Relatives get paid for watching the kids of relatives???

Red14

Well-known member

You learn something new every day... I didn't realize that the relatives (mom's / dad's; grandma's / grandpa's; aunts/ uncles) get PAID to take care of the kids of relatives who've been taken away from the parent due to opioid abuse?? How long has this been going on?? I just figured if the relative wanted to take on the responsibly of taking care of the kids, it came at their expense, or they would be put into a foster home - where they obviously get paid. So I guess this will come out of taxpayer's pockets, eh?
 

Hammerdrill

Well-known member
I'm ok with it. Being with family would normally be the best alternative. It seems to me the $600/month is a lot of money. But I guess that is the price the market has set.
 

Indiandad

Well-known member
It certainly is a lot cheaper as a "preventive" if the kids grow up drug free and become productive members of society.
To often kids who have drug addict parents end up as addicts themselves. The chain needs to be broken.
 

cabezadecaballo

Well-known member
It certainly is a lot cheaper as a "preventive" if the kids grow up drug free and become productive members of society.
To often kids who have drug addict parents end up as addicts themselves. The chain needs to be broken.

Grandparents have been raising the kids of their failed first efforts made horrible parents for a while now, sadly. A few generations, it seems. I guess if the middle generation turned out to be totally crappy parents because those grandparents - their parents - were working too many hours, they'll get another crack at parenting as resident grandparents.

This ain't Walton's Mountain, but good luck to 'em.
 

Red14

Well-known member
I'm ok with it. Being with family would normally be the best alternative. It seems to me the $600/month is a lot of money. But I guess that is the price the market has set.
So family won't watch the kids unless they get paid?? How many would watch them anyway? Look, I understand the concept. All I'm saying is grandparents and family have been watching kids in previous generations for next to nothing. Buried in the article it states that this will cost Ohio millions....MILLIONS. Where's that money coming from?
 

Red14

Well-known member
Better than an orphanage. Sure, some could absorb the expense without financial help, but many could not.
Are you sure about that? Are there even orphanages anymore? You don't think it would be better economical to house and take care of groups of kids instead of one on one?
 

eastside_purple

Well-known member

You learn something new every day... I didn't realize that the relatives (mom's / dad's; grandma's / grandpa's; aunts/ uncles) get PAID to take care of the kids of relatives who've been taken away from the parent due to opioid abuse?? How long has this been going on?? I just figured if the relative wanted to take on the responsibly of taking care of the kids, it came at their expense, or they would be put into a foster home - where they obviously get paid. So I guess this will come out of taxpayer's pockets, eh?
A lot of those people are probably on fixed income. Maybe you need to move to a country more aligned with your ” utopia” views.
 

ronnie mund

Well-known member
I too am ok with this. Certainly better than the kid constantly being shuffled around with zero guidance, likely becoming a burden on the taxpayer anyway.
 

Hammerdrill

Well-known member
So family won't watch the kids unless they get paid?? How many would watch them anyway? Look, I understand the concept. All I'm saying is grandparents and family have been watching kids in previous generations for next to nothing. Buried in the article it states that this will cost Ohio millions....MILLIONS. Where's that money coming from?
I'm not sure how tax laws are structured wrt caring for a child who isn't yours, but is a relative. But I do know, because I have kids that the tax laws are not such that it comes anywhere close to compensating for the cost of raising a child. People who don't need the extra $ to care for their own kin, can and probably do reject it. But I think trying to keep a family intact as much as possible, is a proper goal for government, and it seems is a lot cheaper than foster care. Our government spends our money on far worse things, this seems pretty minor.
 

2manyBats

Well-known member
I too am ok with this. ..... a burden on the taxpayer anyway.
I have a Retired Customer he Stopped by about a year ago, we got to talking and he explained He and his wife take care of his grandson because of this same situation.
However, he heard about this type of Aid and they did apply for it. He was told his situation showed no cause for assistance and he really didn't need the money. He was Pissed off about it. But they have him enrolled in private school and pay for it All.

Yes, without a doubt he has done very well for himself !!

Fair or Unfair ?
 

Belly35

Active member
Keeping the family together as much as possible is the right and justified option. I was given away at birth to a relative and moved from family to family for the part of my youngest days as a kid (6th grade). Was it the ideal situation no but is some unknown manner it was family to me.
Is the $600.00 valid compensation no but it is something but the key is the children are with family and that has a security meaning to a kid.
 

Red14

Well-known member
A lot of those people are probably on fixed income. Maybe you need to move to a country more aligned with your ” utopia” views.
Ha ha, nice one EP, I expect nothing less. But seriously, I understand people are on fixed incomes. So my question is, who should be responsible for these kids, their parents...nope, their on drugs...so IF, the grandparents/ aunts/ uncles want to take them on, they should expect the financial burden it's going to be. If they are going to take them on either way, then why should taxpayers foot the bill??
I understand you like the world to be all cotton candy and unicorns, but meanwhile responsible, good, hard working people continue to carry the load for the country.
 

Red14

Well-known member
I'm not sure how tax laws are structured wrt caring for a child who isn't yours, but is a relative. But I do know, because I have kids that the tax laws are not such that it comes anywhere close to compensating for the cost of raising a child. People who don't need the extra $ to care for their own kin, can and probably do reject it. But I think trying to keep a family intact as much as possible, is a proper goal for government, and it seems is a lot cheaper than foster care. Our government spends our money on far worse things, this seems pretty minor.
The article I saw quoted the state of Ohio being something like $299 per month for a relative, and foster parents are paid over $600 per month.
 

