While I agree that many drug addicts have no desire to overcome their problems, and are clearly incapable of caring for their kids (I know of one such child who was removed from that sort of environment and adopted by my aunt and uncle and is now doing brilliantly), I think rather than immediately removing all children of drug addicts from their families, the better approach is to try and see if the mother would receive help to get over the drug problem. Because children are often better off with their own families... there are not many couples willing to adopt older children and otherwise they're likely to spend their childhood going around the foster care system which denies them any stability. It is actually cheaper too than putting children in care.

They've started this programme here recently and it's had some positive results:

Project helps pregnant drug addicts in Fife quit

The thing is, most ppl who use one welfare program typically use a slew. Food stamps, public housing, tanf, and there's a whole list. Most use most if not all programs on the list. So I would surmise that it'd be about the same cost. Perhaps there should be a look into foster care and the ppl who sign up into it? Idk bout any foster care stuff but I do know that too many ppl that don't deserve to be on welfare are on it.

Also, lots of kids could be displaced to family members who can afford them. That would help too. Which, I understand, is a usual first option? Idk. Either way, it needs to be fixed. B/c right now those kids r not getting the care they deserve anyway.

i work for child welfare in california, which is one of my most expensive states to live in, and foster parents DO NOT get 800-1200 per month per kid. it's more like 300-400 (and that goes DOWN with the more children you care for), they get a clothing allowance ONCE a year, and they get medi-cal which many children already have when they come into the system.

That varies BY STATE and COUNTY depending on funds, which you should know.

i do know that, which is exactly why i am telling you that if california has one of the highest costs of living and foster parents don't get that much i don't know where they would.

I was in Foster care in three different counties in Wisconsin, and the amount my final foster mother told me she got for me alone not counting transportation, clothing, or anything else was 876. We had many discussions about it when I expressed an interest in being a foster parent.

i find this very hard to believe, but lacking any actual evidence of this, i will give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps that is the rate in wisconsin. again, that doesn't mean that this is what most or many foster parents make.

It depends if they go through a private foster care agency (which in the state of Colorado alone the foster parent gets three times the state rate) or if they go through the state agency. Every state is different. Just because you dont think its the truth doesnt mean it isnt.

did i not say that i was giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one?

private agencies do pay more money, however, private agencies are the small minority of those who provide foster care for most/many children.

Exactly.......and the 400 and 500 per family is being quite generous. I know people that get 800 a month.

The others in this thread have been pretty much spot on -- it's not just the people who would fail these tests who would suffer. It would be their kids.

Yeah, I'm a HUGE proponent of Reform on Welfare but even I agree that this would be a HUGE waste of time and money. There are so many better ways to achieve the same end result.

Agreed....they need to do some type of reform...the welfare system is getting out of hand.

i agree with mindi.. the parents r the idiots, not the kids. they would suffer and all they would want is food in their bellies!

I agree. If anything, they should make it random testing. It's only fair to make sure people are clean in order to receive welfare checks.

I guess it's just me...lol...if the parents are willing to do drugs then fuck 'em, CPS can get involved and the next person that actually needs a welfare check can be the next on the list.

I agree with .miss.raditude., but without the language :P They should make them take drug tests to start, then do random drug tests throughout the period of time they are on it. I know more people who are on it and doing drugs that would do just fine w/out it if they would stop doing drugs than I know of people who use it because they actually NEED it. So many people abuse the system: lying about incomes, expenses, etc. I am on food stamps because I have to be, but I only get $200 a month because that's all I need, I can afford the rest. Even my family has tried to get me to smudge a little so I can make sure I get more for my 16 month old son just to be sure I have food for him. But you know what? Screw that. I am his father. If that $200/month won't cover his food, what am I here for? It is my job to provide and go without if I have to, not depend on someone else to feed my son. If I could do it without them, you bet your arse I would.

In short, they need to grow some backbone, stop doing drugs and grow up. Passing something like this could be a good first step.

