or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Curious
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Curious - Page 4

post #61 of 221
My children lived with my Dad and his wife for 2 months during a time that we were homeless. We'd been evicted from our apartment, Dh had a large gap between jobs, etc. It was incredibly painful, but we sent them so that they could have some safety and stability and be cared for by people who loved them while Dh and I worked out the housing stuff.

It was temporary. I personally cannot imagine my kids living anywhere but with me. And to get into a certain school or something like that? No way. That just would not work for me at all. I can't say why someone else would or wouldn't though.
post #62 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
however when you have a home that is section 8 you don't get to choose who your neighbors are -- you could get some gangsters or drug dealers or some other folks you really wouldnt want to live next door to because they are a threat to your family or bring crime to your neighborhood.
That is such BS. In order for someone to even qualify for Section 8, they cannot have any crimes/convictions. You cannot have any history of drug abuse in your past, neither. They have to have a completely clean record. It's stupid because all the drugs and crime are from ppl with the money who can afford such habits.
Meanwhile, those of us who are clean and poor, have to live in crime infested areas and raise our children and get looked down upon by ppl who stereotype.
post #63 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
Another reason is that there are people on section 8 that live lives that involve crime and drugs.
You will lose your Section 8 if you commit a crime or get involved with drugs. If I even had a neighbor over who smoked marijuana, I would be punished and end up homeless.

Quote:
The people who actually live there have little to no financial responsibility at all.
Another lie. One thrid of your entire income is a lot when your income is very small. If you don't pay your rent portion you get evicted. If you have an eviction on your record you cannot get Section 8.
post #64 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheFence
however when you have a home that is section 8 you don't get to choose who your neighbors are -- you could get some gangsters or drug dealers or some other folks you really wouldnt want to live next door to because they are a threat to your family or bring crime to your neighborhood.
MITB Not all rental property owners feel this way. Unfortunetly, it is very expensive to have lead removed which is a major issue for us with old housing. Dh looked into Section 8 but we can't afford to do the lead removal at this time. We would gladly rent to a large family and we do not base a persons moral value and compass on their lack of moolah. :
post #65 of 221
MITB - I agree with FancyPants. It sounds like you have made some difficult decisions regarding the welfare of your children and you have done well by them. I'm also sorry that you can't escape the reality of judgment against the poor on a site of AP/NFL parents. That seems counterintuitive. Big hugs to you.
post #66 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
I've driven too, and been in neighborhoods that had a number of secton 8 housing. Sadly, these areas are riddled with crime, unkept homes, drugs, and people who just don't care.
How do you know they don't care? They have no control over the upkeep of the Section 8 homes. The govt. is meant to take care of that. And as MITB mentioned, Section 8 has incredibly strict guidelines for past history and current behavior, so the Section 8 residents are not likely the cause of most crime and drug use in a given area. That is just the kind of area our shining beacon of a government likes to place the Section 8 housing in. You know, to keep poor folks in "their place." : :

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
There is a reason we moved to this area and not to the inner city ghetto. I'm sure there are wonderful nice people in the ghetto (WE have family friends that do)
I'm sorry, this cracked me up. It sounds so much like "Oh, I'm not racist! Some of my best friends are black/asian/middle eastern/whatever!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
however when you have a home that is section 8 you don't get to choose who your neighbors are -- you could get some gangsters or drug dealers or some other folks you really wouldnt want to live next door to because they are a threat to your family or bring crime to your neighborhood.
I am also quite sure that our homes would meet HUD inspection since they are newer homes and were built to meet strict guidelines.
You do know, of course, that these things could all happen just as easily happen if your neighbors are white, heterosexual, middle-aged office workers. You do, right? Because they could. Jane and Joe's son could join a gang and have his friends over. Mike the doctor could deal pain meds from his home. Fred and Marla the white supremecists could move in on any given day.

Money doesn't equal the absence of unsavoury qualities.
post #67 of 221
I am on section 8. We use a voucher system and we have an annual update/recert process and a detailed inspection of the house and property. Our house did not pass the first two times it was inspected. Perhaps it varies depending on who you get but they weren't just giving it the once over glance and signing off.

The connections between section 8/HUD and drugs/crime/and poverty are sometimes clear. Poverty can force us to live in environments that we would never ever chose otherwise. It also can cause people to do things they'd never otherwise do, associate with people they'd rather not, live next door to people they do not feel good about, and eat expired food from a food bank but that's not the point here. Desperate people sometimes do desperate things and live in unpleasant places. They work long hours, hope the lights don't get shut off, and stretch out the macaroni to feed all the kids. But just because we can see the connections doesn't mean that all people on HUD are this way or that people with means do not deal drugs or have rough company. HUD can literally save a family.

