Man Fathers 30 Children By 11 Women, Applies For State Aide

[klunderbunker]

Source:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...women-wants-child-support-help-from-the-state

Usually I would put this in the GSD but this is something interesting and I'm not sure what I would do about it.

We constantly hear about how we shouldn't put everyone on welfare or government support or whatever. I get the idea of that. Now this is an interesting case on the other hand. In a case like this, it's obviously not the kids' fault. I think the article says that the oldest is 14 and the youngest are toddlers. It certainly isn't their fault that they had a father that apparently hates condoms or the pill.

What do you think should be done in a case like this? With so many children and the father obviously trying to pay something (albeit not doing anything of significance at all), should this father receive government aide? If so, what would you do to try to keep this from becoming more of a problem? Come up with some creative ideas to make sure this money (if used at all) is used properly instead of just letting him off the hook.

 

[Sinister Shadows]

To let him off the hook? I don't think he should be...

Give the kid's families extra aide, extra food stamps, or vouchers only reedemable for kids clothes or something, but add it to the kid's fathers debt, make him pay it off over time. I don't think anything should be done to support the father, I can under stand one or two kids as an honest mistake, but 30? hell no, make him pay to help raise his kids!

*Definately don't put him in jail at the moment, because at least he has a job (which was the most surprising thing in the article... since he was stupid enough to have 30 kids.) but make him required to keep a job, and have a very good reason for missing a day. Take a considerable amount out of every paycheck he has.

 

[H33LTurn]

I agree with Sinister Shadows. If anything its the kids and their families who deserve government aid. This man brings a whole new meaning to the term "deadbeat dad". I say let the fucker lose it all and rot on a street corner until he dies. I hate it when people who arent economically stable decide to have children. Oh btw, he should have to endure a mandatory castration just to make sure he doesnt make 60.

 

[Fuel]

I agree with Sinister Shadows. If anything its the kids and their families who deserve government aid. This man brings a whole new meaning to the term "deadbeat dad". I say let the fucker lose it all and rot on a street corner until he dies. I hate it when people who arent economically stable decide to have children. Oh btw, he should have to endure a mandatory castration just to make sure he doesnt make 60.

I'm sorry, but I have to take offense to this. I have a two month old, and while he was somewhat of an accident, we weren't necessarily not trying. The girlfriend has an allergic reaction to latex, and the latex-free rubbers are brutally tight. (Not bragging, but fuck do they ever hurt...)

That being said, I have a shitty job with even shittier pay. I won't disclose how much, or how little for that matter, I make, but needless to say, making ends meet is tough. Are you suggesting that when we found out we were expecting, we should've "eliminated the problem", if you will...? Are you saying that starting a family should be reserved for those who are well off, or at the very least, have money to spare?

Please...

 

[H33LTurn]

I'm sorry, but I have to take offense to this. I have a two month old, and while he was somewhat of an accident, we weren't necessarily not trying. The girlfriend has an allergic reaction to latex, and the latex-free rubbers are brutally tight. (Not bragging, but fuck do they ever hurt...)

That being said, I have a shitty job with even shittier pay. I won't disclose how much, or how little for that matter, I make, but needless to say, making ends meet is tough. Are you suggesting that when we found out we were expecting, we should've "eliminated the problem", if you will...? Are you saying that starting a family should be reserved for those who are well off, or at the very least, have money to spare?

Please...

I dont think that you should've had an abortion, accidents happen and I'm sorry if you thought I was referring to you. Yours is a special case and I completely understand. I'm talking about scumbags like this guy who have an insane amount of children knowing theres no possible way they can provide for them. How do you think these kids are going to feel when they find out their biological father is that guy on the news who was poor and still had 30 kids? Even in your situation you have to be considerate and look for a way to work around the problem, you know? My parents werent exactly rich when they had me but we made due with what we had and I didnt turn out so bad. But theres no logical way this guy can "make ends meet" like my dad did and like you'll do. Theres a large "epidemic" of people who are perfectly latex-allergy free who think its ok to bring a myriad of children into the world without the proper means of providing for them.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I hate it when people who arent economically stable decide to have children.

