A spin off of my stealing baby formula question

@4cuteboys (4102)
United States
April 11, 2007 5:59pm CST
I posted a discussion about stealing baby formula earlier. One of the responses was that if they couldnt buy the formula, child protective services could always place the child in foster care. Do you think thats an appropriate action ? To take the child because the parents were in a rough spot and couldn't afford the formula..? What are your views on this?
7 people like this
13 responses
@jennysp8 (855)
• United States
11 Apr 07
No, that can't be right. If they could do that then there would be alot more children in the foster care system. You can't take away someone's child because they are poor. But on the other hand, if they are that bad off - isn't there government assistance to help them, WIC? If they paid their cable bill because they decided that was more important then formula...I could see a problem with that.
@mememama (3077)
• United States
11 Apr 07
It's really easy to qualify for WIC, you go to the office with your paystub, proof of mailing address, and a shot record. WIC can also refer you to other things that could help like dental and medical assistance. This is why programs like this are in place. It's not a formula story, but I knew of a family that could only afford to change their daughters disposable diaper 4 times a day. But they had cable television and smoked-I think that is abusive and yes, authroties should step in.
3 people like this
@judyt00 (3504)
• Canada
11 Apr 07
Some babies only need changing 4 times a day. Sometimes my granddaughter only goes through 4 diapers. Right now, at 6pm, she is still on her 3rd diaper since 8 AM
1 person likes this
@mememama (3077)
• United States
12 Apr 07
Are you saying that babies only pee 4 times a day? Out of respect, they should be changed when they wet. This girls diaper would fall off because it was so full of pee. My son is 1 1/2 and usually needs a change every 2 hours.
@4cuteboys (4102)
• United States
12 Apr 07
Not that it makes it right, but i'm just butting into say that the daycare (goverment run) had regulations that in the 1-2 year old room, the kids were to be changed around 11, 2, and before they went home between 4 and 5. And of course if they pooped. They didn't want us to change the wet ones more than that. The theory was because the parents didn't want us to use up the diapers so fast, so they implemented that rule. I'm still torn about it.
• Philippines
11 Apr 07
well it will be better that way dont you think, the baby in a foster home rather than with the parent but no food??
3 people like this
@jennysp8 (855)
• United States
11 Apr 07
People have the option to seek help through their city with the cost of formula. Just because they can't afford it on their own doesn't mean they don't deserve children. Maybe they lost a job - maybe the working parent got hurt - maybe they had their money stolen. There are lots of reasons people don't have money. But, if they don't have the money & refuse to seek assistance and would rather let their baby go without - then yes- the child needs placed in a foster home until the parents can straighten up.
4 people like this
@Debs_place (10525)
• United States
11 Apr 07
I am sure that there are agencies who will provide formula rather then letting a child go hungry. I don't think that cps is the way to go unless there are other issues. It might be a temporary thing...face it, some time things happen and all of a sudden there is just not enough money. But if it is all the time, something must be done to ensure the health and welfare of the child.
2 people like this
@judyt00 (3504)
• Canada
11 Apr 07
Most cities will give formula to needy parents. lets face it, though, if you can't afford to even feed yourkids, then you shouldn't have them. Kids are better off in foster care than with parents who won't feed them
2 people like this
• United States
11 Apr 07
I think that some people just steal the formula to sell it. You can get wic and other help if you can not afford to buy formula. I think that disposable diapers should also be on wic or at least some cloth diapers. Some parents cant afford to change their childs diaper which is so sad.
@4cuteboys (4102)
• United States
12 Apr 07
Yes, stealing to sell the formula is absolutly ridiculous! that is unthinkable, and partly why formula is so expensive. I think diapers should be on WIC too, good point. Even the cheapest diapers are pretty expensive.
• United States
13 Apr 07
if they can't afford forumla they should seek government assistance.
1 person likes this
@Kylalynn (1773)
• South Africa
12 Apr 07
I have just thought, if the mother went to a government hospital or even the clinic they would give her baby food for free probably. If she is a good mother in other ways I don't think they should take the child away because they are struggling financially, just as long as she feeds the baby.
@sacmom (14315)
• United States
12 Apr 07
I caught that response and think that is poor idea. A child should not be put into foster care with the sole reason being that it's parents are having financial difficulties. There are plenty of people with kids that have had a rough spot in their life, sometimes due to unavoidable circumstances, like losing their job. When I younger and lived in the Bay Area my next door neighbor moved his wife and kids up the Sacramento area as he got better paying job there. About a year or so later my mom moved my sister and I up to the same area and we visited them on occasion. They were doing nicely like before they moved. Unfortunately some years later the power plant (Rancho Seco) closed down and they got into a rough spot. Even though their kids were grown at that point, just think if they hadn't been? Would it have been right to take their kids away because their dad lost his job? Hell no! They were good parents who were going through a rough patch, that is all.
• United States
12 Apr 07
I am pretty sure that most cities have programs in place that would help families who could not afford formula. I know that there also programs that provide cereal, milk, cheese, and other staples for children up yo 5 years old.
1 person likes this
@jchampany (1131)
• United States
11 Apr 07
That's a tough question. Like it has been said, there are programs for people who can't afford formula. For me, there would always be a way to make some money to feed my kids. If I had to sell something I would. I would try to mow peoples lawns, clean someones house, something. So to me stealing would not be an option. There is always something to be done that someone is willing to pay for other than to do it theirselves. I would do whatever I could to earn money to feed my kids.
• United States
12 Apr 07
There are ways to get formula without stealing it. There are church organizations, government, doctors, hospitals,wic. And no I do not think letting them be placed by CPS is a good answer! I have recently had to deal with CPS do to things someone else did, and let me tell you they are one messed up organization! There are so many other options out there, options that wont cause as many problems, or keep them part of your life. CPS should only be as a last resort! NEVER EVER just because you short on money and need formula! especially if its a temporary situation. CPS is for serious issues of abuse and neglect! Yes no formula is a serious issue but there are other options than CPS! Once CPS is involved in your life it can be hard to get them out, they do a lot of good but they also do a lot of harm. There is no one that holds them accountable so they do whatever they want!
@Gemmygirl1 (2870)
• Australia
12 Apr 07
I doubt they actually take the kids away for not being able to afford formula - especially when there are so many other people that could be asked to help out. At least it's like that here - if i run low on formula, my Mum will buy me a new tin just in case! HOWEVER, if you know before having a baby that you cant afford to have one, you probably shouldn't have one coz it's very unfair to bring a child in to the world without being able to financially take care of it. Not saying they shouldn't have kids at all, just that they should think about putting kids off until they're a little better off & know the chances of having money problems aren't as likely as they currently are. I dunno, things in Australia just seem to be quite different to anywhere else.