Opinion

Criminal parents

A nine-year-old, a 10-year-old and an 11-year-old spend the afternoon at Singleton stealing and damaging vehicles, a rampage brought to an end when a car owner chased and caught the youngest and the oldest. Police, so we read in The Herald yesterday in a report by our chief police reporter, Dan Proudman, were waiting for the 10-year-old when he arrived on a train at Muswellbrook at 7.45pm. Police know the 10-year-old well - he's on bail on a charge of armed robbery going back to September, and bail conditions are especially relevant: he is not leave his home unless accompanied by a responsible adult and he is to abide by a 6pm-8am curfew! A responsible adult may have been asking too much.

So, where are the parents or carers for these three boys? Why are they not held responsible before the courts for these boys' crimes? Because of their age the boys' responsibility for these crimes is greatly diminished, and not recognised at all in the case of the nine-year-old, and, I say, because of the boys' ages the parents' responsibility for the crimes is greatly increased.

In my column in The Herald today I write that we need a parents' court much more than we need a children's court.

The problem in these homes may be worse than we realise. It may be, indeed it is likely, that these derelict parents have been breeding for the baby bonus since it was introduced six years ago and that we have tribes of their urchins just a few years off unleashing themselves on us. Wouldn't it be wonderful if a parents' court could order sterilisations or at the least disqualify criminally irresponsible parents from receiving the baby bonus!

Cases like that reported by Dan Proudman illustrate the idiocy of the baby bonus. Instead, I say, we should have a parenting bonus, an amount of money invested at the birth of a child and paid to parents, perhaps divided between parents and child, when the child reaches adulthood with a clean slate and an education.

What say you?

Posted By: Jeff Corbett on 17/02/2010 4:34:00 PM | Comments (70)

Share on
Facebook

Tweet on
Twitter

Email to
a friend

comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

This was a critical issue way before the baby bonus. Prior to the ascendency of that damn fool Hitler, the eugenics movement had really taken off . Drunks, deros, criminally mental defectives were (in some jurusdictions) impounded and only released on condition of sterilisation. The harsh reality is that there is no shortage of incompetent parents out there who only breed damaged goods - who will in turn breed damage goods unless the cycle is stopped - permanently. Hippies, "social justice" types and other ne'er-do-wells will harp on and on about support services (just like the P&C hippy piece in today's Herald) and other garbage that doesn't make a lick of difference. The solution is simple. 1. When parents are incompetent by any reasonable measure - drunks, smackies, kiddy fiddlers/ beaters, wife/ husband beaters, whatever - REMOVE THE CHILDREN. Place them immediately in one of the thousands of homes desperate for a child. 2. STERILISE THE PARENTS. No second chances - you fail at parenting, you fail for life - we need to ensure that you can do no further damage to future generations. As for the "bonus" garbage - we should EXPECT decent parenting, not reward it.

Posted by Scott Hillard, 18/02/2010 9:30:54 AM, on The Herald

dont put all ppl in the same vote. i would be blaming the parnets but to class ppl has breeders for the baby bonus is wrong. what needs to happen is the cost of living needs to go down then maybe these boys could have one person at home .

Posted by nettie, 18/02/2010 9:34:47 AM, on The Herald

John Howard had two big stikes against his name. The fauilure to tell the French to take their atomic testing from the Pacific back to Paris and the Baby Bonus. That said, the real baby bonuses under another guise actually began in the 1970s during the catastrophic Whitlam era.

Posted by GeorgeJ, 18/02/2010 9:36:18 AM, on The Herald

Shame on you Jeff. With their flagrant disregard for the law, other people and their property these children will be eminently qualified in a few years to join groups such as Sea Shepherd and Rising Tide.

Posted by Directeur Sportif, 18/02/2010 10:00:28 AM, on The Herald

"What needs to happen is the cost of living needs to go down"?? Totally irrelevant. I know large families with parents on low incomes, and the parents are doing a fantastic job. It's got almost nothing to do with money or the cost of living. How about another point of view : instead of some pie in the sky hope for the cost of living to spontaneously go down, why not work on increasing your ability to earn, and give your family a decent living? All too hard?......

Posted by Abundance, 18/02/2010 10:04:00 AM, on The Herald

I agree with Scott on most of his points, I would like to add that the children need to be removed early. When a child at risk is identified society should do all that can be done in early intervention. If that fails remove the child. Taking the child at ten is too late, alot of physical and pychological damage has already been done. Unfortunately Scott is right the cycle will continue and esculate, it's hard to imagine what we will be dealing with in ten years time. I think the problem with todays politicians is that they will not make an unpopular decision even if it is right. They are always counting votes from all sectors.

Posted by Buell, 18/02/2010 10:07:27 AM, on The Herald

Someone once said-breeding is the only thing you don't need a license for--well maybe you should.You couldnt stop those stupid pathetic girls from getting pregnant to tattooed antisocial deadbeat males,but if they don't have a license they dont collect the bonus.I dont think I'd want to be on the licensing board though!

Posted by Snooze, 18/02/2010 10:11:35 AM, on The Herald

Bravo Jeff, finally a journalist who writes it just the way it should be said (as well as Joanne). In the 70's our neighbour was ordered to have sterilisation after her 6th child or she would not receive welfare, her family were definately rough around the edges, but weren't stealing cars. I do think that you wouldn't find as many babies being born each year if you abolished the baby bonus. Like scott says, there are so many families screaming out to adopt children, to give them loving homes. Seriously, if you can steal something from someone, sit on your bum and do nothing AND have the government give you a wad of cash for it each week, why would you want a job?? That is, unless you have some self respect. Children learn from their parents, and parents SHOULD be responsible for their 10 year olds. I know exactly where my 10 year old is at all times.

Posted by remi, 18/02/2010 10:12:48 AM, on The Herald

Jeff - it appears Godwin's Law has not escaped your blog, yesterday and today we have had refs to that WW2 German gang. Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"

Posted by Jaded, 18/02/2010 10:23:05 AM, on The Herald

What a ridiculous arguement put by this reporter. That the baby bonus is to blame for these kids behavior. to quote"It may be, indeed it is likely, that these derelict parents have been breeding for the baby bonus since it was introduced six years ago and that we have tribes of their urchins just a few years off unleashing themselves on us" I wonder if he actually did the maths. These children are all over the age of six at least. Then to say their parents are breeding for the baby bonus. Please mr reporter get it right, there are a number of people out there that believe every word that is written in a newspaper and to fill it with such un truth is criminal in itself.

Posted by Rod Froude, 18/02/2010 10:32:08 AM, on The Herald