Really torn on adopt a family

[NotUrsula]

I keep thinking about the pizza maker thing, and on this one I can definitely see a practical reason to ask. For many poorer families, small cooking appliances are a practical thing.

A friend of mine is married to a county social services supervisor in a suburban county that has very high unemployment and foreclosure rates, and also a major interstate running through it. The county does not operate any family shelters, but because of the presence of the highway there are a lot of motels, and a lot of homeless families living in those motels on county housing subsidies. They don't have kitchens, so they do not have stoves. The only way that they can try to save money and cook in their rooms is by using small appliances like Foreman grills, crock pots, microwaves, and yes, pizza makers (which, of course, are not being used to make scratch pizzas; they are being used to heat frozen ones.) Toaster ovens are certainly more versatile, but a lot of the motels ban them because they are a very serious fire hazard.

Also, about the fitting-in thing. I think it is a more major issue right now because thanks to this economy we have no many people who are newly poor. Many of them still have their house in a good district, but not much money for anything over and above sustaining the mortgage. Their kids are going to school with peers who are much more affluent, and that feeds the issue of fitting in; many of these families are trying desperately to hide how much trouble they are in. When you live in a very poor community it really isn't as important, because your peers don't tend to have those things, either, unless someone is making money in an under-the-table fashion, and there is the added element of theft to worry about -- many parents in those neighborhoods who COULD afford the occasional fancy jacket or pair of shoes refuse to buy them because they might make a kid a target of violence. When you live in a neighborhood where theft is a common thing, there is a certain element of safety in making sure that no one knows that you have anything worth stealing, unless of course you are also known to have sufficient firepower to successfully defend your stuff.

 

[thomas998]

A friend of mine is married to a county social services supervisor in a suburban county that has very high unemployment and foreclosure rates, and also a major interstate running through it. The county does not operate any family shelters, but because of the presence of the highway there are a lot of motels, and a lot of homeless families living in those motels on county housing subsidies. They don't have kitchens, so they do not have stoves. The only way that they can try to save money and cook in their rooms is by using small appliances like Foreman grills, crock pots, microwaves, and yes, pizza makers (which, of course, are not being used to make scratch pizzas; they are being used to heat frozen ones.) Toaster ovens are certainly more versatile, but a lot of the motels ban them because they are a very serious fire hazard.

I think most all small cooking appliances are banned in hotels because of the first hazard.

The truly sad thing about what you described is the fact that the governments pay housing subsidies in areas where there is really no hope of finding a job. I see that in some of the rural areas near where I live. I'm constantly wondering what the point of giving someone subsidized housing really is if the house is so far from any possible place of employment that the person will never find be able to get a job... it is almost like the government is just warehousing these people away from the cities so no one will see them and they can be ignored.

 

[CurlyGirl]

You are absolutely right... the kids didn't choose to be born into what is often a dead-beat family.

However, making sure the kids get to fit in perfectly while being raised in a dead-beat family doesn't do anything positive. You are enabling the family and showing the kid that there is no consequence for being lazy. If Jr gets the greatest stuff with no work other than filling out a list then Jr has no incentive to study hard in school and avoid the mistakes of dead-beat mom and dad... it might sound cruel but maybe Jr would be better off getting the second tier items that don't let him fit in so he has an incentive to be better than the dead-beat parents.

Sometimes the way to teach people isn't with warmth and kindness, sometimes the best lessons hurt.

Give me a break. Poor kids learn the hurt lesson every freaking day of their lives. It's not just at Christmas time. It's EVERY DAY. Every day of going to school in the same two pairs of jeans and three shirts. Every day of having generic crap as opposed to brand name. Every day of getting the free hot meal at lunch not because they like what's being served but because it's the ONLY hot meal they might get. Every day coming in early for the free breakfast because they didn't eat dinner at home.

If a kid even feels remotely like s/he is fitting in or feels better about him/herself because s/he's now sporting a new Hollister sweatshirt, it's going to boost self esteem and self confidence. With better self esteem and self confidence these kids will want to do better. Yes, that Hollister hoodie might be a once a year thing, but if it helps a kid's self esteem/self confidence, why not?

