Children in care - till 25?

[Hope]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33438003

What do people think about this suggestion that children ought to be allowed to remain in care until they are 25, on the grounds that they ought to be able to remain in care until they are 'ready to leave'.

[floo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33438003

What do people think about this suggestion that children ought to be allowed to remain in care until they are 25, on the grounds that they ought to be able to remain in care until they are 'ready to leave'.

CRAZY! Where would the government find the money to fund it, even if it was a good idea?

[Aruntraveller]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33438003

What do people think about this suggestion that children ought to be allowed to remain in care until they are 25, on the grounds that they ought to be able to remain in care until they are 'ready to leave'.

CRAZY! Where would the government find the money to fund it, even if it was a good idea?

I think the reasons given are quite sensible - so in fact not crazy at all. Parents would not normally throw there children out at 18 automatically and they very often give them support and shelter well into their 20's and in some cases beyond. Why should people in care suffer a disadvantage through no fault of their own.

Perhaps Floo you'd care to look at the figures the government are throwing at businesses (highlighted in the press today) and ask if perhaps a little rebalancing of the use of that money could be done.

I see your hard-hearted attitude is still well and truly intact.

[floo]

Actually I posted before I had thought out the implications, and retract the word crazy, sorry about that!

Our girls left home to all intents and purposes at 18 when they went to uni. Of course we did help them out then, and continue to do so now, if need be.

[Harrowby Hall]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33438003

What do people think about this suggestion that children ought to be allowed to remain in care until they are 25, on the grounds that they ought to be able to remain in care until they are 'ready to leave'.

I know that the original article says "in care" but I think that this is an error. I heard a discussion and it is clear that it does not mean that the state will be acting in loco parentis as with someone under 18.

I did not pay attention to what I heard - I was at the gym at the time and there was an interview being shown on a screen.

My understanding is that it will mean some kind of accommodation - a room or a flat - in a secure building with some kind of support services included. Appropriate rent would be paid.

[Hope]

The reason I started the thread was because I heard a double-header interview and the tow folk being interviewed seemed to have completely different understandings of the proposal.

[Harrowby Hall]

I could be wrong - as I said, I was not paying attention to the interview.

However, I cannot imagine a government which clearly believes that the highest intellectual and cultural achievement of humanity is the invention of cost accounting would even contemplate keeping fit active and capable adults "in care" - can you?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33438003

What do people think about this suggestion that children ought to be allowed to remain in care until they are 25, on the grounds that they ought to be able to remain in care until they are 'ready to leave'.

This is the latest campaign by the professional do gooders, this idea that people are not "adult" until they reach their mid twenties, it's tied in with all this "Do you look under twenty five" crap in supermarkets.

[floo]

I do think kids are mollycoddled a bit too much these days, and protected from all harm. Some schools have forbidden children running in the playground in case they fall and hurt themselves, for instance! Children have to learn to take some responsibility for their own actions in an age related way.

[Red Giant]

So far as I know, the system we have for looking after kids in our care (usually through no fault of their own) is to chuck them out at school-leaving age, usually with no qualifications, and then they're on their own.  Because unlike other people's pseudo-independent kids, they've got no home or family to go back to.  We've disowned them.

Then we wonder why so many end up in the criminal courts.

Well David Cameron doesn't wonder.  He just thinks the lower classes are all criminals.  Unlike any friends of his.  But I digress.

[Rhiannon]

I think this is very sensible. Anyone who has teenagers knows that the odds are they will need to stay at home post-eighteen or come back home after university because starting wages aren't enough to cover rent and living expenses in many areas and the young are often refused benefits that might make independence possible. If someone doesn't have a home and family to start with then it makes it more likely they will end up in difficulties. Kids in care have nearly always ended up there because of neglect and abuse and it's not surprising they are more likely to find life a challenge. Someone in such circumstances doesn't stop needing support just because they reach adulthood and I find it encouraging that the state is recognising this.

[Hope]

Well David Cameron doesn't wonder.  He just thinks the lower classes are all criminals.  Unlike any friends of his.  But I digress.

OIh, so that is why David Cameron's Government has announced this development.  He clearly doesn't care.

[BashfulAnthony]

Well David Cameron doesn't wonder.  He just thinks the lower classes are all criminals. Unlike any friends of his.  But I digress.

OIh, so that is why David Cameron's Government has announced this development.  He clearly doesn't care.

To be fair to him, he doesn't just think that:  he also thinks they are all benefit scroungers.