Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You really should learn a little bit about welfare reform.
Likeeee?
Just the other day someone at my grocery store had the same type of story, and she was saying how the "16 year old" was confident that WIC was going to give her food etc! Why in the world are these kids so entitled? who is teaching them that is "ok" to have kids at 16??? we no longer live in the 1400's! WTH
In 13 states (cited previously) and any that have Elizabeth [sic] Poor laws, yes, grandparents are frequently held to be financially responsible for the children of their minor children.
Would that be the 13 Colonies? LMAO!
You're talking about the British Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601 (adapted from English policies about the poor from the 1500s) of England and Wales for crying out loud!
I thought ALL of the United States got out from under British law in 1776. Who knew there were some straggler states still under it? LOL!
As for the "grandparents are frequently held to be financially responsible for the children of their minor children," let's just pretend to entertain the mistaken assertion that some of the states are still under British law, and go ahead and show me where it says that:
This is the only mention of familial status in the above is:
Quote:
Part of the 1601 Law said that poor parents and children were responsible for each other, so elderly parents were expected to live with their children for example. However, everyone in need was looked after at the expense of the parish, which was the basic unit of poor law administration. There were 15,000 parishes throughout England and Wales, each based on a parish church. However, no mechanism was introduced to enforce any of the measures stated by the 1601 Act and the operation of the poor law was inconsistent. The legislation did not set down any administrative standards so parishes were at liberty to interpret the law in any way they wished. There were great differences between parishes which varied between extreme laxity and extreme stringency in the interpretation of the law. Some towns, such as Bristol, Exeter and Liverpool, obtained local by-laws that established corporations of the poor: their responsibilities extended over several of the urban parishes within their jurisdiction.
... which, according to this explanation, does NOT represent that families are responsible for supporting each other because "everyone in need was looked after at the expense of the parish," but merely maintains they are "expected to" live with each other. "Expected to" -- not even that they "have to." How was the relief paid for? Property taxes were levied upon owners of property by the parish.
Further, here's the actual text of the law, with "modernised" spelling (but still Queen's English LOL since it is a British law) for easier readability (from a British Socialist website of all things):
Here's what they do with children (and grandchildren) of the indigent rather than do nothing to "force" their penniless families to be "financially responsible for them" ... turn them into indentured labor until the age of 21 (or marriage, whichever comes first) for girls and 24 for boys:
Quote:
And be it further enacted, that it shall be lawful for the said Churchwardens and Overseers, or the greater part of them, by the assent of any two Justices of the Peace aforesaid, to bind any such children as aforesaid, to be apprentices, where they shall see convenient, till such man child shall come to the age of four and twenty years, and such woman child to the age of one and twenty years or the time of her marriage: The same to be as effectual as to all purposes, as if such child were of full age, and by Indenture of covenant bound him or her self.
This Wiki overview has more information about the "Poor Relief Act 1601 (43 Eliz 1 c 2)":
Quote:
The Poor Relief Act 1601 (43 Eliz 1 c 2) was an Act of the Parliament of England. The Act for the Relief of the Poor 1601, popularly known as the "Elizabethan Poor Law", "43rd Elizabeth"[3] or the "Old Poor Law"[4] was passed in 1601 and created a national poor law system for England and Wales.[5]
It formalised earlier practices of poor relief distribution in England and Wales[6] and is generally considered a refinement of the Act for the Relief of the Poor 1597 that established Overseers of the Poor.[7] The "Old Poor Law" was not one law but a collection of laws passed between the 16th and 18th centuries. The system's administrative unit was the parish. It was not a centralised government policy[6] but a law which made individual parishes responsible for Poor Law legislation. The 1601 act saw a move away from the more obvious forms of punishing paupers under the Tudor system towards methods of "correction".
Several amending pieces of legislation can be considered part of the Old Poor Law.[8] These include:
The impotent poor (people who can't work) were to be cared for in almshouse or a poorhouse. The law offered relief to people who were unable to work: mainly those who were "lame, impotent, old, blind"
The able-bodied poor were to be set to work in a House of Industry. Materials were to be provided for the poor to be set to work[9]
The idle poor and vagrants were to be sent to a House of Correction or even prison.[5]
Pauper children would become apprentices.