Sorry -- but I'd rather boost a kid's morale than beat him while he's down. You'd be amazed at what a simple thing like fitting in a teeny tiny bit or feeling good about yourself because you have something your peers have when you're poor means to these kids.

 

[tlbwriter]

However, making sure the kids get to fit in perfectly while being raised in a dead-beat family doesn't do anything positive. You are enabling the family and showing the kid that there is no consequence for being lazy. If Jr gets the greatest stuff with no work other than filling out a list then Jr has no incentive to study hard in school and avoid the mistakes of dead-beat mom and dad... it might sound cruel but maybe Jr would be better off getting the second tier items that don't let him fit in so he has an incentive to be better than the dead-beat parents.

Is a hoodie at Christmas really going to do that?

 

[thomas998]

Give me a break. Poor kids learn the hurt lesson every freaking day of their lives. It's not just at Christmas time. It's EVERY DAY. Every day of going to school in the same two pairs of jeans and three shirts. Every day of having generic crap as opposed to brand name. Every day of getting the free hot meal at lunch not because they like what's being served but because it's the ONLY hot meal they might get. Every day coming in early for the free breakfast because they didn't eat dinner at home.

If a kid even feels remotely like s/he is fitting in or feels better about him/herself because s/he's now sporting a new Hollister sweatshirt, it's going to boost self esteem and self confidence. With better self esteem and self confidence these kids will want to do better. Yes, that Hollister hoodie might be a once a year thing, but if it helps a kid's self esteem/self confidence, why not?

Sorry -- but I'd rather boost a kid's morale than beat him while he's down. You'd be amazed at what a simple thing like fitting in a teeny tiny bit or feeling good about yourself because you have something your peers have when you're poor means to these kids.

If the poor kids learned the lesson every day of their life then we wouldn't have a continuing problem with welfare families. The fact is kids learn to become dependent on welfare and handouts from the parents.

In a perfect world these kids would be yanked out of the welfare families hands and put into a foster home, adopted out, or in an orphanage where the cycle could be broken... but too many bleeding hearts think that they need to be with their parents that love them (ignoring the fact that more often than not the parents don't really love the kids or they would get a job and provide for them instead of living the welfare dream).

 

[luvmy3]

Is a hoodie at Christmas really going to do that?

Well a Hollister hoodie might. Kidding of course

Thomas, you have no idea the situation of this family. Not every needy family is that way because they are deadbeats. Some are hard workers who just happen to make very little money. Not everyone that qualifies for these types of charities has no job or income.

 

[kellyg403]

Give me a break. Poor kids learn the hurt lesson every freaking day of their lives. It's not just at Christmas time. It's EVERY DAY. Every day of going to school in the same two pairs of jeans and three shirts. Every day of having generic crap as opposed to brand name. Every day of getting the free hot meal at lunch not because they like what's being served but because it's the ONLY hot meal they might get. Every day coming in early for the free breakfast because they didn't eat dinner at home.

If a kid even feels remotely like s/he is fitting in or feels better about him/herself because s/he's now sporting a new Hollister sweatshirt, it's going to boost self esteem and self confidence. With better self esteem and self confidence these kids will want to do better. Yes, that Hollister hoodie might be a once a year thing, but if it helps a kid's self esteem/self confidence, why not?

Sorry -- but I'd rather boost a kid's morale than beat him while he's down. You'd be amazed at what a simple thing like fitting in a teeny tiny bit or feeling good about yourself because you have something your peers have when you're poor means to these kids.

While I do agree that kids want to fit in, and its nice to give them that I will also agree.

However, its not a good idea to reinforce that Hollister and American Eagle are the only ways to boost self esteem. My dh grew up poor, he shared a room with 2 sisters in a 2 bedroom project house. He will tell you that he didn't even realize he was poor until he got out into the world. Everyone around him was eating the same 'welfare' cheese, never had extras and Christmas was one gift that he was glad to have. When I mention buying AE or Hollister for the kids he always tells me its a waste. Maybe times are different. In his day, fitting in meant having a basketball to play in the neighborhood. They were happy to have Christmas!