It's extremely insulting IMO to suggest that a mother who has found herself in such a difficult place is basically accused of not caring about her kids or not valuing family. Isn't sending your children somewhere you know they will be safe and loved and provided for the opposite of not caring?

I do not know MITB's situation perfectly. I do not know that I would do things exactly as she did. We all handle stuff differently. (Just for school I don't think I would have them live elsewhere, but then we don't do school so maybe that doesn't matter.) I did however send my kids away for a time, and it was the single hardest thing I have EVER done in my lifetime. Being away from them was very painful and I only had to do it for 2 months. I get that we all are not going to relate to this in the same way but what a difference it would make if we tried for just a second to see ourselves in people who are struggling and hurting.

"See yourself in others. Then what harm can you do?" ~ The Buddha
post #68 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheFence
When you agree to purchase a home in our neighborhood, you agree to the terms of the restrictions and usage of your property. For example, we must have double garages on our homes if the home exceeds 1500 sq ft. this means you cannot enclose your garage and make it into bedrooms or dens, or what not. You must keep your lawn cut and edged. You can't leave cars parked on the road for more than 3 days. You can't have a car parked in your grass. You can't have chain length fences. You cannot have certain businesses out of your home. Dogs cannot exceed a certain weight amount. You cannot have more than X amount of pets. You can't have any farm animals, this includes chickens but not rabbits. (though we do have a neighbor that has a chicken that walks on a leash) We have about 20 pages of restrictions for our neighborhood -- all legal.
Well stone the crows!

There goes the neighbourhood.



I think I'd pick my grubby little inner city location over that kind of hell any day, tbh. Even if it meant my kids had to live elsewhere or board 5 days a week. :
post #69 of 221
Nope.
post #70 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies View Post
That is such BS. In order for someone to even qualify for Section 8, they cannot have any crimes/convictions. You cannot have any history of drug abuse in your past, neither. They have to have a completely clean record. It's stupid because all the drugs and crime are from ppl with the money who can afford such habits.
Meanwhile, those of us who are clean and poor, have to live in crime infested areas and raise our children and get looked down upon by ppl who stereotype.
I completely disagree with this. I know several people just in my area who qualify and live in Section 8 housing. They have records that include probation and other arrests. I have lived in Section 8 housing as well and while the majority of the people I met and lived near were great, they were some that had drug habits. I also know some who could care less about the property and would have it destroyed before they moved on.

I do agree the people who do these thing while on Section 8 make it very difficult for people who are clean and are respectful of the rules of property to get housing, but I can totally see not wanting to rent to a Section 8 family.
post #71 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies View Post
You will lose your Section 8 if you commit a crime or get involved with drugs. If I even had a neighbor over who smoked marijuana, I would be punished and end up homeless.

Again, I know a few people who have had drugs in their homes and who have criminal backgrounds that still receive Section 8. Maybe the rules are different for different states.


"The people who actually live there have little to no financial responsibility at all." (Not certain of the OP of this is was from a quote on MITB's post to which she responded below)


Another lie. One thrid of your entire income is a lot when your income is very small. If you don't pay your rent portion you get evicted. If you have an eviction on your record you cannot get Section 8.
My brother is currently on Section 8 and they $40 for rent because the only income they have is from student loans. They also receive cash assistance and food stamps. The rent is probably 1/3 of their income, but they definately have a good portion of money left over each month to purchase items outside of necessities.

In my state, you are off of Section 8 for a period of time if you have an eviction on your record. You will be able to use Section 8 again after this timeframe.
post #72 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamsmama View Post
I would ask that person why they had children in the first place.
That. Is one of the most disgusting things I have ever read on MDC. Seriously. Like, sitting here with a pit in my stomach wishing you were here so I could puke on your shoes disgusting. Clearly you have no concept whatsoever of what it means to be poor. I don't just mean, you don't know what it means not to have money. It means you've clearly never given consideration to how quickly someone can go from upper middle class to destitute in a manner of weeks. You've never thought about what a parent might feel, having to move from a lovely home in a serene neighborhood to an apartment in a neighborhood where drug deals are performed in open air and the gunshots you hear aren't hunters in the fall. Or even if you haven't fallen from middle-class priviledge, do you deny a person the right to have children, to love them and care for them, just because knowing that in the future, "doing right" by them may mean making some unconventional choices?

Historically, it was common to send children away to distant family to learn skills. Worldwide, there are places where it's still common, for instance in places that are war-torn. Do you propose that no one who lives in Bagdhad has the right to have children because they don't know if their city will be peaceful by the time the children are old enough to have to walk to school on their own? Or that they're obligated to keep their children in their neighborhood because they had the audacity to bring them into the world?

What on earth is wrong with sending a child to a loving, devoted grandparent? I think most children are intelligent enough to understand that their parents are making hard choices that are meant very much for their better. I went through such *hell* in school that I *begged* my parents to let me go live with my grandmother and go to school in her community. I loved my grandmother so much. It's not like sending the kids off to foster care, with strangers and no stability.

