Me and my friends were talking about this the other day, and we all think that if someone wants to recieve welfare, they should have to pass a drug test. What do you bloopers think?

I think that its a bullshit request. Who will pay for it? What happens if they are positive, who really suffers the parent or the child who is now starving because of it? Just because someone is on welfare doesn't mean they are doing drugs or abusing the system, it means they need the help.

I also agree with Mindi. It is really the child who suffers the most, not the parents who are on drugs. But then again, I am mixed on this also. Mainly because my mother in law and a lot of her family work for the state and I see first hand how much people abuse the system. And then those who really need the help, are left out in the cold. Even if the parents are on drugs, the children still need food and whatnot.

But if the parents are on drugs, A LOT of times they SELL the foodstamps and what not, to PAY for drugs... if they test POSITIVE for drugs, and are on welfare, then CPS gets called, and the kids get TAKEN. Period.

In an ideal world, that would happen. But we don't live in an ideal world, and that doesn't always happen. The CPS is too busy responding to reports from spiteful neighbors or ex girlfriends or some shit, because they're incompetent.

Do you know what the CPS system is like right now? Because of people abusing the system and calling on people who dont deserve it, CPS comes in and pulls the kid if they find a reason to (most of the time the reasons are bullshit), and then they get put in foster care, where there isnt enough houses for the kids already in the system, many of the time the foster parents are just collecting a check. My best friend's sister was pulled from her house and put in foster care because her mom found out her husband sexually abused her and her mom kicked the husband out. CPS didnt care that he was gone, they pulled her anyway and traumatized that girl more because she was put in an abusive foster home. The people who should be put into foster care arent, and the people who shouldnt be are. I was in the system, its a fucked up system and it needs to be fixed before we throw more kids in there.

Not every foster home is bad. There are SEVERAL foster families that I work with, I have friends that are foster parents. They are AMAZING people, and are amazing for these kids. The system itself may not be perfect, but really, is there a PERFECT way to take kids from their parents? Nope.
I'm not saying that it's a good thing... but having doped up parents isn't good either. Either way, that child is loosing, and it's sad.

I never said EVERY foster home is bad. Ever.

CPS threatened me telling me I had to either give my oldest to my parents or they were putting him in foster care... why? because I have depression and anxiety..

CPS doesn't go after the people that they NEED to go after

Good thinking.

If someone tests positive for drugs than the kids are already suffering anyways don't you think Mindi? I mean a drug addict can not raise a child properly.

That's not always true. Drugs are bad yes I know but just because someone tests positive doesn't mean they are an addict nor does it mean they are neglecting their kids. What about weed. The number one used "drug" in the country some people use it medicinally even though its illegal in their state. What about alcohol something that doesn't stay in your system that breaks up more families then most people realize.

True. But I think the benefits would outweigh the bad. If you know your kids or your benefits are going to be taken away by smoking that blunt then more people wouldn't do it. But I think it should be more aimed to the people who are crack, heroin, & meth addicts. None of those kind of addicts can possibly raise a child efficiently.

I think that it won't help anything. Those drugs are our of your system in most cases in three days. Sure you can randomly test them but there are still ways to beat those tests. A blood or hair test is much more espensive and in my opinion not worth it. They lose their benefits but the child would still suffer more then the addict who probably doesn't eat. You take the kids away and that's a whole nother issue. They go into foster care where most families don't give a shit about the kids and where there isn't enough room for the kids in the system already. I think that its good on paper but that's it.

Oh yea, I agree with you on the foster care thing. There's too many children & not enough safe homes for them. I think the whole system needs to be redone. People shouldn't be allowed to bring kids into the world that they can't support or raise.

But I do think the basis of the suggestion would be beneficial. Sure there would be kinks that needed to be worked out but what new laws don't?

I think that it would be a waste of money and time to be honest. There are too many ways to pass a drug test, there are too many people who would be unfairly targeted. I dont think that just because someone is on welfare means they need to pass a drug test. No state has unlimited cash assistance anymore, you can only be on it for 5 years in your life time, it was regulated by the welfare reform by the federal government. They are all required by the federal government to require people to put in hours for cash assistance. No one is going to be getting cash assistance if they are on drugs, unless they do their hours. Food stamps are something I will gladly shell out money for because it benefits the children. I would rather see 100 people 'abuse' the system then see one child starve.

haha that was me obviously :)

I agree with your last sentence. But I guess I've just seen so many undeserving lazy individuals ride the system all their life & when the ones that are actually trying to get a job, raise their kids, and pay their debts are turned down it just puts a bad taste in my mouth.