Yes, having only 2 pair of jeans to wear and no means to wash them frequently is a problem. Having 100.00 designer jeans won't change that. So, its not the name brand that changes anything, its the circumstances. I would rather buy a poor child who has 2 pairs of jeans 5 pair of jeans so they don't have to be picked on for not being clean. Kids are rude to each other in many ways.

Kelly

 

[NotUrsula]

I think most all small cooking appliances are banned in hotels because of the first hazard.

The truly sad thing about what you described is the fact that the governments pay housing subsidies in areas where there is really no hope of finding a job. I see that in some of the rural areas near where I live. I'm constantly wondering what the point of giving someone subsidized housing really is if the house is so far from any possible place of employment that the person will never find be able to get a job... it is almost like the government is just warehousing these people away from the cities so no one will see them and they can be ignored.

Actually, many of these folks ARE employed, most often two working parents making minimum wage at part-time jobs. There are plenty of jobs available in that county, but most of them are unskilled labor sorts of things that don't pay much. There is no public transit there, so they almost all have a car, and most of them have spent some time living in that car. My friend's wife says that the problem is that they can't afford rent, or cannot come up with the deposits needed to rent a place when they have bad credit. (The reason that the county has high unemployment numbers even though there is a lot of this unskilled p/t work available is that it is a bedroom community for a lot of middle-class white collar workers who are unemployed. Those are not the folks living in the motels, for the most part.)

The motels in question do allow some use of countertop cooking appliances, since they know that people are going to do it in any case: they just try to limit the most dangerous ones.

FWIW, there is a constant complaint among the more urban unemployed that so many of the unskilled labor jobs available in this region ARE out in that county where they cannot be reached by public transit means. People living in the shelters in the center city could do those jobs, but can't get transportation to reach them. There are some people who claim that there is race bias involved.

 

[ilovemk76]

While I do agree that kids want to fit in, and its nice to give them that I will also agree.

However, its not a good idea to reinforce that Hollister and American Eagle are the only ways to boost self esteem. My dh grew up poor, he shared a room with 2 sisters in a 2 bedroom project house. He will tell you that he didn't even realize he was poor until he got out into the world. Everyone around him was eating the same 'welfare' cheese, never had extras and Christmas was one gift that he was glad to have. When I mention buying AE or Hollister for the kids he always tells me its a waste. Maybe times are different. In his day, fitting in meant having a basketball to play in the neighborhood. They were happy to have Christmas!

Yes, having only 2 pair of jeans to wear and no means to wash them frequently is a problem. Having 100.00 designer jeans won't change that. So, its not the name brand that changes anything, its the circumstances. I would rather buy a poor child who has 2 pairs of jeans 5 pair of jeans so they don't have to be picked on for not being clean. Kids are rude to each other in many ways.

Kelly

I only read a few of the posts but I wanted to comment on this.


I was working on a project that was for poor kids. I wanted to know what was best to buy WRT clothes. I asked a person at another school with many poor kids. She told me that poor kids get made fun of not for the brand of their clothes but for having to wear the same clothes more than once a week (even if they were washed between wearing). So it was more important to have a set of clothes for each day than on expensive item.

I did make it a point to include some name brand that were on clearance but not if it meant I could not get them 7 sets of clothes.

 

[thomas998]

Well a Hollister hoodie might. Kidding of course

Thomas, you have no idea the situation of this family. Not every needy family is that way because they are deadbeats. Some are hard workers who just happen to make very little money. Not everyone that qualifies for these types of charities has no job or income.

While I would agree that some poor people are hard working... I can't help but think that a single mother, even if she was married until a moment before she applied for the program the OP is talking about, would not be someone I would be willing to help under any circumstance. No person in their right mind would go about having 9 kids and think it was prudent... and when her own daughter ends up a mother at the tender age of 12... well I'm sorry but that is a "family" that is in dire need of being broken up and the kids put into an environment where they might possibly have a chance. Because where they are now they are not going to have a chance.

 

[DisneyCowgirl]

While I would agree that some poor people are hard working... I can't help but think that a single mother, even if she was married until a moment before she applied for the program the OP is talking about, would not be someone I would be willing to help under any circumstance. No person in their right mind would go about having 9 kids and think it was prudent... and when her own daughter ends up a mother at the tender age of 12... well I'm sorry but that is a "family" that is in dire need of being broken up and the kids put into an environment where they might possibly have a chance. Because where they are now they are not going to have a chance.