Red14

Well-known member
Better for who?
taxpayers, you can house and keep dozens of kids in larger dorm like areas than paying each individual to take care of them. You can produce bigger meals, more efficiency etc. Look I know there's going to be welfare kids out there. But expansion of laws like this just makes it more expensive and may encourage poor behavior. We simply don't hold young parents accountable enough for their kids.
 

Hammerdrill

Well-known member
Ha ha, nice one EP, I expect nothing less. But seriously, I understand people are on fixed incomes. So my question is, who should be responsible for these kids, their parents...nope, their on drugs...so IF, the grandparents/ aunts/ uncles want to take them on, they should expect the financial burden it's going to be. If they are going to take them on either way, then why should taxpayers foot the bill??
I understand you like the world to be all cotton candy and unicorns, but meanwhile responsible, good, hard working people continue to carry the load for the country.
The issue is but a symptom of a larger problem. The larger problem needs to be addressed of course. In the meantime, making it easier for families to care for these children is important. People addicted to drugs is already a burden we take on as tax payers, this is just part of that same burden. But it sounds like people have to qualify financially to get the money anyway.
 

Red14

Well-known member
Keeping the family together as much as possible is the right and justified option. I was given away at birth to a relative and moved from family to family for the part of my youngest days as a kid (6th grade). Was it the ideal situation no but is some unknown manner it was family to me.
Is the $600.00 valid compensation no but it is something but the key is the children are with family and that has a security meaning to a kid.
I think it depends on the family. We see it all the time. No just one family member is addicted to drugs, but many. Maybe getting them completely out of that situation is the best?
 

Hammerdrill

Well-known member
taxpayers, you can house and keep dozens of kids in larger dorm like areas than paying each individual to take care of them. You can produce bigger meals, more efficiency etc. Look I know there's going to be welfare kids out there. But expansion of laws like this just makes it more expensive and may encourage poor behavior. We simply don't hold young parents accountable enough for their kids.
Well of course it is cheaper, but that doesn't make it better for the kid, quite the contrary in all likelihood.
 

Red14

Well-known member
Keeping the family together as much as possible is the right and justified option. I was given away at birth to a relative and moved from family to family for the part of my youngest days as a kid (6th grade). Was it the ideal situation no but is some unknown manner it was family to me.
Is the $600.00 valid compensation no but it is something but the key is the children are with family and that has a security meaning to a kid.
I think it depends on the family. We see it all the time. No just one family member is addicted to drugs, but many. Maybe getting them completely out of that situation is best in the long, long run.
 

cabezadecaballo

Well-known member
A lot of those people are probably on fixed income. Maybe you need to move to a country more aligned with your ” utopia” views.
He’s been making it work for himself (I guess?) without a raise for fifteen years, so I guess he figures everyone else should be able to economize in similar austerity.

Pretty tough for grandparents
 

cabezadecaballo

Well-known member
I too am ok with this. Certainly better than the kid constantly being shuffled around with zero guidance, likely becoming a burden on the taxpayer anyway.
And the possibility that the same whack parenting habits that produced a second generation unfit to raise the third generation grandchildren, that is automatically approved to raise those grandkids just because they are family ? I guess if a family court awards custody, that’s all the oversight required ?
 

cabezadecaballo

Well-known member
I have a Retired Customer he Stopped by about a year ago, we got to talking and he explained He and his wife take care of his grandson because of this same situation.
However, he heard about this type of Aid and they did apply for it. He was told his situation showed no cause for assistance and he really didn't need the money. He was Pissed off about it. But they have him enrolled in private school and pay for it All.

Yes, without a doubt he has done very well for himself !!

Fair or Unfair ?
This type of assistance absolutely should be means-tested.

It is more about what is “fair” to the taxpayer, as far as I’m concerned.
 

cabezadecaballo

Well-known member
I think it depends on the family. We see it all the time. No just one family member is addicted to drugs, but many. Maybe getting them completely out of that situation is the best?
Maybe.

Do you think that family courts and social workers are failing in making such determinations ?
 
I have a Retired Customer he Stopped by about a year ago, we got to talking and he explained He and his wife take care of his grandson because of this same situation.
However, he heard about this type of Aid and they did apply for it. He was told his situation showed no cause for assistance and he really didn't need the money. He was Pissed off about it. But they have him enrolled in private school and pay for it All.

Yes, without a doubt he has done very well for himself !!

Fair or Unfair ?

Just like any government aid you get it when you need it, not when you want it.

I would like to have had my kids school paid for but I make too much money. Same situation. Social programs are for people who need it.

Well.... and big business...
 

Red14

Well-known member
He’s been making it work for himself (I guess?) without a raise for fifteen years, so I guess he figures everyone else should be able to economize in similar austerity.

Pretty tough for grandparents
Or just let other people pay for it. That seems to be the trendy thing to do.
 

Red14

Well-known member
Maybe.

Do you think that family courts and social workers are failing in making such determinations ?
No, they are just asking for more money to pay for other people's misfortunes and bad decisions. I'm honestly ok if they have limited financial resources. Some generation needs to figure out the government isn't going to take care of you anymore.
 

Red14

Well-known member
And the possibility that the same whack parenting habits that produced a second generation unfit to raise the third generation grandchildren, that is automatically approved to raise those grandkids just because they are family ? I guess if a family court awards custody, that’s all the oversight required ?
I got it, maybe grandma and grandpa should just set up "go fund me" accounts to take care of the kids???
 
.
Top