So, according to your post above, "some states" are still under this 1601 Act of the Parliament of England and thus would still have almshouses/poorhouses for those who are "lame, impotent, old, and blind," Houses of Industry for "able-bodied poor," Houses of Correction for "idle poor and vagrants," and pauper children being turned into indentured apprentices (child labor) until they reach their early 20s. Not to mention, of course, nowhere does it actually say anything even vaguely resembling "grandparents are frequently held to be financially responsible for the children of their minor children."
You didn't do this, and if she is not willing to get an abortion, then leave.
These teens today are sick! They are stupid and have no clue what it takes to have a baby. Some just think the state will just pay for it, and i am tired of my tax dollars be spend on welfare for people who should be working, but have babies instead!
LEAVE! BE STRONG AND LEAVE. If this is what they want to do, then you don't need this kind of aggravation.
I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded and especially the underlined sentiment.
Just the other day someone at my grocery store had the same type of story, and she was saying how the "16 year old" was confident that WIC was going to give her food etc! Why in the world are these kids so entitled? who is teaching them that is "ok" to have kids at 16??? we no longer live in the 1400's! WTH
No we don't! Absolutely correct! However, according to some there are states in the USA that are still living in the 1600s under British rule!
No we don't! Absolutely correct! However, according to some there are states in the USA that are still living in the 1600s under British rule!
Lemme just drop a wikipedia chunk in here:
For example, following the American Revolution in 1776, one of the first legislative acts undertaken by each of the newly independent states was to adopt a "reception statute" that gave legal effect to the existing body of English common law to the extent that American legislation or the Constitution had not explicitly rejected English law.[58] Some states enacted reception statutes as legislative statutes, while other states received the English common law through provisions of the state's constitution, and some by court decision. British traditions such as the monarchy were rejected by the U.S. Constitution, but many English common law traditions such as habeas corpus, jury trials, and various other civil liberties were adopted in the United States. Significant elements of English common law prior to 1776 still remain in effect in many jurisdictions in the United States, because they have never been rejected by American courts or legislatures.[59]
For example, the New York Constitution of 1777[60] provides that:
[S]uch parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.
For example, following the American Revolution in 1776, one of the first legislative acts undertaken by each of the newly independent states was to adopt a "reception statute" that gave legal effect to the existing body of English common law to the extent that American legislation or the Constitution had not explicitly rejected English law.[58] Some states enacted reception statutes as legislative statutes, while other states received the English common law through provisions of the state's constitution, and some by court decision. British traditions such as the monarchy were rejected by the U.S. Constitution, but many English common law traditions such as habeas corpus, jury trials, and various other civil liberties were adopted in the United States. Significant elements of English common law prior to 1776 still remain in effect in many jurisdictions in the United States, because they have never been rejected by American courts or legislatures.[59]
For example, the New York Constitution of 1777[60] provides that:
[S]uch parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.
No kidding. British common law was our "starter set" of laws for the freed colonies. What else did they have at the time? And yes, some of them have still not been officially taken off the books because nobody could be bothered as they were so ridiculous and outdated, but that certainly doesn't mean they are enforced or taken seriously either. For instance, look at some of the laws against acts that in the olden days they considered "sexual perversion" still on the books that are never enforced on people.
However, you're STILL quoting law from the 1700s (although it is a little better than quoting from the 1600s). Can we come into the 21st Century already?
As per the bolded, please show me some almshouses/poorhouses for those who are "lame, impotent, old, and blind," Houses of Industry for "able-bodied poor," Houses of Correction for "idle poor and vagrants," and pauper children being turned into indentured apprentices (child labor) until they reach their early 20s even in just ONE state out of FIFTY, and I will agree that the Elizabeth [sic] Poor laws are still valid. Deal?
My mother always let me know that as long as I was in her house, I was under her rules completely. Meaning, if I got pregnant at 16, it wouldn't be my choice as to have the child or not. The daughter needs to look at abortion or adoption. Don't give her the choice, she's clearly not capable of good decision making.
