For Every Child CPS Takes She'll Have Another!13 & Counting!

New Posts

VespaElf

VespaElf

Little Miss Showcase(runner-up)
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
2,381
Reaction score
67
Wow!Im just speechless..........I know The Sun is prone to over dramatizing but the simple facts need no embellishment.......:eek:



A MUM who has had 13 children is pregnant with her 14th - even though ALL her kids have been taken into care.

Last night brazen baby machine Theresa Winters, 36, vowed to carry on having children until social workers let her and jobless partner Toney Housden, 36, keep ONE.

Defiant Theresa, who lives on benefits in Luton, Beds, declared: "We're not giving up. For every child they take away from me, I'm going to have another one."

Theresa, who has had 13 kids, told The Sun of her determination after revealing she is expecting her 14th in November.

ALL the children were taken into care by social workers who had grave concerns about neglect and "lack of parenting ability" demonstrated by Theresa and her jobless partner Toney Housden.

But the couple, who admit they had problems and could be "aggressive" in the past, insist they are now capable of raising a youngster...................
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ery-child-they-take-Ill-have-another-one.html

**MODS**Can you PLEASE fix the title?It should say "FOR"! Thanks!
 
Although that entire article is both hilarious and horrifying at the same time, this is my favorite line:

"The dad insisted he would "love" to work. But he said: "I want to do it for the right reasons - to support my family. But at the moment the council won't let us be a family." " :waitasec:

Isn't a husband and wife or in this case a man and woman living together considered a family??? Whether they have children or not? What a great excuse for living off other people.......::mad:

Also snipped from article, this is a hoot as well:
"And they attended sessions in which they were asked how they would cope with children in various circumstances, such as when they were ill. But they said it was all to no avail. They also insisted they agreed to have private counselling as long as it was paid for by the council. (BBM)

But social services told them to attend a free group session instead.

They refused, saying they did not want to air their issues in front of strangers." :eek: Didn't that happen when they agreed to an interview???
 
With several of the children born to this mother being disabled (one child is blind, one child in foster care has cerebral palsy, and two diagnosed with a neurological disorder-possibly inherited) it's very sad that she and her partner have decided to continue the quest to have a child to "keep". I wish they would realize that their quest to have a child to "keep" is rather selfish (IMO). :mad:
 
Great observations, IWannaKnow. I didn't catch the irony in regards to the counseling session.
 
IWannaKnow said:
Although that entire article is both hilarious and horrifying at the same time, this is my favorite line:

"The dad insisted he would "love" to work. But he said: "I want to do it for the right reasons - to support my family. But at the moment the council won't let us be a family." " :waitasec:

Isn't a husband and wife or in this case a man and woman living together considered a family??? Whether they have children or not? What a great excuse for living off other people.......::mad:

Also snipped from article, this is a hoot as well:
"And they attended sessions in which they were asked how they would cope with children in various circumstances, such as when they were ill. But they said it was all to no avail. They also insisted they agreed to have private counselling as long as it was paid for by the council. (BBM)

But social services told them to attend a free group session instead.

They refused, saying they did not want to air their issues in front of strangers." :eek: Didn't that happen when they agreed to an interview???
Click to expand...
Oh yes there are some real zingers!!!!!
My brain was on overload by the end of the article.....I couldnt process so much at one time!!!
The "Id love to work but......" quote sums up Britains "benefits culture" to a 'T'(My DH is British so Im familiar with what goes on over there) and the refusal to attend 'Group Therapy'? What they meant was they didnt want to air their issues FOR FREE.......we know The Sun pays & Im sure that was incentive to coax them!:rolleyes:

Its obvious if they TRULY wanted to keep at least ONE (I feel sick typing that!)of their children theyd do whatever the Council wanted-period.No mess,no fuss just get on with it & do whats required.I think the extra benefits she receives are alot of motivation for her "baby making"!

Although the sheer amount of children this woman has had is shocking the phenomena ,in Britain,of a women having multiple children knowing they will be taken from her isnt (yes I know it happens here,to a degree,but I dont think its talked about as much)
.If you have had previous child(ren) removed & you get pregnant they are on you-no ifs,ands or buts (not that the system is perfect.......Look at poor Baby P-even in the UK there are negligent 'cracks'innocent children fall through).Theres a good movie called 'Ladybird,Ladybird' that although fictional is based on a similar case of a woman who had her 4 previous children removed & gets pregnant a fifth time.
 
What's truely amazing, is that this is not at all unusual for women who have had children removed from their care. Often times they will become pregnant again for a variety of reasons. It doesn't matter if they've already had their rights terminated or not. Some believe they have a chance with a new child (and sometimes the court gives it to them). Some just leave the baby in the hospital and never try to fight for the child. Sometimes they finally decide to stop having kids, and sometimes they just move to other counties or states to try to "trick" the system.
 
