Child abuse has again been in the headlines over the last few weeks, most recently following the release of the Children’s Commissioner’s State of Care report into the treatment of children in the care of Child, Youth and Family (CYF). The report contained a number of recommendations, which the Minister of Social Development Anne Tolley has said will be taken into account in the major overhaul of the agency that is presently underway.
Leading the review is Paula Rebstock, an economist and the former Chair of the Commerce Commission, who has already directed far-reaching reforms for the government into Social Welfare and the Department of Corrections. It is understood that a ‘social investment’ approach is being promoted for CYF, which will put children’s needs at its centre – as well as focussing on what works and how to get best value for money. The report is said to be with Cabinet and is expected to be released in its final form by the end of the year.
However, no matter what structural changes to the child protection agency are introduced, nor what new processes are brought in, the problems of abused and damaged children will continue until the government stops paying women who are not in loving and stable relationships to have babies.
The cycle of abuse is largely intergenerational. Children are shaped by their parents and their home environment. If these are not conducive to good child-rearing practices, society will suffer. The research on this is conclusive.
In spite of the best of intentions of those who influenced New Zealand’s early social welfare laws, by creating an environment in which violence and abuse can flourish, sole parent benefits are one of the single biggest factors in the child abuse equation. But since child advocacy groups and children’s authorities shy away from this issue – reforms in this area have been inadequate.
So why is it that sole parent welfare is not being adequately addressed? Strange as it may sound, a key reason is feminism.
A reminder of the radical nature of the feminist dogma that drove reforms throughout the Western world in the sixties and seventies can be seen in the rhetoric of leading feminist Linda Gordon, a New York University Professor who said, “The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” Or the call of another feminist leader Sheila Cronin: “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.”
New Zealand feminists thought that securing government funding for mothers who left their husbands was the right thing to do. They wanted a regular state income to sustain these women and their children, without the need to work for a living. Their battle led to the establishment of the Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB) in the early seventies, as a stand-alone ‘wage’ for women escaping violent relationships.
The problem was that over time the perverse incentives built into the scheme created a raft of unintended consequences and detrimental outcomes.
If a couple was having relationship difficulties, instead of trying to reconcile the problems and keep the marriage together – for the sake of the children – the DPB paid the woman a secure state income if she split the family up.
The DPB was only available if mothers did not let fathers have too much involvement in their children’s upbringing. In spite of fathers being society’s strongest protectors of children – and much needed male role models – the system effectively drove them away.
The benefit was essentially only available to mothers who did not work. If a woman tried to take on a job and get back into the workforce and mainstream society – to become independent of the state – the benefit abatement rates were so punishing, that they became a serious disincentive to employment.
While the benefit was paid to a mother to care for her children, there were no strings attached. This meant that if she failed to provide proper custodial care for her children, decent nutrition, appropriate health care, or even regular schooling, there were few, if any, consequences.
Furthermore, built into the system was a simple but destructive incentive – if the mother had more children, she got more money. This meant that even if her lifestyle was totally unsuitable for raising a new baby, she was guaranteed a higher income if she got pregnant and had another child.
In crude terms the feminists had created the environment for baby farming to flourish.
While most women who entered the welfare system stayed for a relatively short time and raised their children well, for a vulnerable minority the DPB became a trap. Over the years, it created the opportunity for unskilled women to secure a regular income – and often a state house – without having to work. Without the stability and discipline that comes from working for a living and contributing to civil society, indolent and destructive lifestyles were all too common. Not only did the children suffer, but so too did the community.
An exposé of the family background of the 13 year old boy who stabbed and killed dairy owner Arun Kumar last year, says it all:
“His mother drank alcohol and consumed drugs heavily during her pregnancy with him, her sixth child.
“Drugs and alcohol, violence, criminal influences, unemployment, little food and clothing in the house, no medical treatment, moving schools, moving houses, truancy”.
“She was using P and heroin daily, ‘shooting up’ in front of the children; gang members raided the family home.
“A neighbour alerted CYF that the boy, just 3, and a younger sibling were left in the care of their sisters, aged 12 and 13. The older children, who were not enrolled in school, then left the pre-schoolers home alone.
