Hasbeen seems to think the welfare train is only populated by the dreaded single mothers, or women with kids from multiple partners.

Unless you believe in the divine conception rubbish, there is always a male involved in creating kiddies, so they should be pursued more severely to support their creations as well as the mothers. If the dads supported all their kids then the government wouldn't have to.

There is no point carrying on about all those nasty women forcing the men to have sex with them so they can have those cash-cow babies. The men should ensure they have their condoms in place, or else take the consequences of a baby, if they want to have sex!

Big Nana, there are many married couples on welfare as well.
As far as I am concerned, the amount given to single mothers, or non-working parents as a parenting payment, is hardly a sum to get excited about! I would not think that having several children would be very lucrative at all, given how expensive raising kids is these days.

The discussion has taken an interesting turn.

I'd like to take a moment to think about the issues raised by Suse and Poirot and a couple of others, which go to the role of fathers.

It's indisputable that fathers are an important factor in the lives of children and it's equally indisputable that some fathers seem to be less than ideal, by any measure. The same holds for mothers, as I'm sure all here would agree. It's easy to point out flaws, after all, but a question that seems worth asking is what an ideal mother or father might look like? A corollary to that is whether that ideal is in any way conditional upon circumstances, such as wealth? What defines an ideal parent - of either gender?

Does anybody have any good answers?

Hi POIROT...

As you so correctly state, this issue is way more complex, than my simple mind to embrace ?

POIROT, my first and ONLY consideration, is ALWAYS the children ? The poor little buggers are rarely brought up, rather they're hauled up by various members of these highly dysfunctional groups. And once these naïve and pliable little kids have been made vulnerable and exposed, to these groups and their often vulgar, dyspeptic, and violent ways, well their prospects are severely limited .

Furthermore, police are carefully regulated and scrutinized by not only the various government departments, involved in Human and Family Services, but a number of Church groups, who also probe and survey the activities off the coppers in these highly sensitive matters. Please understand, I'm not criticising any of these bodies or institutions, because in the main they all have the kids welfare at heart.

The buggers I and most of my colleagues seek, are these blokes who 'drift in and out' of these dysfunctional groups and in so doing, have a couple of 'naughties' while there, and after which they merely decamp elsewhere ? Most have 'no fixed abodes', they'll arrive with a slab, usually with a few mates (generally crims), enjoy a night or two, then off they'll go ! It's the seed from these 'creeps' that produce most of the progeny ?

And police attend these premises, not to check on the welfare of these poor kiddies ? We usually have a specific warrant for that, or in receipt of specific information ? It's usually they're seeking the creeps who loiter thereabouts, in connection with other criminal matters !

It's a mess, it really is. It's the poor little kids who invariably suffer, suffer all their miserable lives POIROT.

Dear Craig Minns,

If you think about it, a good portion of our efforts
as parents are devoted to external matters that
may not really matter at all. What will be important
ia the content of our children's hearts and minds, or
what's often described as character. When we say,
"It's what's inside that counts," we speak a simple but
profound truth.

All of us have growing agendas for raising our children.
But while we are feverish about providing our children
every opportunity from music lessons, tennis lessons, to
a college or university degree, it seems that our job
as parents is much simpler, and that is to raise a decent
human being.

Decency might sound like a modest ambition, but in today's
culture it's not so easy to achieve as we might think.
Every parent I know lives with the uneasy sense that their
children are growing up too fast, without clear values
or a real code to live by. While we spin our wheels worrying
about "reading, writing, and arithmetic" our children may
be missing the "real basics" like respect, loyalty, and a
sense of fair play. Survey after survey shows that children
who will be the best educated and most privileged in human
history, are too willing to do anything it takes to "get
ahead."

As parents we need to start looking seriously at ways to
help our children learn right from wrong, and to know
that sometimes there is a decision to be made in the middle.
Children growing up are facing tough choices and complicated
situations that as I've discovered often cannot be
addressed with simple lectures on the values of kindness or
isolated chats about standing up for one's beliefs.

I try to surround my children with a sturdy sensibility, a
world view, and I try to make it different from the
"Me" mentality of modern culture.

Spending time with them, making time for them, taking an
interest in them and their activities, listening to them,
Letting them know they are loved.

I hope this helps.

Craig,
There's no ideal parent, only good and bad Mums and Dads, our "tough love" approach to our wayward older daughter has horrified the extended family but it's bearing fruit because she's getting back on track, working and taking on more study.
What's a good parent? Someone who's reasonable and consistent so the kids have clear boundaries, someone who's there to guide the child, not micromanage their lives.
I've known White people who grew up in extreme poverty alongside the Aboriginals in rural housing commission homes, race isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be, some went bad and didn't make it to 30, most turned out OK. What I can say is that in the town where I grew up there was no racial discrimination whatsoever, there were only social classes, well off people who owned the factories and small businesses, working class people and housos. The housos were mostly families whose breadwinner had died, run off or been disabled, my mum used to say that so and so "had a sad life". The Aboriginal adults who could work did work, alongside our mothers and fathers in the abattoir, for the shire, on the railways, the clothing factory and the engineering works.
As a kid I didnt even really know what an Aborigine was until I met some on a trip to the Red Centre when I was about 12, my parents were good colourblind lefties but they did point out to us that actually a few of the people we knew back at home were "Half Castes" and that Aboriginals didn't just live in the desert.

Before we lay half the blame on men, let us consider

"....Artificial insemination may employ assisted reproductive technology, sperm donation and animal husbandry techniques. Artificial insemination techniques available include intracervical insemination and intrauterine insemination. The primary beneficiaries of artificial insemination are heterosexual couples suffering from male infertility, LESBIAN COUPLES and SINGLE WOMEN. [my capitals] Intracervical insemination (ICI) is the easiest and most common insemination technique and can be used in the home for self-insemination without medical practitioner assistance.[1]"
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_insemination

Probably the commonest technique is the syringe without a needle,
simply suck full, insert and squirt.
The Greeks are said to have used a wheat straw, suck, insert and blow.

The donor male does not necessarily know that his sperm will be used as post coital expression from the vagina is one devious means of collection.