WOW! You sure do know a lot about this family without ever having met them and in fact only knowing what has been repeated on a message board about their Christmas wishes.

 

[kamik86]

If the poor kids learned the lesson every day of their life then we wouldn't have a continuing problem with welfare families. The fact is kids learn to become dependent on welfare and handouts from the parents.

In a perfect world these kids would be yanked out of the welfare families hands and put into a foster home, adopted out, or in an orphanage where the cycle could be broken... but too many bleeding hearts think that they need to be with their parents that love them (ignoring the fact that more often than not the parents don't really love the kids or they would get a job and provide for them instead of living the welfare dream).

So how long are you allowed to be in the system before you lose your kids? Can you not be on at all? I'm sorry but my sister had a baby at 18. Yes this was a poor choice and she screwed up. She got some help from WIC and some food stamps. She also got some help with day care at first.

Now that baby is a senior in high school. When many teens are complaining they can't find a job she is excelling at 2 (and not because she has to, she works for her landlord helping with the horses her landlord owns, and she works at an ice cream shop because she only helps with the horses a few days a week). She is confident responsible and a great kid. She is planning to go to a community college next year.

She also has a 9 year old little half-sister. Her sister is the child of my sister and BIL.

So should my sister have lost my niece because she couldn't afford her at first? BTW I would guess by the time my niece was 5 my sister was off most assistance. She may have gotten a bit more again when her husband (truck driver) lost his job for a while but I know she is not on any now.

 

[TDC Nala]

I can't say I believe kids qualify as needy because they can't afford a Hollister hoodie. If they need clothes for school because they can't afford clothes, I get it, but not the insistence on the brand name/higher cost item. If a kid needs clothing for school are those who wish to give obligated to give them the designer clothing if that's what they say they want? I know I'm seeing a lot of "they need the designer clothing because other kids pick on them if they don't have designer clothing." If the kid receives the designer clothing will the other kids then leave them alone?

It seems to me that if you are not inclined to buy any child a designer sweatshirt then what would be wrong with giving a non-designer one?

 

[luvmy3]

WOW! You sure do know a lot about this family without ever having met them and in fact only knowing what has been repeated on a message board about their Christmas wishes.

I was thinking the exact same thing. While I have said here that I wouldn't give to this family in particular because I don't agree with having adults ask for gifts, I certainly have no idea what their situation is and would never presume the kids need to be taken out of the home. Last I checked, being poor, or having a low income and even not working to support your family isn't against any law.

 

[thomas998]

So how long are you allowed to be in the system before you lose your kids? Can you not be on at all? I'm sorry but my sister had a baby at 18. Yes this was a poor choice and she screwed up. She got some help from WIC and some food stamps. She also got some help with day care at first.

Now that baby is a senior in high school. When many teens are complaining they can't find a job she is excelling at 2 (and not because she has to, she works for her landlord helping with the horses her landlord owns, and she works at an ice cream shop because she only helps with the horses a few days a week). She is confident responsible and a great kid. She is planning to go to a community college next year.

She also has a 9 year old little half-sister. Her sister is the child of my sister and BIL.

So should my sister have lost my niece because she couldn't afford her at first? BTW I would guess by the time my niece was 5 my sister was off most assistance. She may have gotten a bit more again when her husband (truck driver) lost his job for a while but I know she is not on any now.

I would have said she would have been better off taken away at birth.

Does it look like the daughter might actually make something of herself? Yes it does... but it doesn't change the fact that her main role model (her mother) made bad choices and has given her daughter the perfect excuse to make those same bad choices... why it was good enough for mom to have a baby at 18 with no source of income its good enough for me.

But the facts remain that a child raised in a middle class home with stable parents has a much better chance than a child raised by a single parent on welfare.

You mention a case where the single mom gets off welfare after a few years... the fact is no one knows if the someone on welfare is going to be on temporarily or for life... better to give a child a stable good environment as soon as the problem show up rather than wait some predetermined time for the welfare mom to get her act together.