“The 8-year-old boy was struck by a car on a pedestrian crossing and flung 4m in the air. He was knocked out, suffered a seizure, fractured skull and a brain-bleed. Four days later, the youngster was discharged from Starship Hospital. An occupational therapist established he suffered a ‘traumatic’ brain injury and wrote a referral letter to ACC for rehabilitation. Despite this, the boy never received treatment.
“He was only 9 and making suicidal comments.
“The mother’s criminal history – 50 convictions dating back to 1991 – as well as nine aliases – including a five-month stint in prison when her son was 5. Her rap sheet includes shoplifting, stealing cars, receiving stolen property, false cheques, burglary, common assault, wilful damage, possession of methamphetamine utensils, resisting police, cultivating cannabis, wilful trespass, drink driving, stealing bank cards, and breach of bail.
“Their mother was selling synthetic cannabis from her home on Great North Rd, where her son lived and his friends often stayed the night to get stoned. Addicted to synthetic cannabis, the boy was often a ‘zombie’ according to his brother.”
Asked during the trial whether anybody was doing anything to help the boy with his addiction, his brother explained, “My mum done something to help him with his addiction – she was giving him marijuana.”
Thanks to the feminist movement, the sole parent benefit funds unstable, violent and abusive women, many with chronic addictions, to have and raise children. Many such children will be referred to child protection services; some will be taken into state care. According to a 2011 Cabinet paper, children with a CYF notification are fifteen times more likely to end up with an adult conviction that results in a Corrections-managed sentence as young adults, than their peers with no such notification; around 30 percent of children in state care will be charged with criminal offences as teenagers.
The children’s lobby refuses to address one of the root causes of the child abuse crisis – entrenched sole parent welfare dependency – because most are ideologically committed to feminism.
When I was a Member of Parliament, I fought for shared custody for children caught up in family breakdown, to ensure they were able to retain contact with both their mother and their father – unless there was a compelling reason why one parent was not fit – thereby largely avoiding the dangerous sole parent benefit. But the Labour Government’s feminist MPs admitted that they would never agree to ‘shared parenting’, because it would mean that sole custody and the DPB would no longer be automatically awarded to a mother, and they weren’t prepared to give away their hard fought feminist ‘rights’.
However, if society and the government are really committed to reducing the horrendous child abuse problem in New Zealand today, such ideological millstones must be pushed aside, to make way for positive changes for mothers and their children.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Lindsay Mitchell, has researched some of the statistics that highlight the danger of long-term welfare:
“Children who appear in the benefit system under the age of two make up 83 percent of those children who have a substantiated Child, Youth and Family notification for abuse or neglect against their name by age five.
“That is a staggering correlation. Furthermore, the risk factors for child maltreatment amongst long-term beneficiary parents are extraordinarily high (notwithstanding the majority of beneficiaries do not abuse their children.) Children who spend 9 or more years in the benefit system are almost 13 times more likely to experience a substantiated finding of abuse or neglect than non-beneficiary children.”
The reality is that child abuse is and remains a complex and difficult problem. If we look at the causes, one factor that stands out is that sole parents in this country are still supported by a stand-alone benefit. In most other countries where child abuse is not such a problem, mothers are supported through employment-related benefits that reinforce their need to get a job and re-engage in mainstream society. Abolishing the stand-alone sole parent benefit, in favour of support linked to work was one of the recommendations made by the Welfare Working Group during the 2011 reforms. Sadly, it was not adopted.
Meanwhile, women receiving state welfare continue to have more children. According to government figures, in the six months to March 6,347 children under the age of one were added to an existing benefit – that means on average, over 1,000 new babies a month are born to women on welfare. This will keep the mothers in the benefit system longer, potentially subjecting their children to poorer health, education and social outcomes.
Until sole parent welfare is linked to the unemployment benefit and income levels are capped, regardless of the number of children, the cycle of abuse will not be broken; the problem of damaged children committing horrendous crimes against society will continue.
Finally, in her article, Lindsay found that when it comes to domestic violence, women on welfare were most at risk: “Women who were beneficiaries had risks over four times the average for all women. Benefits can’t be shown to be a cause of violence. But they strongly correlate with the incidence of it.”
