortunate succeed.

Then, of course, there’s the little problem with the assumption (which I thought died circa 1950) that women should be dependent on men for all their basic needs. This way, even if men are physically abusive or alcoholic or can’t hold down a job, women would not be able to divorce them since they would have no means of caring for themselves. This would be good for kids, because divorce is an evil that must be smote out.

Oh, did I mention that the study’s authors have ties to the Church of England?

Image: phawker.com

"Dads" Want DNA Testing in Kansas

JeanneSager — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:28:00 GMT

Christopher Sprowson's ex-wife had an affair that resulted in a baby. Now the State of Kansas wants him to pay for a child genetic testing proves isn't his because he's the "presumed father."

A bit presumptuous, aren't they?

Sprowson and his first wife divorced when the child, now thirteen, was just a baby. He's never had a relationship with the child, nor has the mother called for one. Why should she? He isn't the boy's father.

Kansas officials stepped in when the ex-wife filed for welfare.The state automatically seeks child support for any parent receiving public assistance to reduce the state's burden. Unable to provide a name for a father of her boy, the state put the blame on Sprowson. When DNA proved otherwise, a judge said it didn't matter – as her husband at the time of the baby's birth, he had to pay some $10,000.

But Sprowson and wife Karey have three kids of their own to support, and they have made a bid to the state legislature to change the laws, allowing men to use DNA evidence to prove once and for all that they aren't responsible for kids with whom they share no blood relation.

Critics have said this will pave the way for stepfathers everywhere to shirk their responsiblities to their stepkids. The way I see it, stepkids are just that - "step" kids. Short of a marriage to the child's biological parent, they aren't that child's parent. So why should they be responsible for their care outside of the marriage? Their argument is the old standby - it takes more than biology to make a parent, and I agree with them. But that's a saying used to describe the non-biological parents who nurture children, not one that can be supplied to defend thrusting someone else's responsibilities on men like Christopher Sprowson. He never nurtured the child because he had no reason to - he wasn't the boy's father in any sense of the word, biological or emotional.

I don't fault the state for trying to reduce a burden on taxpayers by requiring non-custodial parents to step in to care for a child rather than the state. But you can't legislate family ties into existence anymore than you can force an angry spouse to accept their cheating partner's love child into their heart.

Give the guys their DNA test, Kansas. And let the real fathers stand up.

Image: NIH

Morning News: Obama Chooses Education Secretary; Pledges $10 billion for Early Education

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:45:00 GMT

Yesterday, President-Elect Barack Obama named Arne Duncan, Chicago schools superintendent to be hiss education secretary in the coming administration. Duncan is behind Obama's strong support of early childhood education programs, towards which Obama has pledged $10 billion. (As a comparison, Head Start, which serves about a million children is a $7 billion program.) One such program for poor children is the Chicago Educare Center. To see how children six months through five years are spending their days in this program, check out the New York Times slides show.

There are arguments about opening free preschool programs to the middle-class, Obama says he wants to keep the focus on the poor. Unfortunately, it looks like more and more children might be eligible for free preschool and free lunch after Obama takes office. According to the Washington Post, welfare rolls are growing and applications increasing in many states. 40% of new recipients have never applied for assistance before, many falling from the middle and upper-middle class, having lost white collar jobs and now unable to find work even in retail or fast food.

But rich, poor or in-between, the real question is, what should our children be playing with?

A new UK study finds that children's toys are more gendered now than ever before (so much for free to be you and me) and consequently, that girls--whose toys encourage little learning and more docility than boys'--are behind in math and science. Are such claims enough to make you rethink your stocking stuffers?

FInally, the Federal Reserve cut the interest rate to .25% yesterday, saying they will allow it to fall to zero. That's right, folks, zero percent. In other words, the government will be loaning itself money for free. They hope to send us all back into the stock market, desperate for better returns on our investments (what investments? you ask? us too). But if you have two nickels to rub together this is going to be a great time to buy a car or a house, as rates might fall below 5% for auto loans and mortgages. If you can get a mortgage, that is.

image: ounceofprevention.org

Biological Father of Madonna's Adopted Son Very Concerned

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:30:00 GMT

Yohana Banda, the biological father of Madonna’s adopted son David, is very worried about the boy's happiness. Although Banda and his second wife live simply in a thatched hut in Malawi, he thinks that three-year-old David may be happier living with him than with the most famous woman in the world.

Banda put David up for adoption after his first wife, David’s biological mother, died from complications in childbirth. He hoped that David would have a better life in the U.S., but, he says, “Now I see him in a big bewildering crowd in the street with people pushing and shoving, and many cameras around, and without a mother and father to hold his hand. I’m feeling bad for him.”

Madonna’s divorce from Guy Ritchie has strengthened Banda’s concerns about David’s welfare. “This is a new and terrible thing to happen to him. I am too upset to think clearly,” Banda said.

Although this is clearly a unique case, Banda's concern raises interesting questions about the rights of biological parents to be involved in their children’s lives after adoption. Naturally, Banda cannot know what David’s private family life is really like without personal contact from Madonna. Do you think Madonna has an obligation to reassure Banda of David’s happiness, or are her family’s decisions none of his business?

Photo: Celebpick's Weblog

Woman Makes Up 14 Kids For the Money

JeanneSager — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:08:00 GMT

They were shelling out for foster care for 16 kids, but the Scottish government left Catherine Semple alone for four years. When they finally checked in, social services found 14 of the kids didn't even EXIST!

The Glasgow mom of two began telling the government she was caring for five of her sister's kids and five foster kids in 2002. She told them she had a total of six of her own, then loaded a pile of supposed maladies on the kids to qualify for more money. The government gave her more than 69,000 pounds (in today's market about $120,000) no questions asked over a four-year period. Finally, in 2006, someone got suspicous. Wouldn't you?

Her husband claims he knew nothing about the fraud (or his supposed sown seed, apparently), and he hasn't been charged. Semple has offered to sell her house to make restitution.

I'm not sure which is more disturbing, that she bilked the government by making up a bunch of kids or that no one checked in on 10 supposed foster/adopted kids - many with disabilities - to see how they were faring.

Image: Amazon

Source: BBC News

News from Darkest Peru: Paddington Turns 50

Keep Kids From Getting Fat - Get a Dog

Hey Sarah Palin, Make Your Kids Go to School

Dirty Diaper Thief on the Loose in Upstate New York

Angelina Buys Her Kid a Knife. What's Next, Maddox Jolie, Tomb Raider?

Teenager Arrested For Kiddie Porn - The Pictures Were of Herself