Worthy: Attend PT conferences or face jail

**guito13** · October-20-10, 12:05 PM

http://detnews.com/article/20101020/...ol-conferences

It's a sad day when parents have to be FORCED to be engaged in their childrens education. To me this is just one more sign that PARENTING [[and laws allowing parents to be parents) is the #1 issue that has to be adressed in the city [[and surrounding areas) in order to have our region turn around.

**JJD** · October-20-10, 12:31 PM

This is the dumbest waste of time yet for this city and our media. Does anyone in the world think this would ever happen? Why are we even talking about it? Why does it make the news. This law would be impossible to enforce, there is no space in jail for these parents, it's an incredibly stupid idea and an obvious publicity stunt. Worthy needs to get to work on some this cities real problems with plausible solutions, not wacky off the wall garbage like this.

**rjk** · October-20-10, 12:39 PM

I'm hoping she's bringing this idea up to engage the community in a discussion about this problem.

It's an idiotic idea on so many levels.

**guito13** · October-20-10, 12:47 PM

I wont argue that it's idiotic but it is sad that this is even being discussed. How do we make parents actually PARENT their kids?

**Crumbled_pavement** · October-20-10, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by guito13

I wont argue that it's idiotic but it is sad that this is even being discussed. How do we make parents actually PARENT their kids?

We don't. You can't legislate good parenting. However, we could engineer an environment where there aren't so many bad parents created. Worthy would be better off pushing birth control in DPS high schools than this silly law.

**guito13** · October-20-10, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

We don't. You can't legislate good parenting. However, we could engineer an environment where there aren't so many bad parents created. Worthy would be better off pushing birth control in DPS high schools than this silly law.

Aye that is a good start.

How about stoping the incentives to have children?

**Crumbled_pavement** · October-20-10, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by guito13

Aye that is a good start.

How about stoping the incentives to have children?

My belief is that a person should be restricted from having kids when on government aid. If they do, there should be no increase in aid. If they can't take care of the kids satisfactorily then the kids should be removed from the home and placed in foster care. There are many other things that need to be done that would dramatically reduce the amount of unfit parents. The problem is, no politician has the political will to implement any of these things.

**jbd441** · October-20-10, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

My belief is that a person should be restricted from having kids when on government aid. If they do, there should be no increase in aid. If they can't take care of the kids satisfactorily then the kids should be removed from the home and placed in foster care. There are many other things that need to be done that would dramatically reduce the amount of unfit parents. The problem is, no politician has the political will to implement any of these things.

How can you restrict women from having kids when on government aid? This is just a crazy an idea as jailing parents who don't attend PT conferences. You can't punish the parents if it means the kids will go without. Also there aren't enough foster homes to put these kids in. Either way the taxpayers pay for people who have kids to collect welfare.

**Crumbled_pavement** · October-20-10, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by jbd441

How can you restrict women from having kids when on government aid? This is just a crazy an idea as jailing parents who don't attend PT conferences. You can't punish the parents if it means the kids will go without. Also there aren't enough foster homes to put these kids in. Either way the taxpayers pay for people who have kids to collect welfare.

In the short term, you're absolutely right. However, in the long term you send a message that we will not reward people to be baby makers. You can make any restriction you want on someone that is on YOUR dime. The thing is, I'm not talking about prosecuting anyone with a crime or jailing them. I'm talking about a simple restriction that states if you have kids on government aid you will get no increase in aid.

Why should we keep paying people to have kids they can't take care of? If we never take a stand then this type of thing will go on forever. I'd rather pay more tax money to prevent problems then to pay more down the line to deal with the after affects. The saying, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, comes to mind.

P.S.: Whatever method you want to employ to reduce the population increase amongst those that can't take care of their children is worth talking about. That is the root cause of the problem that Worthy is trying to address. Problem is, far too many young single women are having children in Detroit and that is the cause of the poor parenting. Simply giving them more money to have more kids or putting them in jail because they didn't show up at PT is not going to address the root problem. People need to get themselves together first then have children. However you want to address that problem is debatable, but that is the issue!

**jbd441** · October-20-10, 04:57 PM

I agree 100% CP. I knew a woman who slept with several different men to have a child as her unemployment ran out. She chose multiple partners so the father wouldn't be identified as she had no intention of collecting child support. Any discussion about restricting child birth among mothers on assistance is always condemned for hurting the child's welfare. So the cycle continues.

**Crumbled_pavement** · October-20-10, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by jbd441

I agree 100% CP. I knew a woman who slept with several different men to have a child as her unemployment ran out. She chose multiple partners so the father wouldn't be identified as she had no intention of collecting child support. Any discussion about restricting child birth among mothers on assistance is always condemned for hurting the child's welfare. So the cycle continues.

I'm not against going after fathers as well. Currently though, we do go after fathers pretty aggressively for child support. I don't think there's a magic bullet to solve this problem either.

