[carlychan]

My FS and FD birth mom is pregnant again. We are looking forward to what we will do if/when the baby comes into care (another post on questions about that!). Anyway, when I have mentioned it to a few people (i.e. family and close friends), they almost ALWAYS say something along the lines of "she should be sterilized" or "why don't they tie her tubes." I mean REALLY! Are you kidding? Do they really think you should do that to PEOPLE? I have a good relationship with birthmom and like her. She is happy the kids are with me and didn't contest the TPR. No one knows her "story." I do know her story and find it offensive when people make these kinds of comments. Does this happen to anyone else? I would not have my beautiful children if it wasn't for her. What do you think about this?

[MamaS]

Yes, they probably do think so.
Sometimes, when watching "Maury" and one of his episodes with some 17-year-old high school dropout who has fathered 23 children with 9 different teenage mothers, all of whom are supported by the government, I have fantasies.
Seriously, as recently as the 1960's, parents of girls who were tested and determined to be TMH (Trainable Mentally Handicapped, IQ below 50) or EMH (Educable Mentally Handicapped, IQ 50 - 70) were encouraged to have their daughters sterilized before the age of 15. All that was required was the signature of consent of one parent.

[birdiebabee]

In some cases I believe they should be sterilized. I NEVER felt that way until our placements. birthmom has a genetic neurological disorder and passed it onto 6 of her 7 children. These children can end up with visible deformaties, learning difficulties, mental retardation, tumors, cancer, blindness, deafness, seizures, high blood pressure, amputations, many MANY surgeries, and so on. In her case I wish they did make her get sterilized (thankfully she is now). Not that I would ever wish our FC weren't born BUT I wish they didn't have this disorder that is very painful for them.

[mommy2fiveplus]

I have said just that comment multiple times. I get very frustrated with the chronic repopulators of damaged kids. The fact is, from MY perspective, these kids may or may not "get saved" by the system, and no matter what, they are going to suffer loss, even if they are seized at birth. WHY do we let that continue to happen? My foster brother's mom is on number 11. If she had been sterilized a few kids ago, it would have been 9 less kids sufferring the effects of FAS, and 5 less kids that have now aged out of foster care and are living without any permanent family. They literally had NO ONE to spend last Christmas with. She is the kind that tends to "state hop" so she just leaves a few behind in each state, hoping that one of these days they might let her take one of these babies that is born addicted to drugs/alcohol home with her, meanwhile the kids have little to no attachment to each other or extended family, most of them were not identified as abuse/neglect early enough to get needed intervention and have not been adopted.

My Ason's mom has left one in both CA and FL, we are not sure where she will go next but her track record is 3/3 for drug exposure, guess we can hope the next one fares a little better, but instead of hope why not just put an end to to it? JMHO

[shavon]

I am on both sides of the fence on this one..

That is all I can say..

[ocracoke]

My bmom was encouraged to have a tubal ligation after her 7th child. She had already lost custody of 6 of her kids and it was likely she would lose the 7th. Her social worker asked her how many times she was willing to go through that. I think in the end it was her decision but I don't think it would have occurred to her on her own. In the end I think it was the right decision because she was never ready to parent.

Samantha

[arbuckle17]

It should be the bmoms choice, but there is nothing that excuses her to continually bring kids into an environment where she can't support them.

If she intends to support them then that's fine. If not she has a responsability to use birth control till she can.

[peregrinerose]

There are people that truly should not be allowed to reproduce, and people of both genders with multiple children in the system that continue to choose to have babies that are again taken by the state and are clearly refusing birth control, well, it should be a consideration.

[Mummy_Big_Bird]

I am one of those annoying people too.

I think something needs to be legally done about the 'serial reproducers'. How much tax payer money is invested in the result of people who won't be sexually resposible, need to have the children removed from their care, to get health services for needs and disabilities that are a result of birth parent choises, or just will not support them. Not to meantion the quality of life for said child.

I had one placement that was the 9th child of a 26 year old. He loved making babies, but refused to support them in any way. I don't know how many of those children ended up in care, but he never fathered more than 2 children with any girl.

When I spend 5 days sitting in a NICU with a new placement, I got chatty with the nurses. They told me of a woman who comes to the hospital AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR, giving birth to a preemie/micro preemie. She is so high and unstable, that when she comes in to visit the baby she gave birth to days before, she has to ask the staff if she had a boy or girl, she can't remember. All the babies go into care, and have many medical problems. The nurses said that the last two times she has come in, those babies died in the NICU. She has been in so many times to give birth, that the staff has lost track of how many babies she has actually had!