Last month a first principles review aimed at reducing the incidence of family violence in New Zealand was launched by the government and public consultation is now underway. If you have suggestions to share, we would encourage you to make a submission by 18 September.
THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:
Should women on welfare be paid to have more children?
*Poll comments are posted below.
*All NZCPR poll results can be seen in the Archive.
THIS WEEK’S POLL COMMENTS
| If no-one is prepared to deal with the basic problem, then there is little point in all the noise generated by the resultant abuse. | Monica |
| If a woman is pregnant when she goes on welfare after a relationship breakup, that should be the last child that the welfare system pays for. Encouraging women back into the workforce is a great idea if after and before school care is available and affordable. | Ann |
| Unfortunately to many Mothers are using the System for their own benefit not the chidrens.One Of the ways forward is to stop paying these women more money to when having more children, statistics will prove this system is not successful. | Frank |
| Just like most negative things in the country, if you take out the Maori stats we actually do very well as far as bringing up children goes, unfortunately when you add them back into the equasion we all of a sudden become the worst. But don’t mention anything about it or you risk being labelled a RACIST. | Stevo |
| Unless a woman is already pregnant when she goes on the DPB or has been raped since, absolutely no increase in benefit payment should be made if a woman has another child while on the DPB. | Susan |
| Support for two children, that’s OK. Any more they should not get help from the taxpayers. Why not use contraceptives, these are free of charge to all women. | Laurent |
| Cut the DPB off after six years and provide it only for the first child. | Ross |
| The Government needs to make a date to cut all DPB payments to mothers who are under 25. I suggest they give 1 years lead in. But would they ever be politically brave enough? I see a large “Tui Billboard” | Rex |
| Very little of the increase per child is an increase in he actual benefit. The biggest increase is in the IRD payment of tax credit paid per child. A lot of ppl are talking about chasing fathers and making them pay. I think fathers are almost equal victims with the child in a lot of cases. Pay heaps. Have very little say in anything. To fight for any rights costs a fortune and takes a long time. They are often pawns at the fickle hands of the custodial parent who would rather they would just go away. | Claire |
| Why am I paying for there kids keep your legs shut if you can’t afford kids or get them fixed like cats. | Jon |
| Parent(s) themselves need to be responsible for providing all necessary care and support for their children from birth to school leaving. There is no place for any welfare support other than in extremely limited circumstances such as a child’s disability. | Alan |
| Exactly as Muriel says. | Juliet |
| We have to be honest enough to admit it was a terrible social engineering mistake by Labour as with gay marriage, give it a few more years you wont need the DPB as there wont be any kids. | Athol |
| Definitely not.. Only support for the number of children they leave the marriage/longtime relationship with. Long time being 3 years. Support to be paid in food, clothing vouchers/rental etc. | Jonty |
| The question is a bit loaded but women should not be encouraged – directly or indirectly – to have children and receive an income because of that. If people are in need they need help, but people should not create their need and then be rewarded for it. | Pieter |
| Encouraging return to work and the expectation of both parents being involved in child rearing must surely benefit children and wider society. | Kynan |
| Children should not be used as a bargaining chip for more money. | Dennis |
| I think the article says it all . God help the future generations who will have to put up with this mes and now the dumb public want to add all these so called refugees who have stuffed up their own country with religion , to the gravy train. Will we never learn ? | Jock |
| All welfare should be cut after the first child, this is a continuing burden on the tax payer who manages their life correctly and only has the amount of children that they can afford to raise correctly. paying them for more children just increases country costs dramatically over time in the areas of crime health and unemployment etc etc. | Roy |
| If you can’t afford to raise your children properly keep your knees together, because I for one am sick to death of having my hard earned tax dollars going to someone that chooses a life on the couch. If we have to have the DPB then it is for one child only, if you want to have more you’d better be able to look after them or lose them. No one pays for my bad choices in life, why should I have to pay some lazy slob to bring kids into their dysfunctional life. | Stevo |