Now, I've never been in a position to have to make that kind of choice about my children. So, it's hard for me to answer your question. But, my girls love both sets of grandparents passionately, and both are devoted, attentive grandparents. If our situation took such a turn for the worse that it became neccisary, maybe I would. I can't say. Personally, we're homeschooling, and from my perspective, I could do that from a tent in a state park. Unfortunately, I don't see the state agreeing with me on that detail. My parents would also most definately host my entire family until we could get on our feet if need be, as would my ILs. Thus, one way or another I could continue homeschooling. But, if my girls were going to school and my life was in turmoil, with our housing uncertain or in a dangerous location? I would consider it.
post #73 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tboroson View Post
That. Is one of the most disgusting things I have ever read on MDC. Seriously. Like, sitting here with a pit in my stomach wishing you were here so I could puke on your shoes disgusting. Clearly you have no concept whatsoever of what it means to be poor. I don't just mean, you don't know what it means not to have money. It means you've clearly never given consideration to how quickly someone can go from upper middle class to destitute in a manner of weeks. You've never thought about what a parent might feel, having to move from a lovely home in a serene neighborhood to an apartment in a neighborhood where drug deals are performed in open air and the gunshots you hear aren't hunters in the fall. Or even if you haven't fallen from middle-class priviledge, do you deny a person the right to have children, to love them and care for them, just because knowing that in the future, "doing right" by them may mean making some unconventional choices?

Historically, it was common to send children away to distant family to learn skills. Worldwide, there are places where it's still common, for instance in places that are war-torn. Do you propose that no one who lives in Bagdhad has the right to have children because they don't know if their city will be peaceful by the time the children are old enough to have to walk to school on their own? Or that they're obligated to keep their children in their neighborhood because they had the audacity to bring them into the world?

What on earth is wrong with sending a child to a loving, devoted grandparent? I think most children are intelligent enough to understand that their parents are making hard choices that are meant very much for their better. I went through such *hell* in school that I *begged* my parents to let me go live with my grandmother and go to school in her community. I loved my grandmother so much. It's not like sending the kids off to foster care, with strangers and no stability.

Now, I've never been in a position to have to make that kind of choice about my children. So, it's hard for me to answer your question. But, my girls love both sets of grandparents passionately, and both are devoted, attentive grandparents. If our situation took such a turn for the worse that it became neccisary, maybe I would. I can't say. Personally, we're homeschooling, and from my perspective, I could do that from a tent in a state park. Unfortunately, I don't see the state agreeing with me on that detail. My parents would also most definately host my entire family until we could get on our feet if need be, as would my ILs. Thus, one way or another I could continue homeschooling. But, if my girls were going to school and my life was in turmoil, with our housing uncertain or in a dangerous location? I would consider it.

I really think the response of questioning why they would have children was directed to my OP which asked about your children living with someone else to send them to 'better' schools or so they have access to more resources.

I don't think the person was thinking along the lines of homelessness or being poor.

I could be wrong though.
post #74 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by tboroson View Post

Historically, it was common to send children away to distant family to learn skills. Worldwide, there are places where it's still common, for instance in places that are war-torn. Do you propose that no one who lives in Bagdhad has the right to have children because they don't know if their city will be peaceful by the time the children are old enough to have to walk to school on their own? Or that they're obligated to keep their children in their neighborhood because they had the audacity to bring them into the world?

What on earth is wrong with sending a child to a loving, devoted grandparent? I think most children are intelligent enough to understand that their parents are making hard choices that are meant very much for their better. I went through such *hell* in school that I *begged* my parents to let me go live with my grandmother and go to school in her community. I loved my grandmother so much. It's not like sending the kids off to foster care, with strangers and no stability.
: Within the African American community it has always been common to send kids to live with grandparents or relatives for periods of time. In the majority of instances its because Mama/Papa is trying to do better economically. Or in recent times, it could be sending kids down south to get away from a less thn stellar environment. Its really all part of the it takes a villiage to raise a kid sentiment that people have heard but truly are not aware of how it works.

I am the non-custodial Mama of a 14 yo ds, he lives with his Dad and is with me on weekends. Did I ever plan this no, but you know what life happens. Granted its different than what the OP asked since ds is with his dad but still its not the societal norm to be a non-custodial Mama.

Having a older kid, I can say that wanting to have your kid to have access to better resources is a huge thing. My son went to live with his Dad in 1st grade, at the time I was a single working Mama, I made good money, but I worked a lot, I was tired. Being on assistance was not a option for me, my son in going to live with his Dad has had better options than I ever could have given him as a single working Mama. It was not a easy choice and it did not happen easily but in the end I can honestly say he has done well with his Dad though in lately its looking like he needs me more.