Although I would secretly like to see a 3 strikes and your out (tied) rule, I think if it came into play for people who have lost over 6 children would be more resonable.

I know we have the debate a lot on this board about taking in a new sibling. My AD's birth mom has only given birth once, and is scares me to death to think of getting a call someday that she has had another baby. Of course we would take a sibling, but my fear is what kind of medical issues the next one will have. My AD got really lucky. But one of the birth mom's medical problems will be worse over time, and would put a future baby at higher risk.

[mountaineermom]

IMO, if a mother gives birth to mutiple children, all addicted to drugs at birth, they should tie her tubes. If at some point down the road she gets her act together, the procedure can be reversed.
Former FS's mom had 6 children, all of them were drug exposed, went through withdrawl and are still in foster care. The state is spending so much money on these kids and the mom has never taken resposiblity for her actions.
It's a different story if youre talking about a mother who is trying to get better or one who has a mental illness.

[AmahMama]

I am also one of those people but I take it a step further. If Dad has fathered 3 children that he does not support or does not father (I mean step up and take those children to raise), HE needs to be sterilized. Men can cause much more reproduction than women can. Theoretically a woman can only be pregnant once at a time where a man can impregnate many women during the same period. And... in both cases... after 3 kids in care, sterilization would not only be called for, but also could also be reversed (even at state expense) if they got cleaned up and able to parent and support a child in the future. I would much rather see that happen (even at my expense) than to continue to see stretched resources continue to try to expand to accommodate these serial reproducers.

Sorry, it is another one of my soapbox issues. Right now I have the youngest of 6 that will never go home because bio has completely fried her mind - and has no clue who any of the fathers are.... never married... and only 22. Somewhere, sometime, someone has to be able to draw a line. Used to be we only had as many kids as we could support.... now there are those who will have as many as the state will support... and that is infinity.

God bless every single one of these little lives - - -

[laceyc]

I'm so glad I'm not alone in my opinion! I just knew I would get flamed for my thoughts. In my town there is a woman who has 8 children...all in her care but she doesn't work..never has that I'm aware of..the kids are always dirty, they are "homeschooled" and I know there are people that homeschool well..I'm not against that...but she doesn't. Her older kids stay home to take care of the younger ones. This is only an example. I work hard for my money to be able to support my family. I get really frustrated at seeing people over and over again use my tax payer dollars to support them when they don't work but stay home and have multiple babies as well. I have really strong feelings about this and think someone should at least offer it to the mother or benefits like WIC and food stamps should hold steady and not increase just b/c she had another baby.

[jcm]

Originally Posted by AmahMama

I am also one of those people but I take it a step further. If Dad has fathered 3 children that he does not support or does not father (I mean step up and take those children to raise), HE needs to be sterilized. Men can cause much more reproduction than women can. Theoretically a woman can only be pregnant once at a time where a man can impregnate many women during the same period. And... in both cases... after 3 kids in care, sterilization would not only be called for, but also could also be reversed (even at state expense) if they got cleaned up and able to parent and support a child in the future. I would much rather see that happen (even at my expense) than to continue to see stretched resources continue to try to expand to accommodate these serial reproducers.
-

Wonderful idea! I also believe, that it should be offered to the mother's as well. If you've had multiple children removed, repeatedly, why would it NOT be a good idea to offer it? I do agree it is a slippery slope, allowing government to come in and dictate reproductive rights, but there has to be a reasonable line set.

[Ssumner]

I have to say that I think that she should be sterilized. So many of these women keep having children and are living off the system plus our tax dollars. My Bio mom is on baby number 9!! All but one is in the system! That says something about her and I think she should not have more children that will end up in the system. 3 of them have been in probably 5 different foster homes. She just keeps on having them. Pretty sad really.

That is just my opinion.

[vegaschristina]

Recently on another board, a member said that people whose children end up in foster care should be "spayed or neutred." She really didn't understand why I was offended.

Personally, I think women who are on their 3rd, 4th child should be given the option of a free IUD/norplant. It's nothing that can be sold for money, it doesn't require much maintenance, it doesn't require them to remember to take a pill, and it works long term, so that if they get their life together, they can have all of the children they want.

My kids' bmom has 1 in the system now, I've adopted the first 3, and she's pregnant again. She's 23. She really needs a permanent form of birthcontrol, but she doesn't need to lose the ability to have children if she gets her life together.