We must get the population increase amongst people who can't take care of their children down because in the end it is all of us who pay the cost. Whether it's the high school drop out rate, the crime rate/criminal justice system, government aid, or lost productivity that leads decreased tax revenues. What suggestions do you have other than people magically waking up one day planning on pulling themselves up by the bootstraps?

**DetroitPlanner** · October-20-10, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by rjk

I'm hoping she's bringing this idea up to engage the community in a discussion about this problem.

It's an idiotic idea on so many levels.

The idea for parents to attend conferences with teachers is not idiotic. I would agree that it would be next to impossible to enforce. Its almost embarassing that someone has to say something like that. its almost like most parents don't give a shit about thier kid's future.

**DetroitPlanner** · October-20-10, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by jbd441

How can you restrict women from having kids when on government aid? This is just a crazy an idea as jailing parents who don't attend PT conferences. You can't punish the parents if it means the kids will go without. Also there aren't enough foster homes to put these kids in. Either way the taxpayers pay for people who have kids to collect welfare.

Not its not she should stop having kids that she cannot afford! Think of it this way, I want a Cadillac but I am not going to go on welfare so I can get one. Nonsensicle arugment. No one is forcing her to make babies.

**Jimaz** · October-20-10, 07:16 PM

I don't understand how compelling reluctant parents to attend a meeting could possibly improve their parenthood. At best I would think it would simply irritate them.

Beginning a dialog from a confrontational stance seems as if designed to fail—unless the goal is to escalate the confrontation, which I think is not the intent here.

DetroitPole · October-21-10, 08:14 AM

This is one of those wild ideas that can spawn a good, workable idea.

Perhaps rather than penalizing parents who don't go to conferences, there can be rewards for parents who do.

It could be like code enforcement - you don't obey, you get a ticket. Nobody believes code enforcement is going to create an outstanding citizen or neighbor, but everyone knows that it is extremely important to maintain a neighborhood.

Keep in mind that many of these parents may not be malicious or bad people, but likely have little or no education themselves, and don't understand the value of it or how something mainstream like PT conferences help children. Like the same people who don't see a problem with parking junk cars on the front lawn or couches on the porch. They're not necessarily bad people, they just don't really "get it."

Poor people also work multiple jobs. Many of these people likely work in the evenings and very few of them work traditional 9-5 jobs like their suburban counterparts. In a cost/benefits analysis for them, many of them probably weigh that earning an extra $100 is more important than attending a conference. I would not be opposed to compensating people taking time off work - we do it for jury duty, but not surprisingly that falls during the traditional middle-class working timeframe.

DPS is in an absolute state of emergency. Kim Worthy understands that. Desperate times call for desperate measures. I'm glad the council gets it as well. Reading the article, a lot seems to be lost on the suburban politicians as to the real state of the schools, the parents, and the children.

Buy American · October-21-10, 09:38 AM

After reading that the DPS was offering incentives [[Target gift certificates, restaurant coupons, etc.) to parents to bribe them to get their kids to school on count day, I give kudos to Ms. Worthy for her efforts to put the fear of God into these people who have kids and don't give two shits about them or their education. Something has to be done to get these parents to realize that if you have kids you need to do more than just give birth and collect welfare and let the kids run wild.

**JJD** · October-21-10, 10:04 AM

Now this idiot [[Worthy) is going on Good Morning America as another political figure to make Detroit look like a clown show once again. Bad enough Michigan's asistant AG is a gay basher, an seems like an insane person on CNN, now we have Worthy on national TV talking about jailing parents. This should really increase the respect Detroit recieves from the country. [[Bangs head against wall over and over again).

Buy American · October-21-10, 10:19 AM

The facts are the facts about Detroit. Ms. Worthy isn't making Detroit look like a clown show in the national media...Detroit is. Look at the former clowncil members...Conyers especially. She is the wife of a U.S. Congressman, it doesn't take much more than that to make Detroit look foolish. Look at thug KK, look at Riddle, look at the DPS itself and the thieves that walk the halls.
Ms. Worthy is doing what is necessary to get these lazy, non-caring parents to participate in their childrens' education. Kudos to her.

**guito13** · October-21-10, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

I'm not against going after fathers as well. Currently though, we do go after fathers pretty aggressively for child support. I don't think there's a magic bullet to solve this problem either.

To start the courts could have a law that custody should be JOINT LEGAL & PHYSICAL except in situations where one parent has proven that he/she is unable to care for the child properly. Also, the incentives in the current laws should be modified so that the state/agencies actually profit from maximizing support orders. Usually the father is the one who makes more money so he is the one who is "punished" by having very little time with his child[[ren) and is forced to pay a support amount that does not allow him to maintain a decent household for the child[[ren).

Buy American · October-21-10, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by guito13

To start the courts could have a law that custody should be JOINT LEGAL & PHYSICAL except in situations where one parent has proven that he/she is unable to care for the child properly. Also, the incentives in the current laws should be modified so that the state/agencies actually profit from maximizing support orders. Usually the father is the one who makes more money so he is the one who is "punished" by having very little time with his child[[ren) and is forced to pay a support amount that does not allow him to maintain a decent household for the child[[ren).