| The current DPB payment system is flawed and openly abused by the women who use it to support their selfish needs and certainly not their children. | Linda |
| The socialist/feminist disaster needs to be recognised and evaluated. All the rhetoric about male violence and sex abuse must be designed to prevent this. | Max |
| Partners (ex) should be made to contribute, contraception should be provided (free if necessary) and sterilization should be encouraged if not demanded in return for welfare payments! | Alan |
| All child benefits should be abolished for any child born out of a stable relationship and the commitment to marriage prior to conception. Children should not be used as pawns to secure money. | Zoran |
| These mothers become dependent on money given without contributing to society in employment or voluntary help or others. This MUST stop. | Lindsey |
| Want more of something? Fund it ! ! ! | Ron |
| They should be actively encouraged to enter the workforce ASAP. | Mark |
| Once is a mistake. Twice is stupidity. Thrice is a career. Take away the incentive after number two. | Nick |
| No, no, not ever. | Barry |
| Time for our continually weak govt to take a stand and come down hard on Both the mother and Father/boyfriend and stop these taxpayer funded handouts. Working parents should not be forced to financially support these drop kicks. | Carolyn |
| No way should women be paid to have more children. It just encourages women to have more children. | Frank |
| Absolutely not!! | Sheena |
| Pay out for maximum of two. Have tubal ligation/ long term contraception for those abusing their children. Encourage adoption. Encourage to stay married where not violent situation. | Helen |
| There MUST be a change in the policy of trying to keep a family together. | John |
| Definately not. Assist at time of break up if due to violence. If just unhappy then may be a short term assist, but not for the length of dependency of the current children. If has more and continues in the “Sole” lifestyle, then no extra funding for extra children. | John |
| NZ has allowed the creation an industry of women on welfare [110,000 ] who are not educated or aspirational for their children. Now living in Tuakau [in retirement] we see the results among the poorer polynesian residents, as you do if you drive through manurewa and mangere. Pregnant women, smoking and drinking in the pubs, no men supporting them and the resulting failure of them as parents and neglected children! If children succeed from this beginning it is a miracle! | David |
| Worked with family welfare for many years. Strongly support Muriel’s analysis. | Peter |
| Welfare gone mad. We should advocate the ideal of two parent families, Families should be encouraged to live within their own means. | Willy |
| Children should be the responsibility of their parents. | Peter |
| The benefit should be (1) available for only a specified time until the mother is able to work and (2) should NEVER be increased beyond the original amount. Abuse of the benefit should be a criminal offence. | Robin |
| Often I just believe the whole system is a rout. | Lance |
| The DPB should be a fixed amount no matter how many children are involved. It is a benefit to enable the family to survive until the mother can get back to work. | David |
| Absolutely not. Once on a benefit no more money for any extra children. Go after the fathers and make them pay. Once again, pathetic politicians. | Mike |
| Never! | Ian |
| It is clear – you are a solo mother; you are SOLO. No more money no more kids. Welfare abusers know as long as a father is not declared they can have more children. It’s a very ‘Polynesian’ way. There is prestige in mothering children. This works in a subsistence ecomomy; but not in our society. | Peter |
| No needs to stop. | Marian |
| The system has created a monster they do not not how to get out of. | Digby |
| What next ??? | David |
| Give fathers, father rights !!! | Mark |
| THANK YOU! – You are very brave – Feminists are extremely violent towards dissenting views as Erin Pizzey can testify. | Paul |
| No Way! | Laurie |
| In my view the dreadful statistics on child abuse will not reduce until drastic steps are taken. The endless talk and hidden agendas have achieved almost nothing over many years and the cost on the tax payer is enormous and increasing. Its well past time to try something different. My suggestion is to offer these young women a cash payment of say 10.000 dollars to voluntarily get sterilised. If they blow the money on drugs…..to bad. This one off payment as against a life time of gouging the tax payer will save the country a fortune and once more, one generation of this policy will virtually eliminate the culture of violence that creates this problem in the first place. | Ronmac |
| Of course not. | Geoffrey |
| The DPB created more problems than it ever solved. | Jon |
