Help with childcare for carer of elderly parent? Complicated!

poet123

Personally, I too think that adoption would be something to be considered here. There seem to be a lot of inherent issues that will not get better by adding a baby to the mix. Well meaning family cannot fully compensate for the stability and nuturing environment a child needs. Also, without being rude,it is clear the Aunt already has her work cut out with both mother and daughter requiring care and supervision.

I do believe some people with MLD can make good parents, but there is a cost attached and that cost is not always apparent to all. I went to the funeral of a neighbour last week, and her immediate family all have issues and they have gone on to have children and the pattern is repeating.

I don't believe in enforced sterilisation but I do believe that as a society we have a duty to ensure that those who cannot care for a child don't have them, and are protected from themselves in some instances, and from exploitation in others.

poet123

BigAunty wrote: »

Possibly because they'd rather continue their present lifestyle without any change, see this issue as something for the public purse to pay for and a third party to provide rather than a family matter, that kinship ties mean nothing to them compared to their own personal preferences, that the state should solve their problems rather than the family take primary responsibility....

To be fair to the OP and her family your scenario does not seem applicable to them. They do seem to be trying to resolve the issue themselves.

BigAunty

poet123 wrote: »

To be fair to the OP and her family your scenario does not seem applicable to them. They do seem to be trying to resolve the issue themselves.

Agree. I am playing devils advocate in response to an earlier poster who has listed many reasons why one or two relatives won't/cannot change their employment shifts to prevent the baby going into care, but excluded the possibility that they don't feel that it's their responsibility to make any changes to their life to prevent it.

marybelle01

BigAunty wrote: »

Possibly because they'd rather continue their present lifestyle without any change, see this issue as something for the public purse to pay for and a third party to provide rather than a family matter, that kinship ties mean nothing to them compared to their own personal preferences, that the state should solve their problems rather than the family take primary responsibility....

Yes possibly those things too. But how are they doing any of these - the "state" is already paying carers costs, and whether it is a member of the family or someone else doing it, the state is paying. Who do you think is paying for auntie to have given up her job to care for mum - fairies? And how does the state pay for these things - by people being in work. So how does someone else gving up their work make this more cost efficient, since that will be one less person paying into the state to pay for the costs of those who are caring for others.

marybelle01

BigAunty wrote: »

Agree. I am playing devils advocate in response to an earlier poster who has listed many reasons why one or two relatives won't/cannot change their employment shifts to prevent the baby going into care, but excluded the possibility that they don't feel that it's their responsibility to make any changes to their life to prevent it.

But you are missing the point - I did indeed cover this. It isn't their responsibility. It may, in the view of some people, be their moral responsibility to care for elderly relatives, but it isn't their responsibility to do it, and it isn't their responsibility to care for a child that is not their own.

I don't disagree with you in principle, but the fact remains that they cannot be forced into responsibilities which they do not have.

Oh, and maybe they actually think that going into care is the best option for the child - as others here have said! That's another possible reason too.

sleepless_saver

Getting back to the original question, there's a poster called gizmo111 who is an expert on kinship care issues (maybe not so much on the shared care aspects). You could PM her for advice.

Be wary of just doing what the social services people suggest in term of orders etc without understanding how this can affect entitlement to financial help.

paddedjohn

The Nan (your aunt) should take the baby with her when she goes to look after her own Mum (your nan). Obviously the child's mother can be left on her own for a few hours.

Cranny44

Hi

Not sure what council your Aunt/Nan are with but i can only comment on local council here.

There is often a possiblity of getting social services to fund some child care on a short term basis for your mum but due to budget cuts they may be reluctant to do this.

However if your nan is eligible for home care services she may choose to have what is known as a cash budget (individual budget or personal budget - they change the name on a regular basis..) Anyway and with the cash budget Nana could employ her own worker....

This could be either someone she knows and is willing to be employed by your nan so your aunt can look after the baby,

or your nan could use it to employ your Aunt (most councils allow this) if your Aunt was employed enough hours she could claim tax credits and the childcare element to pay for the nursery time needed.

Dunroamin

marybelle01 wrote: »

Oh, and maybe they actually think that going into care is the best option for the child - as others here have said! That's another possible reason too.

I don't think anyone has mentioned the child being put into care - I certainly didn't! What I was talking about was the child being put up for adoption, which is a totally different thing.

(Perhaps the OP misunderstood what I meant as well, which would explain her comments on the subject.)

mazza1985

Dunroamin wrote: »

Thank you for taking my suggestion in the way it was intended and I appreciate that your family don't want to make this choice.

However, for the sake of anyone else facing this situation, I have to say that you are totally wrong in the statement I've highlighted. There is a long waiting list for newborn babies who are willingly given up for adoption and there would be no reason why any of the things you mention to happen.

You do the adoption option a great disservice by putting out such misleading information, although I'm not going to take the discussion off topic any further by saying any more than this. I hope your family sorts something out.

I felt that before I reply to everyone else, it was really important for me to address this post.

As a support worker I come across a lot of young people exiting the care system. It is common knowledge that it can take 4 years from a baby being born to it being adopted - by that point they would have moved around many times as the UK is currently 8000 foster families short of what it needs to meet demand. There are many children that enter the care system who are not adopted. It's because of the mess that the care system is in (from what we know and see) that my family are trying to avoid this at all costs, so I do not think that the points that I raised are invalid. I do appreciate however that people will have had different experiences to the ones I have had, and do respect others views. I also appreciate that fact that you have been respectful and non confrontational in the way that you have replied to this post, thank you.