I would say that the majority of the men in Detroit who are unmarried fathers have no knowledge of how many children they have and with how many women they have them with. Some women have kids just to get on the welfare rolls and don't care about the actual child...the child is just a ticket to receive more benefits from the government. Being on welfare is perpetuated from generation to generation. It's hopeless and unfortunately, the children will never be as loved as they should be, they will never be properly educated, they will fall through all the cracks in Detroit that are getting wider and wider.

DetroitPole · October-21-10, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Buy American

I would say that the majority of the men in Detroit who are unmarried fathers have no knowledge of how many children they have and with how many women they have them with. Some women have kids just to get on the welfare rolls and don't care about the actual child...the child is just a ticket to receive more benefits from the government. Being on welfare is perpetuated from generation to generation. It's hopeless and unfortunately, the children will never be as loved as they should be, they will never be properly educated, they will fall through all the cracks in Detroit that are getting wider and wider.

You would say? Anything to back that up?

Buy American · October-21-10, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPole

Keep in mind that many of these parents may not be malicious or bad people, but likely have little or no education themselves, and don't understand the value of it or how something mainstream like PT conferences help children. Like the same people who don't see a problem with parking junk cars on the front lawn or couches on the porch. They're not necessarily bad people, they just don't really "get it."

[[Keep making excuses for people who just don't want to take the responsibility themselves. What's not to "get" when it comes to being civilized? Give me a break, anyone with a brain should know what is acceptable in a neighborhood, and parking cars on the front lawn is not acceptable.)

Poor people also work multiple jobs. Many of these people likely work in the evenings and very few of them work traditional 9-5 jobs like their suburban counterparts. In a cost/benefits analysis for them, many of them probably weigh that earning an extra $100 is more important than attending a conference. I would not be opposed to compensating people taking time off work - we do it for jury duty, but not surprisingly that falls during the traditional middle-class working timeframe.

[[You would not be opposed to compensating these people to take off work to attend a conference??? When I worked and my spouse worked, we attended our kids parent-teacher conference and we didn't need "incentives" or want to be compensated monetarily for attending. It was inconvenient at times, but we made the effort because our kids and their education was important to us.)

DPS is in an absolute state of emergency. Kim Worthy understands that. Desperate times call for desperate measures. I'm glad the council gets it as well. Reading the article, a lot seems to be lost on the suburban politicians as to the real state of the schools, the parents, and the children.

[[Suburban schools don't have the problems with parent participation that DPS has. Quit blaming others and start taking responsibility for your own actions.)

**Crumbled_pavement** · October-21-10, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Buy American

[[Suburban schools don't have the problems with parent participation that DPS has. Quit blaming others and start taking responsibility for your own actions.)

Funny you say this while defending the law that Worthy is proposing which she wants to make statewide which would include those glorious suburbs.

Originally Posted by Buy American

It's hopeless and unfortunately, the children will never be as loved as they should be, they will never be properly educated, they will fall through all the cracks in Detroit that are getting wider and wider.

So you want to legislate the love? Wow. How about we simply engineer a society that doesn't produce so many unwanted kids, instead of trying to put laws on the book to force parents to love their kids after the fact.

Buy American · October-21-10, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

Funny you say this while defending the law that Worthy is proposing which she wants to make statewide which would include those glorious suburbs.

I have no problems with any legislation Worthy proposes regarding statewide laws. I know that where I live, parent participation is practically 100% so no need to worry.

So you want to legislate the love? Wow. How about we simply engineer a society that doesn't produce so many unwanted kids, instead of trying to put laws on the book to force parents to love their kids after the fact.

I didn't say anything about legislating love. I said it's unfortunate that these kids will never be loved as they should be [[meaning by the parents). What would you suggest the solution be for "unwanted kids"? Abstinence or condoms don't seem to apply in these cases, do they?

I still say Detroit is hopeless.

**majohnson** · October-21-10, 12:01 PM

1. Individual parents who systematically fail to show up for parent teacher conferences are expressing a lack of concern over the academic well being of the child.
2. Parents will show less concern for unwanted and unplanned children than wanted children.
3. Children born to mothers without long term commitment from fathers are frequently unplanned and may be to a certain extent unwanted.
4. More than 70 percent of live births in the black community are to unmarried women. [[And yes, Detroit is mostly black)
5. Many of those unmarried women have no long term commitment from fathers.

It is not okay to have unwanted children.

On Worthy's idea:
What if the parents are not married, how do you establish who should attend the parent teacher conference? What is one of the non-married parents has established a life out of state? What if they are in-state but the woman simply is not involved.
Who should visit the child's pt conference is easy to decide when the parents are married. Not so easy when they are not married. What if paternity is not established? Who decides what a legitimate excuse is? Who can provide documentation of the excuse?