 

[thomas998]

I was thinking the exact same thing. While I have said here that I wouldn't give to this family in particular because I don't agree with having adults ask for gifts, I certainly have no idea what their situation is and would never presume the kids need to be taken out of the home. Last I checked, being poor, or having a low income and even not working to support your family isn't against any law.

Actually it is against the law, child neglect is the law that would usually fit the bill. Sadly it isn't enforced until it is too late most of the time and a child is dead or near death, but failing to provide the basics for your child is a crime.

 

[DisneyCowgirl]

I would have said she would have been better off taken away at birth.

Does it look like the daughter might actually make something of herself? Yes it does... but it doesn't change the fact that her main role model (her mother) made bad choices and has given her daughter the perfect excuse to make those same bad choices... why it was good enough for mom to have a baby at 18 with no source of income its good enough for me.

But the facts remain that a child raised in a middle class home with stable parents has a much better chance than a child raised by a single parent on welfare.

You mention a case where the single mom gets off welfare after a few years... the fact is no one knows if the someone on welfare is going to be on temporarily or for life... better to give a child a stable good environment as soon as the problem show up rather than wait some predetermined time for the welfare mom to get her act together.

Do you have kids? Have you ever done anything that you think (or that someone else might think) would be bad a example for your kids? I know I have--several times yesterday even.

 

[kamik86]

I would have said she would have been better off taken away at birth.

Does it look like the daughter might actually make something of herself? Yes it does... but it doesn't change the fact that her main role model (her mother) made bad choices and has given her daughter the perfect excuse to make those same bad choices... why it was good enough for mom to have a baby at 18 with no source of income its good enough for me.

But the facts remain that a child raised in a middle class home with stable parents has a much better chance than a child raised by a single parent on welfare.

You mention a case where the single mom gets off welfare after a few years... the fact is no one knows if the someone on welfare is going to be on temporarily or for life... better to give a child a stable good environment as soon as the problem show up rather than wait some predetermined time for the welfare mom to get her act together.

I think that will have alot of children going hungry because mom is willing to try to get any help for fear of losing her baby.

In our case we wouldn't have lost the baby... she just would have been raised as my sister for a few years (I was 8 when this baby was born) - well at least I hope so or would you not be willing to allow family to be the foster parents?

Its amazing how many people I know that you think should have been taken away... I received reduced cost school lunch for a year or two, (btw I was still being fed just fine), my husband definitely wouldn't have stayed with his family. I think my other niece would have been taken away as well. She was on government health care and a few other services for a while (although I will agree with you that she would have been better off without being with her mother at times...but not just for the being poor thing) Do you really think places could be found for them all?

Normally people think I'm harsh and uncaring on my thoughts of these programs (I think they should have to volunteer/be in a special work program to receive benefits unless they actually can document having a job) but even I don't think kids need to be taken away because they can't be afforded for a few years.

BTW I don't know about my niece but I know I who was a child when my sister made these choices never once thought that having a baby that young would be a good idea. I saw the struggles my sister went though and I want more then that for my kids when I eventually have them.

 

[luvmy3]

Actually it is against the law, child neglect is the law that would usually fit the bill. Sadly it isn't enforced until it is too late most of the time and a child is dead or near death, but failing to provide the basics for your child is a crime.

That is quite a leap from requesting gifts on a giving tree.

And FWIW, you are wrong, the things I actually stated are not against the law. You can try to twist it to fit your argument, but you'd still be wrong.

 

[tlbwriter]

However, its not a good idea to reinforce that Hollister and American Eagle are the only ways to boost self esteem. My dh grew up poor, he shared a room with 2 sisters in a 2 bedroom project house. He will tell you that he didn't even realize he was poor until he got out into the world. Everyone around him was eating the same 'welfare' cheese, never had extras and Christmas was one gift that he was glad to have. When I mention buying AE or Hollister for the kids he always tells me its a waste. Maybe times are different. In his day, fitting in meant having a basketball to play in the neighborhood. They were happy to have Christmas!

Yes, that was in his day, and in his neighborhood. If he was living in the projects, it sounds like he was pretty much in the same situation as all of his peers. But my daughter goes to school with children whose parents are on welfare and children whose parents are millionaires. Believe me, those kids know they're poor.