| Today Michael Te Kouarehu Kereopa was named as the man charged with murdering 6-month old Gracie McSorley. He was said to be in a ‘brief relationship’ with Gracie’s mother at the time he allegedly murdered this baby. The DPB results in numerous children being exposed to mummy’s one-night- stand guests or other ‘brief relationships’. This damages them emotionally because they keep losing male adult attachment figures, and it places them at high risk of physical and/or sexual abuse. A large proportion of child homicides,serious injuries and sexual assaults are caused by mummies’ boyfriends, a relatively low proportion by children’s own father. The safest environment for children by a long margin is a family with both biological parents. Where was Gracie’s father? If he had been involved significantly in Gracie’s life he may have provided a strong protective role that prevented this tragedy. But fathers are considered so irrelevant in our feminist era that media have not even mentioned there was one. It’s possible that Gracie’s mother was one of the many women who claim not to know who the father is and don’t nominate one for the birth certificate; that’s all irrelevant for getting the DPB anyway. Why did Gracies mother leave the baby with this ‘brief relationshp’ man whose character she must not have known, instead of asking Gracie’s father to care for her? Did the DPB help to wreck this child’s family unit as it does so many, or did the DPB encourage this woman to be careless about possible pregnancy, or to plan from the outset to deprive Gracie of a two-parent family? Or did the DPB merely incentivize her to deprive Gracie of a significant relationship with her father because that might reduce her benefit and/or so-called ‘child support’? So many questions, but all the answers point in the same direction. All the reports, hot air and moving the deck chairs will count for little regarding protecting our children better unless the elephant in the room, sole parenthood, is addressed. | Hans |
| Otherwise the children will be starving and suffering. But the women should be stigmatised for having children and not being in a stable relationship and married ! | Theodorus |
| They should get free contraception help. | Anthony |
| To many babies are being damaged by partners of women on welfare. | Wendy |
| The question should read should welfare payment be increased per child. | David |
| This is the first time I have had anyone have the same view as me. I have been saying this for years, that the feminists of the sixties have really stuffed up our society and this is a prime example of it.. | Rod |
| HELL NO! Been saying it for decades. We have a state funded breeding program that is broken. | Leslie |
| Who is the person who that would answer yes to this question? It seems to me that it is socially irresponsible to bring more children into the world knowing their only support is going to be welfare. All citizens need to be imbued with the sentiment that they must make a contribution to society. Adding a child to the welfare dependency, and increasing the number of children we are told are suffering from poverty cannot be considered as making a contribution, but rather a drain. Taking responsibility for one’s actions is surely fundamental a society. | Michael |
| Very good article the original intent of the DPB was good to help out those that had been left in the lurch but did not take long before it was misused by girls getting pregnant and so was the start of a generation of miss treated children which were dragged up instead of brought up to be responsible members of society. | Russell |
| To my knowledge this has been going on since the late sixties. A disgrace! I have even know two such girls. | Ron |
| Obviously no. Women on social welfare should concentrate on looking after the children they already have. | Colin |
| ABSOLUTELY NO. WHY SHOULD THE TAXPAYER PAY FOR THEM TO CARRY ON HAVING MORE KIDS . PAY FOR THE 1ST BABY, THEN IF YOU HAVE SEX AND GET PREGNANT,THEN YOU PAY FOR THAT PLEASURE. | PETER |
| The onus needs to be on parent not govt to support children. | Brett |
| One at 15, one at thirty, one at 45 leaves them all on benefits for life with the parent not having made a contribution to the country in their lifetime. | Elsa |
| No Brainer. This malaise has gone beyond genuine need. Many young women now chose the DPB as a lifestyle option. They are merely reacting to market signals, we should not be surprised at the unintended consequences. | Geoff |
| Silliest idea ever. Of course single women are going to be holding their hands out for easy money. Let them be responsible, find work when the child is old enough, and get some pride in themselves. Children need a stable loving relationship. | Sheila |
| A time comes when you have to stop and think. Having children to this man and this man is not right and the tax pay’s of the country dose not have to help you when you are doing this. One child can be taken as a mistake. After that no. | Robert |
| Only people who are exceptionally dull of wit, could answer “No” to such a question. I agree entirely with the comment that feminism, was a vehicle designed by the left to destroy the family unit. That is one of the foundation building blocks for the destruction of the Western civilisation and the the weakening of civil society. In other words the rise of communism and the totalitarian state. All the idealist mugs who believe in socialism have been harnessed to become the free army to destroy civil society and to cause the world to descend into social chaos, thus making the rise of the totalitarian state more easily accomplished by those with that in mind. | Dianna |