I think I understand the spirit in which you're saying this. It reminds me of an episode of one the court shows on TV. A man and woman were being sued for something and it was revealed that the man was on permanent disability while the woman was unemployed. They already had four children and were in desperate financial trouble.

So what do they do?.....they make another baby.

Whether the kid is a considered a blessing or not, he's being born into very difficult financial circumstances and may suffer disadvantages (along with the rest of his now-enlarged family) that he might not have had to bear if his parents didn't decide to have more children when they couldn't afford the ones they already have.

If you have an income that supports as many kids as you can make, feel free to make them (I guess). But if you can't afford it, think twice. The less you can do for them, the harder their lives are going to be.

 

[LSN80]

That being said, I have a shitty job with even shittier pay. I won't disclose how much, or how little for that matter, I make, but needless to say, making ends meet is tough. Are you suggesting that when we found out we were expecting, we should've "eliminated the problem", if you will...? Are you saying that starting a family should be reserved for those who are well off, or at the very least, have money to spare?

I wouldn't say this, but I understand those that do. It's not in a condemning way, but it's more in a "look at the reality of the situation" type of thing. What type of life are you going to be able to provide for your two month old? Are his bare necessities going to be and currently being met? I think that's the spirit of what's being said here, truly. As a parent of a 6 month old, I can unequivically say that having a child is damn expensive. My wife and I, who are 31 and 29, weren't planning either, but we knew going in that if we had a baby, we could afford to raise it. And that's the most important question here, which is "Can you afford to raise your child?" Not in the lap of luxury, niot in a big house with every toy imaginable and designer clothes. But can you afford to supply the necessities so the child doesn't suffer?

I'm not directing that question towards Fuel, per se, but rather, towards anyone who has a baby. In the case of the man with 30 kids by 11 women, should he get welfare and government aid for them? Of course he should. But let's not just point the finger at him here, one has to look at the mother's here. They were just as irresponsible, and by my count, were responsible for 3 children each. SO why do we point the finger simply at dad? 11 mom's apparently don't like condoms or the pill either.

So what's the solution? You put government aide on a card. In PA, we have an Access Card, and it specifically limits through the Welfare system what the money can be used for. It can be used for food, home necessities, and the like, but can't be used for cigarettes, gas, or eating out. It forces people to be responsible with how they use their government aide, and I think it would be the best thing here. The children are already being punished in that they likely don't have a father figure in their life, they shouldn't be punished further. But nor should dad be given a free pass, and money to use as he wishes.

ANy help the parents gets should be contingent as well. He only makes minimum wage? Make him look for a job that pays more. Ideally, it would be nice for mom to have to get a job too, but that may be unrealistic with them having to raise the children singly.

For the younger ones, specifically the ones under two, perhaps adopting them out would be the best course of action. After all the selfishness this man and his women have displayed, that would be the ultimate act of unselfishness. Giving the kids too young to know better the chance at a fresh start.

 

[Fuel]

I think another thing that hasn't gotten a mention is this idiocy of some of these women. You'd think that a good portion of them would be aware of this guy's issues. You have to imagine that they know what kind of person he is, and they probably shouldn't want anything to do him, or at least not his genitals.

 

[Rayne]

I'm not sure if the issue of "letting the guy off the hook" applies here.

Don't get me wrong. This is an insane act of irresponsibility, unless you're a sultan, sheik, or emir. But seeing as I'm not ready to allow my government to start castrating people, what could possibly be done to put this guy "on the hook"? There is no possible way he will ever earn enough money to support these children. I strongly doubt he's going to be a supportive, loving father, and so with the state government docking any paycheck he'd receive, it doesn't matter how hard he works, he'll never be able to improve his own condition or the condition of those he loves, and has no incentive to earn money. The solution isn't "throw him in jail", because so far as I know, he hasn't committed a crime. Being broke and having loads of children is a shitty thing to do, but you can't order a person to pay something that they'll have no way of doing, and use that as a reason to throw them in prison.