I desperately need some advice here since I really don't want to be a part of housing a pregnant minor. 4 years into this new relationship I had a family meeting and I specifically said to my step kids & son that they will have a home until the age of 24 as long as they don't come home pregnant (stepdaughter) and they don't get anyone pregnant (stepson & son from previous marriage). We'll my stepdaughter has always been the brave one and has done things that no1 has ever done before and now she's pregnant!!! For the last two days I've been really stressful and her mom (my newly wed wife) is a mess. We had a conversation yesterday in which I found out that the 16 yr old is keeping the baby (so far) and trying to stay in our house. I told my wife that I don't know if I can handle a baby in my house that isn't our baby. My wife and I talked about having a baby but with our schedule and our lack of time spent together I realized before I married her that there's a strong chance we couldn't have a baby of our own. I'm in my early 30's and I would've live to have a baby with her since all I have is just one son.... I knew this before marrying her and I accepted the possibility of not having anymore babies ever. Having giving up our wants and needs now we get this bombshell from this stupid teen that shows no freaking remorse for her actions. I told my wife that I'm not making her choose between her daughter and me but I don't want a baby in my house and I don't know what tomorrow will bring as far as me staying in this relationship.
We bought a house 3 years ago for the 5 of us and when I married her I chose to be there for her and care for her kids but never would I imagine that her baby would be having a baby at 16. I don't know what to do at all.... This young girl barely know how to clean her room so how is she supposed to care for a baby? I really don't want her in my house when the symptoms come and especially when the baby comes. Her father is a pos who lives with his momma at the age of 44+ so it's not like there's room for her in there and the baby father is 17 and he and his parents are shacking up with his sister in a 2 bedroom apt living off welfare and whatever the system has to offer. He's been texting my wife telling her that he will care for both of them but he's whole family is on welfare and basically homeless!!
Since my wife is my best friend and she's the one who has always been there for me and the light that shines my path I couldn't help but to come clean with all my feelings and I told her that this whole ordeal can break our marriage. No matter how much I try I just can't accept a baby at home that isn't our own. We get by financially but that's just it... Who do you think is going to buy formula, diapers, take time off from work to help her, get her to the doctors and etc? I don't want my wife to go thru that as she was a teen mom herself and I was planning for our future of finally doing things like vacationing, honeymoon, going out to diner, movies and etc without her kids texting her all the damn time. My wife is due for a good life stress free and I really feel that she will end up raising this baby even-though she says that won't happen.
What can I do to overcome something that I'm so against of doing? If I break this rule for my stepdaughter that means that I would have to do the same for my stepson and son. I really just want her out of my house or I can leave them the house.
Rules are made to be broken, and if you want to keep your family together, you'll have to break your rule. Most parents make that rule as an idle threat, but they end up loving the little bundle of joy. Enjoy, grandpa!
My mother always let me know that as long as I was in her house, I was under her rules completely. Meaning, if I got pregnant at 16, it wouldn't be my choice as to have the child or not. The daughter needs to look at abortion or adoption. Don't give her the choice, she's clearly not capable of good decision making.
Having an abortion or giving a child up for adoption is an act that will follow a woman for the rest of her life and can cause permanent mental problems and depression, especially if she is forced to do either against her will. I think it should be her decision even though she is 16. Also, I knew a family whose daughter got pregnant at 16 and they forced her to have an abortion. What did she do? Go right out and get pregnant again to replace the aborted baby. This happened to them a couple of times until they gave up when she was 18 and she had a baby she kept. After that, she wasn't getting preggers over and over again.
Having an abortion or giving a child up for adoption is an act that will follow a woman for the rest of her life and can cause permanent mental problems and depression, especially if she is forced to do either against her will. I think it should be her decision even though she is 16. Also, I knew a family whose daughter got pregnant at 16 and they forced her to have an abortion. What did she do? Go right out and get pregnant again to replace the aborted baby. This happened to them a couple of times until they gave up when she was 18 and she had a baby she kept. After that, she wasn't getting preggers over and over again.
It can also free her to have a much better life. Don't act like it's all boo hoo and regret becaue most women actually don't regret.
I told my D that if she got pregnant she would have an abortion if she wanted to keep living with me and having my support, or move in with baby daddy. Thankfully it never came up since she doesn't even like or want kids
I'd REALLY talk to this child about it and sleep well at night even if she didn't like the idea. Plus having baby daddy involved in her life forever may/may not be appealing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some Very Surreal Claims on Here! What Next?