All I can say is.. if they wanted so much to be a family, they would have done the right things to keep the family they already had intact. Employment, counseling, being self sufficient, getting help for their anger issues, not neglecting their children... all of this could have been done right from the first baby being removed. Had they done so, there would be no question they could have kept their babies.

I'm not at all familiar with the laws in Britain, but I'd like to believe they gave these parents every chance to be reunited with their children. If they want to prove they are fit, then do the things parents do to provide and care for their own.
 
If you haven't already, listen to the phone interview... The Mom is just TOO much!! And, the reporter is great!:) "Don't you know how to use a condom?"
 
Her response to the condom question was (paraphrasing) well, what if the condom splits. Then he says, are you telling me you have 13 children cuz the condom split?

Sorry, but that interview is too funny!
 
IWannaKnow said:
Although that entire article is both hilarious and horrifying at the same time, this is my favorite line:

"The dad insisted he would "love" to work. But he said: "I want to do it for the right reasons - to support my family. But at the moment the council won't let us be a family." " :waitasec:

Isn't a husband and wife or in this case a man and woman living together considered a family??? Whether they have children or not? What a great excuse for living off other people.......::mad:

Also snipped from article, this is a hoot as well:
"And they attended sessions in which they were asked how they would cope with children in various circumstances, such as when they were ill. But they said it was all to no avail. They also insisted they agreed to have private counselling as long as it was paid for by the council. (BBM)

But social services told them to attend a free group session instead.

They refused, saying they did not want to air their issues in front of strangers." :eek: Didn't that happen when they agreed to an interview???
Click to expand...

I tell you and just my opinion, but the TOTAL IQ of this couple can be counted on my first 5 fingers!!! Just think, America has our share of these type people too. Geez, this female baby maker makes me think of my aopted twins birth mother. Thankfully, after much convincing, my twins birthmother agreed to have her tubes tied after losing 5 children to the system.

It is a SAD thing indeed when people have kids just to make money or have social services pay for their livelihood. I think there should be a cap on benefits that individuals receive. Not give them year after year. Either they work and find a legal way to make money or they live on the streets and stand in soup lines.
 
Instead of the govenment paying for everything, why not send these people a bill for what it's costing to provide for all these children? That way the jobless man can feel he truley is providing for his family since he wants to do that so much.

Those poor kids! :furious:

VB
 
Did I read correctly that her last baby was born at 7:30ish and this woman left the hospital shortly after 10:00 that same night?? I know many women leave the hospital within the first 24 hours (I did with my first two, but with Baby Mr. E I stayed the full three days), but isn't it unhealthy to leave after just a few hours?
 
cats and dogs get up after their having babies and go about their business....this woman doesn't seem much different than them. sorry cats and dogs...don't mean to insult them.
 
Mr. E said:
Did I read correctly that her last baby was born at 7:30ish and this woman left the hospital shortly after 10:00 that same night?? I know many women leave the hospital within the first 24 hours (I did with my first two, but with Baby Mr. E I stayed the full three days), but isn't it unhealthy to leave after just a few hours?
Click to expand...

YES!!!!!!!! She claims she left to get "support"from family & friends (although she didnt notify the hospital of this) & when she & the "Father" strolled back sometime the next day she couldnt understand why the baby was considered abandoned.
 
I swear, there should be legalized sterilization.
 
hopefully she will end up with a hysterectomy soon because of the strain on her uterus.
 
It makes you realize that the proponents of eugenics weren't completely evil.
 
While not being a proponent of eugenics (in the realm of cases we read in history) I agree with you. From what I've read about the neuro disorder that some of the children have or suffered from, it's not entirely pleasant. I wasn't clear on the pattern of inheritance but having a number of children with the same disorder makes it seem as though it could be a problem in this couples future children. So sad...
 
Boyz_Mum said:
While not being a proponent of eugenics (in the realm of cases we read in history) I agree with you. From what I've read about the neuro disorder that some of the children have or suffered from, it's not entirely pleasant. I wasn't clear on the pattern of inheritance but having a number of children with the same disorder makes it seem as though it could be a problem in this couples future children. So sad...
Click to expand...

I'm not a proponent either. All I'm saying is that it is easy to read those stories and think, "Those monsters! How could they?!?!"

But when you look at stories like this, it starts to sink in how doctors, nurses, social workers, law enforcement, etc. who deal with the children every day could get to the point where that sounds like the only solution. And it isn't because they are evil, but because they can't stand the suffering anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 98 more.
Total: 3,410 (members: 99, guests: 3,311)

Online statistics

Members online
99
Guests online
3,311
Total visitors
3,410
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,284
Messages
17,966,589
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top