(I'm not familiar with the specifics of Tennessee child support law, but in Massachusetts, I know of men who are receiving $100 a week out of paychecks of $500. If this man is guaranteed half of what he earns, my argument about personal improvement is moot.)

So, honestly, fuck this guy. He's created a problem and is absolutely useless when it comes to fixing it. I'll let other people worry about moral indignation, I'm trying to solve problems here.

I don't like it, but this is part of what government exists for. We have mothers and a father who are by and large out for lunch on personal responsibility, leaving children behind. Someone has to care for these children, you can't force someone to volunteer their child for adoption, and DCF won't take your children away simply because you're broke, nor should they.

We used to have public orphanages for this sort of thing, but that was a bit more than a century ago. Now, we have state and federal aid. I really don't like subsidizing irresponsibility on this scale, but I like the alternatives even less.

 

[ABMorales787]

That bastard really should be placed to do massive community work. if he wants the state to help him, he should by all intents and purposes be forced to take responsibility for it and work more. If his minimum wage job isn't enough (hell, 30 bucks an hour might still not be enough), it's obvious he's going to eventually meet legal issues. So why not just skip all that and have him earn the government aid for those kids directly? It's a hell of a lot better than granting it and pretend he can still lend his own hand with his crappy job.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I have an issue with the father getting Aide because he is careless, he shouldn't get it.

In this particular case I wouldn't give the father any aide, but I would give the kid's some Aide since they are the ones who got screwed over by their father. It's nice he's trying to pay some alimony but its not up to the government to bail him out because he was stupid.

So in my opinion I think the government should give aide to the children, bypass the father and garnish a part of the fathers wages to help pay for the aide the government is giving them. If the father barely has any money left, well that's something he should have thought of before he decided to be a condomless man ****e.

 

[HBK-aholic]

If this were one or two children, it would be a different story. Nobody accidentally has 30 children. This man should live without any luxuries in order to pay for the children he has, before being granted any aide. Even after that, the aide should go directly to the children in terms of clothing vouchers, food stamps etc. It should also be ensured that as many of the mothers as possible are actively looking for work if they do not already have a job. It's disgusting people have so many children when there is no way they can be a real parent, physically, emotionally and financially, to all of them. I feel so sorry for those children.

I'm sorry, but I have to take offense to this. I have a two month old, and while he was somewhat of an accident, we weren't necessarily not trying. The girlfriend has an allergic reaction to latex, and the latex-free rubbers are brutally tight. (Not bragging, but fuck do they ever hurt...)

That being said, I have a shitty job with even shittier pay. I won't disclose how much, or how little for that matter, I make, but needless to say, making ends meet is tough. Are you suggesting that when we found out we were expecting, we should've "eliminated the problem", if you will...? Are you saying that starting a family should be reserved for those who are well off, or at the very least, have money to spare?

Please...

While I don't believe abortion should be used in these sorts of circumstances, I do believe people in situations where they cannot provide financially for any potential children should take responsibility in ensuring a pregnancy does not occur in the first place. For example - you dislike latex condoms (and other people can't use another type for various reasons) but there are so many more possibilities when it comes to contraception, that if those weren't used or at least considered, I feel it is slightly irresponsible. Of course, contraception is not 100% effective and people who do fall pregnant aren't stupid or any other negative connotation, but simply leaving it up to fate is irresponsible.

I realise this sounds personal towards you - it isn't. I notice you say you DO make ends meet, which is different to not being able to manage financially. Many people with children find their finances severely depleted after having a child, regardless of their income to begin with. However, those who can not afford to feed, clothe, heat, and provide other basic care for their child should not be having children until they're in a more secure financial environment - ignoring how unfair it is to the taxpayer, it's very unfair, and negligent to the children involved.