I dont like that people abuse the system, but there are far less people that abuse the system then most people see. Like I said, welfare (cash assistance) isnt what it used to be. We were on it last year, we got 500 dollars a month, for a family of four. Jeff and I each had to put in 45 hours a week, he was forced to volunteer at a goodwill to get his hours. We ended up homeless because we couldnt get into housing, and 500 a month didnt cover anything in terms of bills. Its not as easy as popping out kids and collecting a check anymore, which is why I have compassion for people who do get cash assistance now, because I know what they are being put through to get it. My husband collected cigarette butts around the human services building for 8 hours a day for a week so his family would get a little bit of money to get by, not only the people in the building but the people in America in general make you feel like less of a person for being on it.

I don't think that's a fair comment about foster carers. I'm sure there are a number who just do it for the money, and I'm sure there are abusive foster partents too (and that is a flaw in the system if people like that are allowed to foster), but I think the majority do it because they want to help children.

My aunt and uncle are foster carers (they actually even adopted one of their long term foster children) and they had to go through months of checks and training before they were allowed to foster and they are regularly in contact with social workers (admittedly this is in the UK). Their son (initially their foster child) came from a drug addict mother, and he is certainly far better off in the life he has now (and was also far better off when fostered) than he was with his biological mother.

Foster care did amazing things for me, but currently I feel there are more people who are in it for a paycheck then for the children. I hate to say it but thats the way the system seems to not only me but also to many foster parents who provide care. The American foster care system needs a serious overhaul before we just throw more children into it. I personally know of 4 teen girls who were raped by their foster parents, I know of others who were severely abused by them.

Social services isn't in it for the children. They would rather pull children from loving homes then children who need to be pulled. When I was in foster care I was pregnant, and they told me that if I had my child while I was in care they would take her from me (even though the father was willing to take full custody of her until I aged out) and I wouldnt be eligable to get her back for two years AFTER I aged out of foster care. The whole system needs an over haul right now and there need to be more people who are good parents and in it for the children.

Social services isn't in it for the children. They would rather pull children from loving homes then children who need to be pulled.

I don't think that is fair. Why would they want to do that, if they didn't see the kids being at risk? What do they possibly gain from splitting up families? Clearly telling you they would take your daughter was wrong (did they actually take her?), but that doesn't mean that they regularly take children away from families who can care for them.

And here in the UK at least social services make every effort to keep children with their parents (even although my cousin's mother was clearly incapable to care for him, it was still 3 years before she was told she could never get him back, and he could finally be adopted by his foster family), unless that child is clearly at risk.

You dont have to think its fair, that is the expirence I have had with the system. They didnt take her because I moved out of my foster home the day I went into labor. I know many families who's children were removed because of something that the absolutely should not have been removed over, and I know other kids who SHOULD have been taken who werent. My foster sister was in a home with her sisters and brothers, they pulled my foster sister because they decided she wasnt getting adequate care (she wasnt) but they left her older sister who had bowed legs because from the time she was born she was never given any toys so she would play with her legs, she was legally blind and her parents didnt know it, the doctors said it was from lack of light stimulation. She was 7 years old and had never used a spoon or fork, they fed her oatmeal and 2 percent milk in a bottle. They broke numerous bones on her body by beating her with a pipe. Social services was AWARE of this, and they didnt pull her. My foster mom desperately wanted her but her case worker told her "right now we cannot take her because her case would cost too much and we are in a budget crisis." Three years later they pulled that little girl who was so neglected by being locked in a dark room by herself she couldnt be touched, it would send her into a seizure.

The UK isn't the US. There are many people who work for social services who shouldn't be, they need to be put through what they let these kids go through.

this is ridiculous. i would not do my job if i was pulling children from "loving" homes. i don't get a bonus for pulling kids. i get a kid crying in the back seat of my car, a headache, and paperwork.

we do a lot of things to ensure that kids CAN stay in homes, the only thing that we don't do is give people unlimited chances. it takes A LOT for the court to even allow us to pull a kid, we don't have unlimited and unchecked power.

i am sorry that you had a bad experience, but you can't just generalize your experiences about things to everyones experience.

Did I say "the best deception pulls kids from homes" nope I didnt, I said that SOCIAL SERVICES is not in it for the children. The social workers maybe, but the general department isnt. Do not put words in my mouth. You can tell me all day long that you have the children's best interest in mind, I will not believe that EVERY social worker does. Which is why that is what I am going to school for, to help change a system that tore my life apart in more ways then one.