To the OP, I say do what is best for your kids, you know them and you know yourself. Chuck the AP list and follow your instincts Mama.

To MITB, Mama you too have done what is best for your babies and there is nothing wrong with that.

Shay
post #75 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by primjillie View Post
I haven't seen a good reason (yet) to break up a family.
This, I think, is one of the big disconnects I see in this thread. Many of us would not consider having the kids live with their grandparents to be "breaking up a family." Was it breaking up my parent's family when my siblings and I left for college? Are they somehow no longer our family? No. They are extremely devoted family. They are far better potential caretakers for my children than anyone the state might assign should the state decide that my ability to care for them is insufficient. They *are* family.
post #76 of 221
Another thought on the question of why MITB doesn't just rent a larger house to accomodate her children. This may or may not apply to her (she did answer with her own situation already, but this is a problem that's rampant in my region: If your housing situation is insufficient, the state will take your children away and put them in foster care. Then you apply for subsidized housing in an effort to improve the quality of your home so you can get your kids back. The state will only allow you to rent an apartment/home as large as needed for the number of kids currently in your custody under the state subsidy program (so, if all your kids were taken, you're only allowed to rent a 1 bedroom apartment under state subsidy). But you're not allowed to reclaim your children until you have bedrooms for them. You can't rent an apartment large enough for them when they're out of your care, you can't regain custody unless that apartment is already secured. The only way out of this is to earn enough money to rent that apartment without subsidy - screwing poor people.
post #77 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houdini View Post
I am not actually facing the decision for myself. I have talked with a couple of people who faced a decision like this, but for them it was more about better schools. Nothing like MITB is referring to.
I personally am a SAHM/Full-time student who also homeschools using a virtual academy.
I can see why someone would do it for better schools. I know of a family that does that here with an elementery school age child. The mother and father both work, and the child is just afforded a safer, better education. Schools in some areas here are horrible and unsafe, education is a big deal, especially for people who may not make the money or the resources to get out of poverty, their children are their future and they need the education to get out of that.
post #78 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by tboroson View Post
This, I think, is one of the big disconnects I see in this thread. Many of us would not consider having the kids live with their grandparents to be "breaking up a family." Was it breaking up my parent's family when my siblings and I left for college? Are they somehow no longer our family? No. They are extremely devoted family. They are far better potential caretakers for my children than anyone the state might assign should the state decide that my ability to care for them is insufficient. They *are* family.
: ITA w/you. I think its probably a matter of perspective. I know that if my Mama were still alive, I would absolutely trust her with my kids, no matter what. Same with my Granny if she were alive. That's family.

Not trying to detour this thread but I get the impression on MDC that many people do not consider their parents/grandparents family. Not sure if that makes sense. To me unless my folks had been negligent or abusive, there is no reason my kids couldn't be with them. Is it ideal? No, but hell poverty is not ideal. I also wonder if their is a cultural context here, I am a AA woman and I believe MITB is also a WOC and I know that in our respective cultures kids being with grandparents is not a big deal. Yet in white American culture (not sure how else to reference it) there is a much greater emphasis on leaving the nest when you grow up and being on your own. I see that here a lot and on other parenting boards that are predominantly white, where Mamas seem to not lean to family for help insteda people want to create their own tribe instead on belonging to their tribe of birth.

Hope this makes sense.

Shay
post #79 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies View Post
That is such BS. In order for someone to even qualify for Section 8, they cannot have any crimes/convictions. You cannot have any history of drug abuse in your past, neither. They have to have a completely clean record. It's stupid because all the drugs and crime are from ppl with the money who can afford such habits.
Meanwhile, those of us who are clean and poor, have to live in crime infested areas and raise our children and get looked down upon by ppl who stereotype.
LMBO, but their babies daddy or relatives can live with them that do. A lot of people LIE about who will be living with them, staying the night, etc. Drug abuse is hard to prove as well. Do they do drug screenings for all the people in the home, randomly for Section 8 housing? No. I know people who have section 8 housing and use drugs. The man who murdered my brother lived in section 8 housing with his mother, who was a crackhead herself -- yet she had no criminal record. She also prostituted herself for money.
On the bolded area above, you are kidding right??? I am sure some of those people on drugs do have money, mostly from dealing and stealing. Poor people can get drugs too. A good bit of people in Sec8 housing here have much nicer cars than we do, for some reason I doubt the money that bought those vehicles came from legit jobs.
post #80 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies View Post
You will lose your Section 8 if you commit a crime or get involved with drugs. If I even had a neighbor over who smoked marijuana, I would be punished and end up homeless.

Another lie. One thrid of your entire income is a lot when your income is very small. If you don't pay your rent portion you get evicted. If you have an eviction on your record you cannot get Section 8.
So what I said was correct, little to none. 1/3 is LITTLE.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Curious