| Next we will have sperm shops down near the local deli!!! | Frederick |
| Read the history of Singapore and the direction that city/state took regarding welfare recipients. Welfare payments were reduced for a second child and eliminated completely for any further children. Their government realized the dangers of having children raised in a welfare environment and thus breeding down to the lowest common factor and creating our future criminal class.. | Tony |
| I daily see these so called “Mothers”, dragging round several children, she heavily pregnant with yet another one, none of whom have a chance to develop properly in a single parent environment, especially if the brood mare keeps on being impregnated by different fathers. All this does is ancourage a population of intellectual dwarves, as many of the kids don’t get proper schooling or good life lessons from caring parents, resulting in a higher crime rate and the intervention of organisations such as CYF etc. We are becoming too soft and giving in to the soft option lobby in many of life’s important facets. | Don |
| Absolutely not. If they want to have more kids then no more income. The men that put them in the family way should be made to pay up to support them.. The Labour government for very good and honourable reasons brought in the DPB and has stuffed the stable 2 parent family where both spouses worked together to raise the child. However we are now seeing child abuse and drug taking. and beating of ordinary citizens by out of control young people who have crazy parents and no doubt go on to create the next generation of no hopers. | Colin |
| It is becoming a career path, why work??? | Peter |
| Good article. | Neville |
| Sadly the boundaries indicating the difference between right & wrong, have been whittled away by individuals & groups who should never have been listened to in the first place. The introduction of political correctness has ensured no one objects in case some-body is offended. We have got to the stage where those promoting family values etc. [Colin Craig for example] are dismissed as a joke, & run out of town. MMP could be the answer, if minor right wing parties could gain traction, but instead MMP has become the problem, with the looney left, dictating to both the major parties. | A.G.R. |
| No way they should not have any there are far to many people on benifits in this country | Peter |
| A harmful philosophy. Stop now! | Mary |
| More madness from an insatiable spending Government | Warren |
| It should work n reverse. If they have more children whilst claiming the benefit there should be a 50% reduction of benefit for the first child making a maximum claimable child benefit | Mike |
| If you’re on a benefit, you should have to keep your knees together. | Ken |
| Until we stop this, children will continue to suffer and so will society as a whole. We have to be honest enough to admit it was a terrible social engineering mistake and learn to move on. | Greg |
| No way, if they want any more than one let them pay the total upkeep and any that have a partner that has shot through sterilise them so they cant have any more. | Richard |
| Wonderfully expressed article. | Hylton |
| In this modern time pregnancy cane mostly be prevented. No excuses for those who live by holding out a begging hand. Honest cases should be treated with respect Lazy people should receive old fashioned army training. | Johan |
| I support the payment of the DPB for women who need to escape violent relationships UNTIL they can support themselves by finding a job. Enabling young women to make living on the DBP a way of life and continuing to have babies in order to be able to stay on the benefit – definitely NO. A lot of the problems with violence against children is caused by women allowing men unrelated to their children to have access to the home and children. Women need to use more discretion as to whom they allow into their lives and homes. | Gill |
| This is one of the best reports you have ever shared – congratulations. The third paragraph says its all! I hope all our MP’s read this and hopefully some action will follow. | David |
| Personal responsibility seems to be an old-fashioned concept nowadays. Whatever happened to individual pride? | Mitch |
| Definitely not. Helping someone in trouble is right, but them choosing to have another child at the countries expense is wrong. | John |
| Of course not. | John |
| What a misleading question. The money is for the children not the mothers. We need more spending on welfare, not less. | Scott |
| Sterilize them before they bred the firtst time | Robert. |