Thank you :)

I know someone who works.. She recieves 700 dollars a month in food stamps.. for a family of 4. And she also qualifies for 200 dollars a month in cash assistance and she plans on taking it for the extra money, she doens't pay her rent or her bills.. She sold 200 dollars of her food stamps to get her tattoo redone because yes thats so important. 700 dollars a month in food stamps and she sells so much of it that her kids eat bread and peanutbutter for 2 weeks out of the month because she runs out of food stamps.

Why does that not even surprise me?

While I can see why this may seem like a good idea, I see a few problems with this suggestion in terms of practicalities...

Who would implement it? (Already over worked social work departments?)
Who would pay for it? (An already over stretched social services budget?)
If a parent tested positive, would the child be removed?
What about parents who were legitimately on drugs which would flag up on the tests? For example people on opiate (the group of drugs morphine and heroin belong to) based pain killers? Ex-addicts on methadone? (But whom are off heroin and being supervised closely, and are not necessarily unable to care for a child) People on sleeping pills? (Would flag up under 'benzodiazepines', the class of drugs valium belongs to)
What about people taking other medications? (There is some cross over between different drugs so sometimes it's not possible to say conclusively which drug it is which has been recognised by the test)
What about parents who take cannabis occassionally (which in terms of parenting abilities I think is little different to drinking alcohol), or take it for medical reasons?

I don't think every person who will test positive is unable to be a parent, or deserves to have their benefits cut, so I think this would be very difficult to actually implement.

Who would implement it? Don't know, doesn't mean the need isn't there, though.

Who would pay for it? I thought I covered this? It should, as I see it (I could be wrong), pay for itself: one family who is abusing drugs and taking $500 a month could pay for quite a few. The money saved in the end would, I would think, be worth it.

If a parent tested positive, would the child be removed? Good question. But if that parent got caught with the drugs in any other situation, wouldn't the child still be removed?

What about parents who were legitimately on drugs which would flag up on the tests? For example people on opiate (the group of drugs morphine and heroin belong to) based pain killers? Ex-addicts on methadone? (But whom are off heroin and being supervised closely, and are not necessarily unable to care for a child) People on sleeping pills? (Would flag up under 'benzodiazepines', the class of drugs valium belongs to). As far as I know, all those things are under prescription here in US, so one would only provide the doctor's prescription or the bottle with your ID to prove it's yours, etc.

What about people taking other medications? (There is some cross over between different drugs so sometimes it's not possible to say conclusively which drug it is which has been recognised by the test). again, prescriptions. I should've grouped this with above.

What about parents who take cannabis occassionally (which in terms of parenting abilities I think is little different to drinking alcohol), or take it for medical reasons? Cannabis? you mean marijuana? weed? pot? I don't care how little you take it, it is a problem bbecause it is illegal. Now, if they wanted to implement a sort of..rank or levels of importance on such things, I suppose that would be a start. If it was medical, they would have prescription papers to prove it.

As far as I know, all those things are under prescription here in US, so one would only provide the doctor's prescription or the bottle with your ID to prove it's yours, etc.

So basically, you're saying that it's OK for people who are taking prescription medications to go ahead and take illegal drugs also, because in their case, it won't be possible to tell if they've been taking illegal drugs because it won't be possible to seperate it from the illegal ones?

My point is that the testing won't work for everyone, so how is it a fair test?

And on the cost thing, I disagree. Drug testing, if I'm correct, is actually not cheap, and certainly not on the scale that you're suggesting (testing everyone on benefits, however many times a year). It would be extremely expensive, and I'm not convinced that it would balance out with the savings made from the small number who would test positive.

I think people assume that more people do drugs on welfare then off, which isnt true.

Michigan tried this and it was deemed unconstitutional, because you are basically profiling and targeting people without probable cause. Its illegal search, I believe. I dont agree with it as I have stated, but apparently people on welfare are lower then others in some peoples opinions.

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-testing-public-assistance-recipients-condition-eligibility

I don't. I don't know how many people do drugs and I have never looked it up. But I do know that people on welfare tend to 1) not need it but lie about their income and/or 2) do some type of illegal drug and use the money given to them by me (as a taxpayer) to obtain those drugs, due to my personal experience with anybody I've ever known to be on welfare including my family and friends.

And maybe I haven't been keeping up with other people's conversations, but I assure you I haven't said anything to degrade people on welfare merely because they are on welfare.