| Your question is sufficiently emotive to initiate yet another argument about the validity of surveys and how questions can be slanted! Obviously the answer is no….but short of putting the pill in the drinking water for the entire nation could you perhaps be a little more specific about the cause and effect of human emotions? It has been clearly evident to me here in NZ and as a social worker in the UK 50 years ago, that local circumstances and poverty levels have little to do with drawing a line in the sand for mothers, partners, wives and indeed any female who knows the risks and takes no steps to limit her child-bearing ability. (‘Twas ever thus” ??) That we have an all-embracing welfare system offers a boost to those who might otherwise make an effort to limit their families, but let us not have to deal with what I noted in the UK, and elsewhere decades ago….and that was the incidence of early terminations, whether legal or otherwise. I’m not quite sure where “feminism” can be held to account for this particular disaster area….can anyone else put this any more explicitly than just carelessness and wilful stupidity? With the prospect of a child-benefit seen as a valid income source??? We are two or three generations into this life-style now,. | Maggie |
| Women on welfare need to understand that the money they receive has to be taken from other families who are going to work every day for the benefit of their own families! | Andy |
| Better they are paid NOT to have more children. | Graeme |
| Enough is enough. | Andrew |
| No more baby farming. | Jeff |
| Quite unbelievable it has gone on so long, being paid to have more children when these sort of people can’t be trusted to look after what they already have. | Graeme |
| I agree wholeheartedly with the article and comments made by Dr. Muriel Newman. If there is something I can do or contribute to see changes made to stop this scandalous situation continuing, I would like to help. | Colin |
| To most of these women all another child represents is an increase in their income. This is backed up by the number of children a large percentage of solo mothers have. Another classic example of our Social Welfare system being milked. An unfortunate side effect is that a high percentage of children reared in these homes will develop into criminals, and become another drain on our society. | Allan |
| Why would you want for do that for goodness sake, haven’t we already got a culture of being on benefits? | Beryl |
| Don’t forget they are always running to WINZ as well. | Wayne |
| If you want children then provide for them. | Bill |
| Having a child is a privilege not a right and a law should be passed to ensure only those capable and with means may have children ‘beneficaries would be banned and DPB would be judicially allocated to the legally separated. | Rowan |
| Those of us not on welfare donot get a pay rise if we have another child. For most this means limiting size of family according to our means and emotional energy. | Kay |
| The DPB must be subject to specific regular assessment, and the criteria raised to .ensure they are parenting correctly.Multiple births to unsupported mothers by the fathersmust assess the father as well, and subject him to serious penalties when appropriate. | Mike |
| Definitely not. | Graeme |
| The sooner we stop paying these women to pop out illegitimate babies and force them to work linked benefits and decent committed relationships, preferably marriage, the better. Societies ills cannot be fixed unless we return to honourable, proper male/female marriages where children can be holistically nurtured and raised up in the ways of decent human beings and their responsibilities to constructively contribute to society. | Jonathan |
| I have [at arms length], family members who are into 3rd generation, solo parenting.They find it an easier way of life, taking risks with dubious ‘partners’ on short term relationships. | Bill |
| Absolutely NOT, its a large part of the welfare problem. | Deb |
| Welfare is supposed to be a safety net, not a life style choice. | James |
| Definitely not. Any child born whilst the mother is on a benefit should not have any more money paid out for it. That would put a virtualy instant stop to mothers having more children so they can receive more benefit. | Helen |
| Why.? | Ken |
| Why does this carry on! | Don |
| Absolutely not! | Fiona |
| Absolutely! | Mark |
| IMO, people should not conceive children unless they have the financial/material means with which to support the children when born. | Isabel |
| DPB should be scrapped and treated no differently to unemployment withe same return to work requirements. | John |
| Don’t have children you cant afford! Idiots! | G |
| Break the cycle. | Graham |
| Just a bigger drag on welfare. | Colin |
| No, absolutely not. | James |
| No-one on welfare should be paid more money when they have more children. It should be the same incentives as the workforce – you only have more kids if you can afford them. | Stewart |
| Sole parent benefits should be abolished. Mothers should be supported through the unemployment benefit with exemptions until the child is a year old. It sounds harsh, but the reality is that sole parents must become breadwinners for their family. | Katherine |
| No extra money for extra kids. | Brian |
| Feminists have done more harm than good over recent years. | Ken |